Unite Us Again with a Shared National Purpose
A Shared Purpose: Ensuring that the wealth created by AI and robotics benefits us now and for every future generation
Yesterday marks 25 years since September 11, 2001. Nearly 3,000 people were murdered in the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and aboard Flight 93. We remember the people who went to work or boarded airplanes that morning and never returned home. We remember the firefighters, police officers, emergency workers and ordinary citizens who ran toward danger. We also remember the rescuers and survivors who continued to suffer and die from illnesses caused by their exposure. September 11 was one of the darkest days in American history.
Yet the days that followed revealed something powerful about the American people. We united.
Political party, race, religion, geography and social class briefly became less important than our common identity as Americans. We understood that the country had been attacked and that protecting it required a shared national purpose. For many Americans, it may have been the last time the nation felt truly united.
We should never equate ordinary economic competition or political disagreement with the terrorist murders of September 11. But the lesson of unity remains relevant because the United States is again confronting serious threats—this time across multiple fronts.
Today, the country faces military and terrorist threats from Iran and other hostile actors. It faces cyberattacks against government, businesses and critical infrastructure. It faces economic and technological competition with China involving artificial intelligence, semiconductors, telecommunications, batteries, critical minerals, drones, advanced manufacturing and control of global supply chains.
These dangers do not arrive as four hijacked airplanes on one morning. They develop gradually across borders, computer networks, capital markets, factories, shipping routes and digital platforms.
Because the threats are less visible and more complicated, they do not automatically unite us.
Instead, Americans increasingly see national security and economic policy through a partisan lens.
But our response cannot belong to only Republicans or Democrats. Protecting the country, rebuilding its productive capacity and ensuring that future prosperity benefits all Americans should be a national project.
That brings us to an unexpected but valuable example: Norway.
Norway was blessed with extraordinary natural resources.
When oil and natural gas were discovered in the North Sea, Norway could have treated the revenue as ordinary government income. It could have spent the money immediately, lowered taxes for one generation or allowed political leaders to direct it toward favored projects.
Instead, Norway made a disciplined choice: Convert a temporary natural-resource advantage into permanent national wealth.
That decision produced the Government Pension Fund Global—commonly called Norway’s oil fund. Its purpose is straightforward: manage petroleum wealth over the long term so that it benefits both current and future generations.
Norway did not become wealthy merely because it discovered oil. Many countries possess valuable natural resources without converting them into lasting prosperity. Norway’s achievement was combining ownership with discipline.
The government collected revenue from petroleum production and transferred that wealth into a national investment fund. The money was invested across global stocks, bonds, real estate and infrastructure rather than being spent as quickly as it arrived.
Today, Norway’s fund owns small stakes in thousands of companies around the world. According to Norges Bank Investment Management, investment returns now account for more than half of the fund’s value.
The original resource revenue created the capital, but decades of compounding created much of the wealth.
Norway also separated political responsibility from investment management:
Parliament established the framework.
The Ministry of Finance owns the fund on behalf of the Norwegian people and sets its broad mandate.
Norges Bank Investment Management makes investment decisions professionally.
The fund publicly reports its holdings, performance and risk.
A fiscal rule generally limits government spending to the fund’s expected long-term real return—currently estimated at approximately 3 percent annually.
That last rule may be the most important. Norway does not normally consume the principal. It uses a controlled portion of the expected return while preserving the underlying national inheritance.
Norway also invests the fund primarily outside Norway. That helps diversify the country away from its petroleum-dependent economy and reduces the risk that too much money flowing into a relatively small domestic economy will produce inflation and distort investment.
Norway’s lesson is therefore larger than oil: A country becomes permanently wealthier when it converts a temporary economic advantage into diversified assets—and prevents politicians from spending the principal.
The USA Is Beginning to Assemble the Pieces
The United States is now experiencing a different kind of resource discovery. It is not simply oil beneath the ground.
It is the convergence of artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced semiconductors, data centers, energy, critical minerals and the enormous value of access to the American market.
In February 2025, President Donald Trump directed the Treasury and Commerce Departments to develop a plan for a United States sovereign wealth fund. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the concept as monetizing the asset side of the federal balance sheet for the American people.
Since then, the federal government has begun taking ownership positions in strategically important businesses and industries. These have included interests in semiconductor manufacturing, critical minerals, defense production and energy.
This represents a significant change in thinking.
Historically, when the federal government provided a company with grants, favorable loans, guarantees, contracts or extraordinary regulatory support, taxpayers frequently carried part of the risk without participating directly in the company’s future appreciation.
A sovereign wealth approach asks a reasonable question: If the American people provide the capital, market access, infrastructure or protection that helps create extraordinary private value, should the American people sometimes receive an ownership interest in return?
That does not mean nationalizing private industry or allowing politicians to manage companies.
