Opinion - Will Trump's sovereign wealth fund really ‘Make America Great Again?'
On Feb. 3, President Trump signed an executive order to 'establish a sovereign wealth fund to promote fiscal sustainability, lessen the burden of taxes on American families and small businesses, establish economic security for future generations, and promote United States economic and strategic leadership internationally.'
It is an idea whose time has come.
Today, there are over 90 sovereign wealth funds worldwide, collectively managing and investing assets exceeding $12 trillion as of June 2024. This amount has grown significantly over the past two decades, reflecting the increasing importance of sovereign wealth funds in the global economy.
And yet the U.S., the world's most dominant economic power, is not among them.
While there may be many reasons for this situation, the rationale for creating a U.S. sovereign wealth fund now could not be clearer. Harnessing the inherent wealth of America's assets into an acquisitive global investment vehicle seems prudent, and the economic and geopolitical conditions appear ripe.
But it took Trump, the consummate businessman — perhaps with the counsel of Jared Kushner and a few private equity players — to translate theory into reality.
Of course, Kushner himself appreciates the significance of sovereign wealth investments, due in large part to a generous $2 billion deal he brokered with Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund. In fact, we all marvel at the financial prowess of the Saudi fund: With investments in every sector imaginable, it provides an illustrative model for how to cast a nation's economic wealth into global power and influence. This came into full view when the fund, among other major investments, made a play to acquire the Professional Golfers' Association wholesale.
Interestingly, we hear much less about other sovereign wealth funds that are even larger than the Saudi one.
For example, Norway's, Government Pension Fund Global is the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, with $1.7 trillion under management. It is followed by the China Investment Corporation, with $1.3 trillion; the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, with $1 trillion; the Kuwait Investment Authority, with $1 trillion; and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, with over $980 billion under management, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute.
Sovereign wealth funds are state-owned investment funds that manage national assets that have traditionally been funded via excess reserves from trade surpluses, natural resource exports (such as oil and gas), or foreign currency reserves accumulated by central banks. Their role in global finance has grown in stature and effect to become some of the most powerful and influential financial entities in the world.
With investments spanning every asset class, from stocks, bonds, real estate, infrastructure, energy, oil and gas, media, tech and emerging industries (including artificial intelligence), these funds own and control significant resources in industrialized nations.
Despite the strength of the U.S. economy, we have traditionally relied on private investment funds, pension funds and venture capital rather than a centralized sovereign wealth fund for national and global investment.
But the U.S. is at an historic crossroad where its international alliances and economic relations are realigning. And that may be the factual predicate to create and sustain the nation's first sovereign wealth fund.
Among the merits of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund would be the opportunity to leverage existing governmental assets, including federal land, infrastructure holdings and intellectual property, into revenue-generating investments. Transitioning from a debtor to a creditor nation is a lofty but likely goal.
Through it all, governance and transparency should be paramount, and the fund should be subject to congressional authorization, review and oversight.
While the concept of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund has been discussed before, previous administrations, including that of Joe Biden, have stopped short due to concerns about government interference in private markets. But several U.S. states have funds that are used to finance specific functions such as education or to provide general revenue.
Today, however, our lack of a sovereign wealth fund may be seen as a strategic vulnerability, especially when state-controlled investment funds around the world are exercising tremendous economic power. Structured properly, a U.S. sovereign wealth fund could provide a counterbalance to foreign sovereign wealth funds, allowing the U.S. to leverage its vast resources more effectively in the global economy.
Beyond financial gains, a strong U.S. fund could be an effective geopolitical tool to strengthen American economic diplomacy, funding infrastructure projects in strategic regions and reducing dependence on foreign capital markets.
With the right leadership, bipartisan support and a clear investment mandate, America's sovereign wealth fund could serve as a game-changing financial instrument — one that advances the national interest and long-term prosperity.
As the media buzz surrounds the Trump economy, a U.S. sovereign wealth fund could advance America's interests in new and untold ways. Far from being punitive or controversial, it is a consequential idea whose time has come.
