In an unprecedented move, President Donald Trump has unilaterally created a U.S. sovereign wealth fund (SWF)—bypassing Congress and without public discussion of its potential fiscal dangers. The decision, which could reshape the nation’s economic structure, raises fundamental questions about legality, economic ideology, and the risk of corruption.
But how did this happen? And what does it mean for America’s financial future?
A Sovereign Wealth Fund in the U.S.? Highly Unusual.
Sovereign wealth funds are typically government-run investment vehicles, often funded by natural resource revenues. Nations like Norway, Saudi Arabia, and China use SWFs to manage surplus wealth, stabilize their economies, and fund public services. The U.S., however, has never had one. Why? Because such a fund would directly contradict long-standing American economic values—especially those championed by conservatives.
Republicans have traditionally opposed government involvement in private markets. An SWF would place the federal government in the business of investing, owning stakes in corporations, and influencing economic outcomes—an approach that many view as state capitalism or even socialism.
And yet, the move by Trump’s administration seemingly ignores this ideological stance. No debates. No congressional vote. Just action.
No Fiscal Discussion—But Major Risks Loom
Typically, major financial policy decisions require congressional approval, particularly those involving government spending or investment. Yet Trump appears to have circumvented the legislative branch entirely, raising concerns about whether this move violates the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which grants Congress control over federal expenditures, or the Antideficiency Act, which restricts unauthorized spending by the executive branch. This raises the question: On what legal authority is this fund being created?
Beyond legality, the economic risks are staggering. The U.S. already runs consistent budget deficits and carries an enormous national debt. Unlike oil-rich nations funding their SWFs with surplus revenue, where would America’s money come from? Higher taxes? Printing more currency? Redirecting Social Security funds? No answers have been provided.
The potential for market manipulation is also deeply concerning. If the government controls billions (or trillions) in investments, will it favor politically connected businesses? Could it be used to artificially inflate stock prices or provide backdoor bailouts?
A Tool for Oligarchic Corruption?
If we assume that America already functions as an oligarchy—where power is concentrated among a wealthy elite—then this SWF could be one of the greatest wealth-extraction tools in history.
How? Here’s the playbook for economic looting:
- Insider Trading: Politicians and elites could use advance knowledge of SWF investment moves to personally profit.
- Directing Investments to Friends: The fund could prioritize companies controlled by political allies.
- Privatizing Profits, Socializing Losses: Government-backed investments could mean the public bears financial risks while elites enjoy the rewards.
- Bailouts for the Wealthy: Instead of stabilizing the economy, an SWF could be used to prop up struggling businesses owned by connected figures.
If a few billionaires and political insiders control where SWF money flows, they could redirect public funds straight into their own pockets—with no accountability. History provides cautionary tales, such as the 2008 financial crisis, where government bailouts disproportionately benefited large financial institutions while taxpayers bore the costs. The lack of oversight mechanisms, like those mandated under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, could enable similar misuse here.
Where Was the Debate?
A move of this magnitude should have involved rigorous discussion among lawmakers, economists, and the public. Instead, it appears to have been rushed into existence without addressing its enormous risks, bypassing key procedural safeguards such as Congressional Budget Office review, legislative debate, and public hearings—critical steps designed to ensure transparency and fiscal responsibility in major government financial decisions.
Why wasn’t this discussed in Congress? Why didn’t financial conservatives raise alarms? And more importantly—who actually benefits from this fund?
The lack of transparency is alarming, and Americans deserve answers. Because when trillions of dollars are at stake, one thing is certain: this is not just another executive decision. It’s a seismic shift in the country’s financial future.