It means negotiating warrants, nonvoting shares, royalties or other economic interests when public support creates identifiable private value.
Those assets could be placed into an independent American Future Fund rather than scattered across federal agencies or absorbed into ordinary government spending.
AI and Robotics Are America’s New Resource Boom
Norway’s foundational asset was petroleum.
America’s next foundational asset may be intelligence and automated productivity. AI systems are beginning to perform work that previously required enormous amounts of human time. Robots will increasingly perform physical tasks in factories, warehouses, agriculture, construction, transportation, defense and eventually the home.
Data centers, advanced chips and abundant energy will become essential infrastructure for the digitized economy.
This could create extraordinary productivity and corporate wealth. It may also disrupt employment, shift income from labor toward capital and concentrate an increasing percentage of national wealth among those who own the models, chips, robots, energy systems and data infrastructure.
The answer should not be to stop innovation. The USA must lead it—especially while competing with China. But leadership and shared ownership are compatible.
An American Future Fund could receive assets from several carefully defined sources:
Equity or warrants obtained when the government provides major grants, loans or guarantees.
A small equity contribution associated with exceptionally large public offerings or other clearly defined liquidity events.
Royalties from federally owned minerals, energy resources, spectrum and other scarce public assets.
Returns from strategic investments in semiconductors, AI infrastructure, critical minerals, defense and energy.
A legislatively designated portion of tariff revenue, after legal obligations and refunds have been satisfied.
Voluntary or tax-credited contributions of stock from founders and large shareholders.
Future revenue mechanisms tied to extraordinary AI and robotic productivity, structured carefully enough that they do not drive innovation away from the USA.
If an equity contribution were mandatory, it would still be a form of taxation—paid in shares rather than cash. That should be acknowledged honestly.
The advantage is that founders would not necessarily have to sell their companies merely to pay a tax, while the American public would participate in future appreciation.
The fund should hold economic interests without ordinarily exercising political control over private companies.
Where Tariffs Fit
Tariffs are often discussed as though they have only one purpose: raising government revenue.
That is incomplete. Tariffs can serve three distinct purposes:
Revenue: The U.S. importer pays the tariff to the Treasury. Some of the cost may be absorbed by the importer or foreign supplier, and some may be passed to American consumers and businesses.
Industrial policy: Tariffs change the calculation between importing a product and manufacturing it in the USA.
Negotiating leverage: Access to the world’s largest high-income consumer market can be used to negotiate investment, reciprocal access and secure supply chains.
The third purpose may be the most strategically important.
The USA is competing with China across semiconductors, artificial intelligence, batteries, electric vehicles, telecommunications, drones, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, energy systems and advanced manufacturing.
China does not treat these sectors as ordinary commerce. It uses state financing, industrial policy, protected domestic markets and control over processing capacity to build strategic advantage.
The United States cannot respond by putting tariffs indiscriminately on everything from everywhere. Broad tariffs increase American costs, invite retaliation and damage relationships with the very allies the USA needs.
The better strategy is to establish a clear distinction: Strategic competitors face barriers. Trusted allies receive preferred access in return for reciprocal trade, investment and secure supply chains.
Under that approach, tariffs are not the final objective. They are a tool for moving production, technology, capital and processing capacity into the United States and an allied economic system.
Foreign companies and governments would face a choice: Continue importing into the USA and pay the applicable tariff—or invest, manufacture, employ people and build secure capacity within the United States and trusted allied countries.
Recent trade negotiations already suggest this model.
Taiwan committed to major U.S. purchases and investment connected to semiconductors and technology.
South Korea has discussed enormous U.S. investments in nuclear power, natural gas and the energy infrastructure required for AI data centers.
These arrangements demonstrate that access to the American market can be exchanged for productive investment rather than treated only as a source of tariff collections.
Canada Should Be Part of the Solution
Canada should not be treated in the same strategic category as China.
The USA and Canada already share one of the world’s most integrated economic, energy and defense relationships.
Canada possesses oil, natural gas, uranium, potash, hydroelectric power, critical minerals, agricultural capacity and Arctic geography.
The United States contributes scale, capital, advanced technology, manufacturing capability, defense capacity and the world’s most valuable nearby market.
Together, the two countries can build a remarkably secure North American production system.
But the relationship needs a clearly understood framework.
The United States has a legitimate red line: Chinese-controlled capital, technology and supply chains should not be allowed to enter the American market through the back door of an allied country.
That concern is particularly serious in vehicles, batteries, telecommunications, digital platforms, critical infrastructure, artificial intelligence and defense-related technology.
Canada also has a legitimate requirement: its sovereignty must be respected, and it must retain the ability to trade globally where no genuine North American security interest is threatened.
Those positions are reconcilable.
