logo
Will Trump's sovereign wealth fund really ‘Make America Great Again?'

Will Trump's sovereign wealth fund really ‘Make America Great Again?'

The Hill06-02-2025

All the talk about tariffs has overshadowed one of the president's most enlightened proposals — the creation of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund.
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director

UPI

time5 minutes ago

  • UPI

In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director

June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."

Protesters Urged Not To Give Trump Administration Pretext For What It Already Doing
Protesters Urged Not To Give Trump Administration Pretext For What It Already Doing

The Onion

time7 minutes ago

  • The Onion

Protesters Urged Not To Give Trump Administration Pretext For What It Already Doing

LOS ANGELES—Responding to escalating clashes between civilian activists and militarized immigration authorities, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass publicly urged protesters Monday not to give the Trump administration any pretext for what they're already doing and will keep doing no matter what. 'Angelenos—don't engage in violence and give the administration an excuse to inflict all the damage they have been inflicting carte blanche for months on end,' said Bass, adding that Trump and his team are just looking for a reason to respond with violence, as they would have done whether or not any of this happened. 'Don't fan the flame that has been fanned behind the scenes at the White House since day one of Trump's term in office. You wouldn't want them to start abducting people in broad daylight and deporting them, would you? No, so let's not become scapegoats for the horrific violations of civil liberties that would have eventually landed at our doorstep regardless.' At press time, Bass warned that Trump was using the actions of protesters to justify sending in the National Guard that had been pre-deployed to the conflict days before it even began.

Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?

Time​ Magazine

time8 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?

President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare— and controversial —exercise of presidential power. Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual. The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration. The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets. Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since. The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations. The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.' To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.' 'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued. Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails. 'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store