Anthropic and the Trump administration have both denied having any discussions about a government stake.

      According to a source familiar with the situation, the Trump administration and Anthropic have yet to discuss the possibility of the government acquiring an equity stake in the AI firm, as reported by Reuters on Thursday. This denial comes after a Financial Times article earlier that day indicated that OpenAI had suggested offering a 5% equity stake to the US government, a proposal that could potentially apply to Anthropic, Google, and Meta as well.

      This assertion of no discussions occurring is based on an unnamed source, rather than an official statement from Anthropic. When Reuters reached out for a comment, Anthropic declined to respond. Similarly, both the White House and the Commerce Department did not provide immediate comments.

      The article that triggered the denial is particularly noteworthy. The Financial Times claimed that OpenAI has proposed granting the US government a 5% equity stake, which would be valued at approximately $42.6 billion based on the company's $852 billion valuation from its funding round in March.

      The proposed structure is said to involve donating shares into a public wealth fund, akin to Alaska’s Permanent Fund, a concept OpenAI initially introduced in an April policy paper. Reports suggest that Sam Altman has been discussing variations of this idea with the administration since early 2025.

      The specific aspect of Thursday’s report that drew attention for Anthropic was a detail from the Financial Times' coverage: the envisioned structure includes other major US AI firms relinquishing similar stakes in addition to OpenAI. Mentioning a company in a hypothetical model is not equivalent to its agreement to participate, and Anthropic's non-denial, or its choice not to clarify beyond the unnamed source's account, leaves the matter formally unresolved, despite the Thursday report's attempt to clarify it.

      The notion of the government holding equity in leading AI labs did not emerge unexpectedly. Last month, President Trump stated he was considering ways to provide the public with a stake in prominent AI companies, describing it as potentially “a beautiful thing” that would allow Americans to become “partners in this revolution,” remarks made to reporters in early June.

      Around this time, Commerce Department officials relaxed export controls on two of Anthropic’s most advanced models, restrictions that had only been implemented weeks prior due to concerns over insufficient safeguards.

      A more aggressive variant of this concept is also being discussed in Congress. Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed legislation imposing a one-time 50% stock tax on large AI firms, with the resulting funds expected to reach as high as $7 trillion, according to estimates from his office.

      In contrast to Sanders’ proposal, OpenAI’s 5% offer appears less as a gesture of civic generosity and more as a safeguard against a potentially greater imposition. Washington has demonstrated its willingness to acquire equity in struggling tech companies instead of merely enforcing regulations. For instance, the government transformed CHIPS Act grants into a nearly 10% ownership stake in Intel last August, a passive investment that has since appreciated significantly.

      That arrangement, unlike any currently suggested for OpenAI or Anthropic, has been finalized and recorded, which is why AI executives are being particularly cautious in their wording regarding “discussions.” The Intel case illustrates how leverage can differ based on who requires assistance; Intel accepted government funding because it needed capital and had limited negotiating power.

      Conversely, OpenAI and Anthropic, valued in the hundreds of billions, are not in need of a bailout, meaning any equity agreement involving them would resemble a negotiated partnership rather than a rescue.

      At this point, the official record indicates that one company has reportedly proposed equity to the government, while both the second company and the government assert through an intermediary that no such discussions have occurred. Neither stance precludes potential developments moving forward, and no official comments have been made on the record by any involved parties.