President Donald Trump and Governor Gavin Newsom are united on at least one key point regarding the financial challenges posed by the AI revolution. Both believe Americans should have a stake in the technology-driven wealth being created. However, despite this shared idea, neither leader has offered a clear strategy for turning this vision into policy. Their support for the concept of universal basic capital highlights the nation’s lack of preparedness to manage the upcoming economic upheaval, even in a place like San Francisco, where AI is deeply embedded.
The notion of universal basic capital aims to provide people with equity in AI companies, shifting the model from direct cash payments to ownership. Unlike universal basic income, which involves straightforward cash stipends with no requirements, universal basic capital is a more complex and untested idea. While UBI has been tested in various pilot programs and yielded positive results, this new approach requires a fundamental shift in how policymakers think about wealth distribution.
San Francisco sees AI’s first big wave
The impact of the AI boom is already being felt in San Francisco, the epicenter of the technology revolution. Between January and June, over 140 homes sold for at least $1 million more than their asking prices, a stark contrast to the mere eight such sales in the first half of 2025. Additionally, the rental market is under strain, with San Francisco now having the lowest vacancy rate in the U.S. at just 2.2%. These figures reflect a growing divide as those benefiting from AI accumulate wealth, while others struggle to keep up.
As AI professionals and entrepreneurs bring their earnings to the city, the rising costs of housing and living expenses are pushing other residents further from financial stability. The economic shifts in San Francisco serve as a microcosm of the larger debate taking place across the country. With so much money flowing into the hands of AI-driven companies, the question of who shares in the prosperity becomes increasingly urgent.
From UBI to UBC — the next big idea
Universal basic income was once the leading proposal for addressing the economic challenges of automation and AI. However, the conversation is now evolving. Figures such as Newsom, Trump, and OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman are advocating for universal basic capital, a model that emphasizes ownership in emerging AI wealth. This change in perspective suggests the belief that cash stipends alone may not be sufficient. Instead, the focus is shifting to ensuring that people have a real stake in the gains from AI, rather than waiting for wealth to be redistributed after companies have made their profits.
Despite the growing interest, no legislative proposals have yet been introduced to formalize universal basic capital. states, adapting their structures into a workable UBC model remains a major challenge. The success of any future policy will depend on its ability to be clearly communicated and effectively implemented.
The 2028 presidential election could hinge on how candidates articulate and execute these ideas. OpenAI, one of the leading AI firms in the world, is planning a potential IPO in 2027 that could raise as much as $1 trillion. This massive financial event will force candidates to address the most pressing question for voters: who will benefit from the explosive growth of AI wealth, and how will it be shared?
The urgency of this issue is further underscored by recent remarks from Nathan Gardels, co-founder of the Berggruen Institute. He has described the 2028 election as the first-ever 'AI election,' as candidates will be expected to offer clear and convincing plans for managing the social and economic changes brought about by AI. The debates will center on who gets to participate in the wealth being created and how the benefits can be spread more widely.
In Stockton, former mayor Michael Tubbs pioneered a universal basic income pilot program that provided residents with a monthly stipend. The results showed that recipients used the money responsibly to cover essential expenses, and similar programs across the country have reported positive outcomes. However, Tubbs now argues that UBI is only the first step. The next challenge, he says, is ensuring that people have real ownership in AI wealth. The goal, he explained, is to raise the standard of living for everyone, not just a select few.
Tubbs’ perspective is part of a broader shift among political leaders, many of whom now favor a pre-distribution model. This approach seeks to give people a share of AI-generated wealth before it is absorbed by large corporations. Unlike redistribution models, which rely on governments to allocate a portion of profits to citizens after the fact, pre-distribution focuses on sharing value earlier in the process.
Despite the growing interest in universal basic capital, the details of how such a system would work remain sparse. Both Newsom and Trump have yet to introduce any specific legislative proposals. The absence of clear plans highlights the complexity of designing a policy that is not only economically viable but also politically palatable. With the rapid expansion of AI and the upcoming 2028 election, the pressure to deliver a workable solution is mounting.
For now, the challenge remains unmet. The nation is still waiting for a candidate who can clearly articulate a plan that addresses the deep economic and social changes brought on by AI. Until then, the conversation remains a mix of ambition and uncertainty, with the future of economic fairness hanging in the balance.