Adonis Hoffman writes on business, law and policy. He served in senior roles at the FCC and the U.S. House of Representatives and is a senior partner at American Law Group, PLLC
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
19 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment
Ash Wallis knows she likely wouldn't survive another pregnancy. Doctors said as much years earlier after she suffered a pulmonary embolism following a miscarriage, and got a second blood clot. Getting pregnant again isn't a risk she is willing or able to take. 'I have two sons,' said Wallis. 'I don't want to leave them motherless.' Wallis, 40, begged her health care provider to give her an IUD — her best chance at preventing another pregnancy and protecting her life. But her provider, the Department of Veterans Affairs, refused to cover the procedure. Despite three years of service in the Army, Wallis was forced to pay out of pocket at a local clinic. 'The risks of me getting pregnant and there being a significant health issue were too much risk for me to gamble on,' she said. Access to reproductive care and abortion has long been a problem for those who rely on VA care. But a policy change by the Trump administration stands to make reproductive health for service members and veterans even worse. Last week, the administration posted a proposed rule for VA facilities that would severely narrow access to abortion — eliminating exceptions for health, rape, and incest, and only allowing the procedure in situations deemed to threaten the life of the mother. The rule would also ban any counseling for abortion through the VA. The proposed policy now enters a mandatory 30-day comment period, after which it can go into effect. Experts told The Intercept that the rule change will have devastating consequences for the millions of service members and veterans reliant on health care through the VA, as well as their families. 'It's the worst-case scenario,' said Rachel Fey, vice president of policy and strategic partnerships at Power to Decide, a nonprofit focused on reproductive and sexual health. The Department of Veterans Affairs has long excluded abortion care and abortion counseling from its medical benefits package, with a narrow exception for the 'life of the mother.' That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration, recognizing the danger posed to veterans and service members by the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, instituted a new rule allowing for abortion counseling and abortion care in an expanded list of circumstances. It's this Biden-era change that is under attack by the Trump administration. The administration describes the proposed policy shift as a return to form. 'Prior to the Biden Administration's politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling,' wrote Gary Kunich, a Veterans Affairs spokesperson, in a statement to the Intercept. Fey and other reproductive health experts had anticipated the Trump administration would institute an abortion ban at the VA. But they told The Intercept that this version is particularly draconian considering the dramatic fall-off in abortion access following the Dobbs decision. 'This new policy would be one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, and for veterans living in the 12 states that ban abortion, it would further close off what may be their only opportunity to access urgently needed abortion care,' said Liz McCaman Taylor, senior federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement. 'For veterans living in these states, they may now be forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they were raped or the pregnancy puts their health in jeopardy.' The proposed rule would 'reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling.' Unlike under the Biden rule, which allowed for abortion counseling and abortion care to protect the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, the new proposed rule only includes a vague, narrow exception for 'life of the mother.' 'For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply 'when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,'' wrote the administration in a summary of the draft proposal. However, in a potentially complicating line, the administration wrote: 'Taken together, claims in the prior administration's rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect.' Jaclyn Dean, director of congressional relations, reproductive health, at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said that the lack of medical clarity around when doctors are allowed to intervene is going to cost lives. 'If I'm a doctor for the VA,' said Dean, 'I'm very confused about what I'm legally allowed to do.' Fey said her organization, Power to Decide, was 'not aware of any circumstances' where the VA covered abortion care under the life exception in place before the Biden rule. 'There was always sort of supposed to be this very, very narrow life exception, but similar to what's happening now in the post-Dobbs world, we're seeing that those life exceptions don't work in practice,' she said. Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said the counseling ban adds another layer of risk because providers are prevented from even discussing the option of abortion until it may be too late. 'Good luck if you get to a place where you're dying,' said Church, 'because you can't get abortion counseling before that. And that, to me, is insulting. Not only that, but it could have deadly consequences.' Read Our Complete Coverage The counseling ban also means veterans or active-duty service members referred to the Veterans Affairs administration for care after being sexually assaulted can't discuss abortion as an option with their provider. 'We already know that women veterans experience Military Sexual Trauma at alarming rates, and many of us continue to fight battles long after our service ends,' said Stephanie Gattas, founder of the Pink Berets, which offers support for women veterans struggling with PTSD, military sexual assault, and other mental health issues. Over 8,000 service members, who can also be referred to the VA for care, reported being sexually assaulted last year. And nearly 500 people reported being sexually assaulted while on a VA campus last year, according to Church. Both numbers are likely a severe undercount. 