Washington is advancing a strategy to maintain American dominance in artificial intelligence (AI) that combines encouragement and coercion, raising concerns about a new form of technological imperialism. President Donald Trump, accompanied by technology executives, recently warned that opposition to domestic data centre development could drive companies overseas, implicitly conceding an advantage to China in the global AI race.

In parallel, proposals have surfaced to distribute AI-related profits more broadly within the United States. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, suggested that leading US AI laboratories contribute 5 percent of their equity to a public fund, while Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation envisioning a national fund owning up to 50 percent of major AI firms, with profits shared with American citizens.

Despite these initiatives, experts note that the physical infrastructure supporting AI—data centres—can be located abroad where operating costs are lower, meaning US companies could retain profit shares even if their facilities move overseas. This would enable shareholders to benefit financially without hosting facilities locally. However, this dynamic raises questions about the environmental and social costs borne by host countries where these data centres consume land, water, and energy resources.

The strategy to extend US influence over AI is exemplified by “Pax Silica,” a US State Department-backed coalition aiming to consolidate supply chains aligned with Washington and exclude China. The Pentagon’s Economic Defense Unit has openly referenced the historic East India Company as a model for its operations. One early manifestation of this approach is a 4,000-acre “economic security zone” in the Philippines, where US authorities reportedly sought jurisdictional immunity—a request rejected by the Philippine government, which insists the zone remains under national law.

Host nations have expressed resistance to such initiatives. For instance, a $1 billion data centre project in Kenya faltered after demands that the government guarantee its computing capacity went unmet. Similarly, Mexico’s president has dismissed ambitions for the country to become a global data centre hub. These tensions highlight unease about becoming subordinated to US-led technological infrastructure projects.

At the geopolitical level, the US uses sanctions to restrict China’s access to advanced semiconductor chips, aiming to limit Beijing’s AI development. By controlling access to vital technology and markets, US firms benefit through higher valuations and profit margins. The proposed public fund drawing revenue from this position could function less as a steward of shared innovation and more as a recipient of geopolitical rents derived from restricting China and maintaining control over global AI resources.

Critics argue that while redistributing AI profits domestically may appear equitable, it masks broader inequities. Unlike sovereign wealth funds such as Norway’s, funded by natural resources within its borders, the American fund’s revenue would stem from leveraging global technological dependencies and exerting pressure on less powerful countries. This arrangement could entrench existing global inequalities and foster a public acceptance of arrangements that benefit a select few while maintaining American technological hegemony.

As AI companies continue to negotiate placements for infrastructure abroad, governments hosting these projects face mounting pressure. Should the US government officially tie public dividends to these ventures, foreign opposition may increasingly be framed not only as a challenge to Washington but as a threat to Americans who stand to gain financially.

While commentators across the political spectrum acknowledge AI’s role in concentrating wealth and influence, there is debate over whether the current approach advances equity or reinforces oligarchic control under the guise of broad-based benefit. Observers caution that a model relying on geopolitical power to sustain AI profits may resolve certain disparities superficially while perpetuating deeper global imbalances.