69% of Americans support public ownership of major AI companies.

      A Verasight survey of 1,690 US adults indicates that 69% support requiring AI companies to transfer 50% of their stock to a public sovereign wealth fund, a key proposal in Bernie Sanders’s American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. This trend aligns with a labor market where technology accounted for nearly a third of layoffs in the US during the first half of 2026, even as the same firms increased their AI capital expenditures. The article also addresses counterarguments, including concerns about property rights, potential negative impacts on investment, contested predictions of job displacement, and the effects of survey wording.

      What seemed like a radical idea a year ago is now widely accepted. Almost 70% of Americans are in favor of mandating AI companies to transfer half their stock to a public sovereign wealth fund, according to CNBC. This statistic comes from a Verasight survey completed in June, which recorded a 69% approval for the initiative.

      The public views such funds as a means to redirect the profits from the AI industry back to society, according to Verasight's CEO, Benjamin Leff. This framing plays a significant role in shaping public opinion.

      The concept is not merely theoretical. Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act in June, proposing that the public acquire a 50% stake in the largest AI companies in the US. He has estimated the potential fund's worth at around $7 trillion, arguing that since the public funded the research and infrastructure, they deserve a share of the profits.

      Sanders is not the only one pushing in this direction. Senator Ed Markey has included "sharing the AI wealth" among the six key priorities in his recent AI Accountability Agenda.

      The shift in public sentiment is partly a response to ongoing negative developments in the job market. In the first half of 2026, nearly a third of layoffs in the US came from the tech sector, with AI frequently cited as a contributing factor. Projections from Goldman Sachs economist Joseph Briggs suggest that over 9% of the workforce, equating to about 15 million jobs, could be lost over a decade due to AI advancements.

      At the same time, the companies making layoffs are increasing their capital investment in AI. This situation—where layoffs occur alongside rising investment—strengthens the argument for ownership rights in the technology sector.

      However, the burden of job loss is not evenly shared, as TNW has highlighted in its reporting on individuals affected by tech layoffs and the hype surrounding AI. Surveys often capture public discontent but may not always reflect a clear solution.

      Opponents argue that the forced stock transfer resembles an expropriation of private property disguised as a profit-sharing scheme. They warn that taking half of a company's equity could deter investment and push AI development overseas.

      Additionally, some experts, like Sam Altman, contend that a widespread job loss due to AI is unlikely, implying that a policy aimed at mass displacement may address the wrong issue. The wording of the survey also plays a crucial role; asking if firms should be "forced" to give up stock may lead to different responses than inquiring about potential trade-offs. Polls have shown that abstract questions about wealth redistribution tend to receive more favorable responses than specific proposals.

      Globally, other nations are starting to implement more direct measures. For example, Chinese courts have ruled against firing employees in favor of AI, a legal protection not found in the US or EU.

      Sanders's legislation is unlikely to pass in the current Congress. However, the polling indicates that the debate has shifted from whether the public should benefit from AI's financial gains to the format that such benefits should take. This marks a significant change in public discourse. After years of industry debate about job displacement caused by AI, voters are now focusing on the issue of how to share the profits.