'The military community is wrought with sexual violence,' said Church. 'Now, if you get raped and become pregnant … because of assault at the Department of Veterans Affairs, they won't help you.' Sylvia Andersh, a former service member who worked at Veterans Affairs hospitals as a nurse, called the lack of exceptions for rape 'cruel.' 'My faith in humanity has been quite tested with the fact that they're willing to blatantly hurt women,' said Andersh. For Wallis, who was sexually assaulted while serving in the military, the lack of rape exceptions is especially troubling. 'It feels like being spit in my face,' she said. 'I wrote a check up to and including my life for this country, and I'm not provided equal access to care,' Wallis said. Wallis also worries that this new policy could increase suicidal ideation among service members. 'An unexpected pregnancy, whether it's due to rape, incest, or contraceptive failure, doesn't matter what the cause is,' she said, 'it increases suicidal ideation, and in the lack of access to care, you add that in, and that risk increases further.' The biggest impact is going to fall on veterans and service members living in states with abortion bans, experts told The Intercept. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, serving 2 million women veterans, over 400,000 of whom live in states with abortion bans. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect.' Though the Trump administration insists the policy change would be a return to standard VA practice, Taylor, of Center for Reproductive Rights, points out that the landscape has changed following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect. This is the first time there has been a total abortion ban in VA health care facilities since Roe v. Wade was overturned,' said Taylor. 'Before Roe fell, if a veteran couldn't get an abortion at a VA health care facility, they could seek one elsewhere in their state. Now, abortion is banned in many states, and over 100 clinics have closed, meaning veterans living in those states will be totally out of options.' Wallis said she feels as if the administration is testing how far it can restrict access to care, pointing to the abortion ban and new restrictions on gender-affirming care at the VA. 'We're the guinea pigs they want to test what they're able to do to the general public,' she said. 'I truly feel like they're testing what they want to do with the rest of the country on us, and it's scary to me.'
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Are stimulus checks coming? What to know after Trump proposed tariff rebate
Last month, President Donald Trump teased that a potential rebate could be attached to the worldwide tariffs he announced earlier this year. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate,' Trump said on July 25 ahead of his trip to Scotland, where he planned to iron out the details of a United Kingdom trade agreement. The White House has announced that some of the tariffs, which were disclosed on April 2, have raised $100 billion in revenue. Trump didn't provide further details on the potential rebates, which are unlikely to pass in Congress, except to say they would only be available to people from certain income levels. The president would need congressional approval to authorize the rebates. While details are scarce, here's what you need to know about a potential tariff rebate. Previous story: Trump considers 'rebates' to US taxpayers from tariff income Sen. Josh Hawley introduces rebate bill Shortly after Trump's July comments, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025. The proposed legislation would send rebate checks of at least $600 per individual to U.S. residents. A family of four could receive up to $2,400. The legislation allows the credit to increase if tariff revenues exceed 2025 projections. 'My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country,' said Hawley in a news release announcing the bill. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariff revenue is expected to reach $300 billion annually. Yet, economists have said the policies could increase inflation and cost taxpayers thousands of dollars per year, especially if Trump doesn't reach trade deals with key partners like Canada and Mexico. For joint filers with an adjusted gross income of over $150,000 and people filing single who earn more than $75,000, the benefit would be reduced by 5%. The legislation has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It would need to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives to become law. What are some of the hurdles facing the rebate? Republican lawmakers are unlikely to be excited about increasing federal spending. The stimulus checks issued during the COVID-19 pandemic cost the government about $164 billion. If checks were issued, it would mean a significant percentage of tariff revenue would be going back to taxpayers at a time when Trump himself has said his priority is paying down $37 trillion in debt. "The big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said in July. 'But we're thinking about rebates.' In an interview with Semafor, one conservative lawmaker shot down the idea. "People love spending money and granting new tax cuts when we can't afford it," Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, told the outlet. 'We're $37 trillion in debt and running $2 trillion a year deficits – some time, this madness just has to end.' How is a tax rebate different from a stimulus check? A tax rebate is a reimbursement made to a taxpayer for an excess amount paid in taxes during the year, while a stimulus check is a direct payment from the federal government to households. Tax rebates can be issued at any point during the year. Hawley's news release states that the parameters for the tax rebate would be similar to the stimulus checks issued in 2020 during the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic. When could a tax rebate be implemented? Hawley's bill has until the end of the current congressional calendar to pass through both chambers of Congress, or it will be considered dead and would need to be introduced again if lawmakers want to move forward with it. Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at mdelrey@