The conversation should be: Canada and the USA will preserve preferred access to each other’s markets, jointly develop critical resources, coordinate defense and Arctic security, and protect the North American technology perimeter. In return, Canada will apply agreed safeguards preventing strategic Chinese technology, ownership and subsidized production from being routed into the USA.
The same structure can extend to other trusted allies.
Countries that invest in secure American and allied supply chains should receive better access than countries using state subsidies, forced technology transfer or digital systems that create national-security risks.
That is alignment—not isolation.
What an American Future Fund Should Look Like
The fund should be created by Congress so that it belongs to the country rather than to one president or political party.
Its operating principles could adapt Norway’s discipline to America’s much larger and more complex economy:
The principal is permanent and belongs equally to present and future generations.
An independent, professionally qualified board manages the assets under a congressional charter.
The president and Congress cannot select individual investments or direct capital toward political supporters.
All holdings, transactions, fees, benchmarks and conflicts are disclosed publicly.
Strategic holdings are generally nonvoting unless national security requires narrowly defined protections.
Most assets are diversified rather than concentrated in politically favored companies.
Borrowed federal money cannot be portrayed as new national wealth.
Only a limited percentage of the fund’s average value—perhaps 3 percent—may be used annually.
Any citizen dividend comes from sustainable investment returns, not from consuming the principal.
The distinction between capital and income is essential.
Tariff revenue, royalties and public equity interests would help capitalize the fund. Those assets would be invested and compounded. Only a disciplined share of the returns would support dividends or other national purposes.
That is very different from collecting tariff revenue this year and mailing all of it back immediately.
A one-time check may be politically popular, but it does not create lasting wealth. Tariff collections alone are also unlikely to support a large universal payment without borrowing or using other federal revenue.
A National Dividend That Can Last
President Trump’s proposed $5,000 dividend introduces a powerful idea: Americans should share directly in the economic value being created by national policy and access to the American market.
But the strongest version of that idea is not a check financed from one year’s tariff receipts.
It is a permanent national balance sheet.
Imagine if, 25 years from now, the American people collectively owned diversified interests accumulated during the rise of AI, robotics, advanced energy, critical-mineral production, semiconductor manufacturing and space infrastructure.
The annual dividend would then come from actual earnings and appreciation rather than another increase in the national debt.
Norway transformed a resource beneath the North Sea into ownership across the world economy.
The USA now has an opportunity to transform its market, technology, energy, resources and entrepreneurial capacity into a permanent inheritance.
The country should continue rewarding the innovators, investors and workers who build the future. But when public resources help create extraordinary private value, the public should receive a small and transparent participation in that value.
The governing idea is simple: Build in America. Innovate in America. Work with trusted allies. Protect our strategic supply chains. Then preserve a share of the wealth for every generation of Americans.
That would connect tariffs, industrial strategy, allied trade, AI leadership and citizen dividends within one disciplined national purpose.
It would give Americans something more valuable than a temporary check: A permanent ownership interest in the future they are helping to build.
President Trump and Secretary Bessent have begun assembling some of the necessary pieces.
Now they need to explain the complete vision—and invite Congress, American industry and our trusted allies into the conversation.
Norway demonstrates what can happen when a country recognizes its blessings, thinks beyond the next election and manages its national wealth with discipline.
The United States has been blessed, too—with natural resources, innovation, entrepreneurship, energy, technology and an extraordinary market.
AI and robotics may now create one of the greatest expansions of wealth in human history.
If President Trump could transform that opportunity into a permanent, independently managed inheritance for every generation of Americans, that could become his true and lasting legacy.
It could also help unite our politically divided nation around a simple idea that should transcend party:
America’s future prosperity should benefit all Americans.
The conversation we need is not simply about who will create that wealth. It is about what we will do with it, how we will preserve it and how it can strengthen the country for generations to come.
Twenty-five years after September 11, perhaps the best way to honor the unity we once experienced is not to wait for another catastrophic attack before rediscovering our common purpose.
We already know the challenges in front of us.
We must protect the country against terrorism and military aggression. We must secure our digital networks and critical infrastructure. We must compete successfully with China without treating trusted allies as enemies. We must rebuild the American and allied industrial base. And we must prepare for the extraordinary economic transformation that AI and robotics will bring.
We will disagree about taxes, tariffs, spending and the appropriate role of government. Those disagreements are legitimate.
But we should be able to agree that America’s security, productive capacity and future prosperity belong to all of us.
An independently managed American Future Fund could give that shared purpose a permanent institution.
It would say that America will defend itself, invest in itself, work with trusted allies and preserve part of the resulting wealth for Americans who have not yet been born.
That would be more than an economic policy.
It could become a national project capable of bringing Americans together again—not through fear of a common enemy, but through responsibility for a common future.
At Civiltalk, we believe better conversations lead to stronger relationships—and stronger relationships lead to better outcomes.
This is a conversation worth having.