Sam Altman is reportedly in talks to give the United States government a 5% stake in OpenAI. According to the Financial Times, as reported by both TechCrunch and Ars Technica, those discussions are still in early stages — but the sheer novelty of the idea is already reshaping the conversation around AI regulation in Washington.

The proposal would see OpenAI donate equity to a US sovereign wealth fund. Altman has reportedly argued that giving the public a financial stake in the company is the best way to spread the benefits of AI. President Trump has indicated he’s open to the concept, telling people he had discussed “concepts where pieces could be given to the American public, where the American public essentially becomes a partner with the companies,” per TechCrunch. Google and Meta have also been approached about making similar contributions, though neither has signaled agreement on any specific terms.

Why OpenAI Wants Washington Onside

This isn’t purely altruistic. According to Ars Technica, AI companies are navigating what one outlet called an “AI hate wave.” Recent polling shows 70% of Americans don’t want AI data centers near them, and half are more worried about AI than excited by it. Pew Research Center found in June that views on how fast AI is advancing skew negative — even among younger adults. Across party lines, voters want tighter regulation.

For OpenAI specifically, the timing matters. The company is in the middle of a contested restructuring from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity, and maintaining goodwill in Washington is critical. Ars Technica noted that according to FT’s sources, the donation would be intended to “secure good relations with the administration and address political blowback.” OpenAI has already held talks with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, as well as Senator Bernie Sanders.

In short: a 5% gift to the government might be the most efficient lobbying spend in Silicon Valley history.

The Gap Between 5% and What Critics Want

Not everyone thinks 5% is remotely enough. Sanders has made his position clear — he is, per Ars Technica, “far apart” from Altman on how much stake the public deserves. His proposed American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act would impose a one-time 50% tax on stock held by “systemically important” AI companies. Sanders estimates that would generate around $7 trillion, distributable as direct payments or invested in healthcare, education, and housing. The bill hasn’t yet advanced to committee.

More importantly, Sanders argues that equity alone misses the point. What he wants, according to Ars Technica, is an Independent Commission for Democratic AI — a bipartisan body with confirmed members who could use voting shares to block AI companies from making decisions that harm the public. That’s a fundamentally different kind of oversight than a passive financial stake.

A 5% equity slice, critics would argue, gives Washington money but not real power.

What Actually Happens Next

For now, very little is settled. The talks are preliminary, and according to TechCrunch, any formal action would likely require an act of Congress — which adds enormous uncertainty. OpenAI’s April policy paper, titled “Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age,” sketched out a vision of a public wealth fund that could invest in AI labs and distribute returns to citizens. But a policy paper is a long way from legislation.

The proposal does establish something new: the idea that major AI companies should proactively offer the government a seat at the table — financially, at least — rather than waiting to be regulated. Whether that seat comes with any real influence is the question neither side has answered yet.

What’s certain is that OpenAI has moved the Overton window. A year ago, handing the federal government an equity stake in a private AI company would have sounded far-fetched. Now it’s a negotiating position. The debate has shifted from whether the public should benefit from AI’s growth to how much — and that’s a meaningful change, even if the outcome remains deeply uncertain.