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
How DC's unique status let Trump take control of police, deploy National Guard
As Trump sends the National Guard to bolster immigration enforcement, Democratic governors and mayors are fighting his use of the military for law enforcement. WASHINGTON – Although President Donald Trump threatened to extend his takeover of the DC Metropolitan Police Force to fight crime and homelessness to other cities, it can't be replicated elsewhere, according to legal experts. The capital's unique status as a federal city, rather than part of a state, grants the federal government unique power to manage it directly. But the president is unlikely to be able to take control of the entire DC government because that would require a change in federal law, which would be difficult to get through the Senate, experts said. Trump also has special authority to deploy the National Guard in DC, in contrast to governors traditionally overseeing mobilizations in their states. But the military is typically blocked from participating directly in law enforcement, which is why California filed a federal lawsuit against Trump's recent deployment of thousands of troops in Los Angeles. 'DC as a federal enclave is fundamentally different than a state or a local government,' Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University, told USA TODAY. Here's what to know about Trump's authority to bolster law enforcement in states and cities − and the limitations on that power: Trump becomes first to take over DC police under 1973 Home Rule Act The Constitution ratified in 1787 provided for a federal capital district to serve as the seat of government controlled by Congress, and DC was founded a few years later. In 1973, Congress approved the Home Rule Act that gave the city a mayor and city council. But Congress kept control over the city's spending and the ability to overturn DC laws, as happened in 2023 when the council tried to reduce penalties for some crimes. A provision in DC law allows the president to take control of the Metropolitan Police Force temporarily during an emergency. 'I think Washington DC is the only city where the president can do that,' Tom Manger, the former chief of Capitol police and departments in the DC suburbs of Montgomery County in Maryland and Fairfax County in Virginia, told USA TODAY. Trump invoked the provision for the first time Aug. 11 aiming to rid the city of what he called was an emergency of 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' He said the city was overrun with "violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals," despite a declining crime rate. Trump had to notify the leaders of congressional committees overseeing DC in order for him to keep control of the police for 30 days. A longer extension would require authorization by lawmakers. Trump told reporters Aug. 13 that he would ask Congress to 'long-term extensions' for him to remain control of the DC police, which he expected to be approved 'pretty much unanimously.' But he said he could call a national emergency if needed. 'We're going to be essentially crime free,' Trump said. 'This is going to be a beacon.' Trump declared the initial emergency despite DC reporting a 35% drop in violent crime from 2023 to 2024, and a 26% drop in crime so far in 2025. Kreis said 'a lot of people would contest' the declaration of an emergency, but the challenge would be difficult to litigate. 'You almost by default have to defer to the president's judgment on this, no matter who the president is,' Kreis said. Taking away DC home rule would require change in federal law Trump is unlikely to be able to take control of the entire DC government because that would require a change in federal law. The legislation could be blocked by filibuster in the Senate, which requires 60 votes to overcome in a chamber with 53 of Trump's fellow Republicans and 47 members of the Democratic caucus. Trump also criticized crime in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Baltimore as 'bad, very bad.' Trump threatened to expand the deployment of the National Guard to help fight crime in other states and cities. He specifically cited New York, Chicago and other cities as targets for more troops. "We're not going to lose our cities over this. This will go further. We're starting very strongly with DC," Trump said. 'This will go further,' Trump said. "We're going to take back our capital," Trump added. "And then we'll look at other cities also. In August 2023, Trump criticized Atlanta's crime in August 2023 as 'WORST IN NATION' and a 'GIANT MURDER WAVE!' despite a decline in the crime rate. But other cities and states aren't part of the federal government, so experts say he could not directly take over their police or local governments.'The federal government does not have the authority to commandeer state and local officials against their will to do their (its) bidding,' Kreis said. 'He just fundamentally cannot do that as a federalism matter.' DC Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the police force 'unsettling and unprecedented' but didn't challenge it in court. 'It's times like these when America needs to know that DC should be the 51st state,' Bowser said in a social media post Aug. 12. Trump leads DC National Guard as commander in chief Trump didn't need any additional authority Aug. 11 to assign 800 National Guard troops to bolster crime fighting in DC because as commander in chief he oversees the Guard in the federal city. Joseph Nunn, national security counsel at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, said presidents can deploy the National Guard where they want, but the troops are prevented from helping with law enforcement under a law called the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. NOT CLEAR TO ME HERE WHAT THIS MEANS WRT THE ASSIGNMENT IN DC? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THEY WON'T BE ALLOWED TO DO LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT IN DC THEY WILL. DO YOU MEAN HERE TO SAY THAT PRESIDENTS CAN DEPLOY THE DC NATIONAL GUARD OUTSIDE DC? BUT OUTSIDE DC THEY CANNOT DO LAW ENFORCEMENT? CAN YOU CLARIFY HERE? This is why WHAT KIND OF? troops in Los Angeles WERE THEY DC NATL GUARD? SPECIFYwere described as protecting federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and buildings rather than helping arrest undocumented immigrants. 'He can put those troops wherever he wants to put them, but they will be constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act in terms of what they want to do,' Nunn told USA TODAY. THAT LAST PHRASE IS CONFUSING. WHO IS THEY? FIRST THEY WOULD BE THE TROOPS, BUT SECOND IS MAYBE REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT? BC WHAT THE TROOPS THEMSELVES WANT TO DO SEEMS LIKE A WEIRD CONCEPT... IF HE MEANT PRES CAN YOU REVISE TO CLARIFY? 'Up to now, the sort of logistical support we've seen provided to ICE during in the interior country has largely been provided by federalized National Guard and by active-duty armed forces.' National Guard deployments have been routine Before Trump's latest directives, National Guard deployments were routine in DC and elsewhere for purposes other than law enforcement. For example, after the Capitol attack Jan. 6, 2021, Manger was given the authority to request National Guard reinforcements FROM THE PRESIDENT? OR JUST DIRECTLY FROM THE GUARD ITSELF? on his own as chief of Capitol police, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT SITUATION PREVIOUSLY?. Manger said he appreciated the extra staffing to protect the Capitol or help with traffic during protests, such as when he set up dozens of traffic posts to keep vehicles moving during a trucker protest against public health restrictions by truckers. 'The National Guard is terrific,' Manger said. Local authorities also often coordinate with federal law enforcement such as the FBI to fight organized crime or the Drug Enforcement Administration to combat drug trafficking. 'There's a symbiotic relationship between federal and local police across the country,' Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum think tank, told USA TODAY. 'What happened in Washington is distinctly different from what happened in pretty much any city in the country.' Wexler added that the National Guard has a role to play, but troops are traditionally use 'sparingly.' 'They will never be a replacement for local police,' Wexler said. 'No police chief I know would ever put the National Guard in a position where they're making an arrest or their dealing directly with a volatile crowd. They have to be used strategically.' But Manger was uncertain how Trump would move homeless people out of the capital. 'I'm not aware of any other cities or towns around the country that are clamoring for homeless," Manger said. "Where is he going to put them?" Richard Stengel, a former undersecretary of state during the Obama administration, warned against the use of military to bolster law enforcement at a time when violent crime in DC is at a 30-year low. 'Throughout history, autocrats use a false pretext to impose government control over local law enforcement as a prelude to a more national takeover,' Stengel said in a social media post Aug. 11. 'That's far more dangerous than the situation he says he is fixing.' Trump bolsters immigration enforcement with National Guard The Pentagon announced on July 25 that 1,700 National Guard personnel – 1,200 already deployed plus 500 additional troops – will work on "case management, transportation and logistical support, and clerical support for the in- and out-processing" of ICE arrests. GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF DISTINGUISHING IN THIS PIECE WHETHER THEY ARE FROM DC OR A CERTAIN STATE, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHICH LOCALITY THEY ARE FROM HERE? The duties of some will also include taking DNA swabs, photographs and fingerprints of people held at ICE facilities, according to a defense official speaking on condition of anonymity. California fights Trump's use of National Guard for law enforcement A landmark federal trial began Aug. 11 in San Francisco challenging Trump's deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to support deportations and quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will determine if the government violated the Posse Comitatus Act. California sued the Trump administration by arguing the deployment violated federal law and state sovereignty. But a federal appeals court allowed Trump to retain control of California's National Guard during the legal fight. California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks a ruling that would return its National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump's action was illegal. What is the Insurrection Act? One option for Trump to get around the prohibition on troops conducting law enforcement would be to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which aimed to suppress armed rebellion or insurrection. Despite the harsh terms, president have invoked the law throughout the country's history. Former President George H.W. Bush was the last to invoke the law in 1992, in response to rioting in Los Angeles after the acquittal of four white police officers charged with beating a Black motorist, Rodney King. CAN YOU SAY HERE WHAT BUSH DID WITH THAT INVOCATION? LIKE HE SENT ARMY TROOPS INTO LA? TO DO WHAT? Trump threatened repeatedly after Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 to invoke the Insurrection Act but hasn't done so recently. Legal experts said any challenge to Trump invoking that law would turn on similar semanatics defining whether the emergency or rebellion justified taking over the DC police or deploying National Guard troops in other cities. 'I think it would be naïve to suggest that the president would not try or could not try to stretch the definitions of insurrection or rebellion beyond their common political usage to suit his political needs,' Kreis said. 'The law might say one thing but its ability to be stretched and molded into a political weapon for the president's benefit is not really purely speculative.' Contributing: Cybele Mayes-Osterman and Reuters
