Should the U.S. create a sovereign wealth fund?

Economists and business leaders debate the merits of the Trump administration's proposal to create a sovereign wealth fund, similar to those of nations in the Middle East, Europe and Asia.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to create a sovereign wealth fund, similar to those of nations in the Middle East, Europe and Asia.

The funds, which typically use surplus wealth, operate by making direct investments (like stock, bonds, real estate, equity funds, etc.) with government dollars.

Several states, such as Utah and New Mexico, have sovereign funds as a way to invest surplus money, usually from gas production.

Critics of the plan say the U.S. is operating at a deficit and the normal way a sovereign wealth fund works is not applicable. Trump said funding could come from tariffs, and the fund could be used for infrastructure projects and manufacturing.

So, should the U.S. create a sovereign wealth fund? Let’s ask the Econometer panel.

Economists

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: A sovereign wealth fund does not make sense in a country with $36 trillion in federal debt. SWFs are typically used to protect natural resource wealth for future generations. For example, the Norwegian SWF provides the government with a stable stream of income despite volatile oil revenue. Corruption tends to run rife in SWFs, so a viable fund would require good governance and distance from politicians—challenging even in the best of times.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

YES: What a genius idea, invest rather than balancing our national checkbook? Maybe, after we take possession, we can sell Greenland and the Panama Canal to the Chinese or Norway sovereign wealth funds to the start our own fund, in case the tariffs are needed to pay interest on our debt? We can put the money into Dogecoin, Melania-Meme-Coin, or DJT stock and then use the gains in a few years to pay off the national debt. (Sarcasm noted)

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: A U.S. sovereign wealth fund risks elevating political interference in the private sector. Investments could be directed toward industries and firms favored by political leaders with influence over investing decisions. This interference could weaken the U.S. economy and harm competitors of the firms receiving support. There is also the challenge of funding a SWF given that the federal government operates with a deficit. Resources would need to be redirected to fund this proposed entity.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Government, the nation’s largest bureaucracy, is massively inefficient running investment funding for research and development. Businesses must earn revenue by successfully conducting voluntary transactions with customers. Government confiscates revenue from those who produce and gives to those who don’t. Innovation and bureaucracy rarely, if ever, go together. Profitable competition stimulates innovation, but centralizing government stifles competition. Moreover, government financing lessens private investment, and makes it much less reliable to objectively perceive benefits for basic research than entrepreneurs.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

NO: Sovereign wealth funds are usually done when there is a government surplus. The U.S. currently has a huge deficit which could increase if the tax cuts due to expire are extended. If the federal government wants to spend more on infrastructure or other targeted areas, it can do so with legislation, as was done with the previous administration. This gets close to the realm of industrial policy, which conservatives have opposed in the past.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: The federal government doesn’t have any wealth to invest. The U.S. Treasury currently owes the public almost $29 trillion dollars. To create a sovereign fund, the government would need to borrow even more. The incentives to invest in projects that reward the president’s supporters are overwhelming. As a result, the fund would likely lose money. Republicans who like the idea should remember that some day Democrats will be back in power and directing the investments.

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: With all of the disruption going on in Washington now the last thing the country needs is a rushed through program that even administration officials do not know how it will operate or be funded. The president’s answer of funded by “tariffs and other intelligent things” is not enough to show any thought is being put into this idea.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: To be sure, the creation of a fund will likely not move the needle one way or another and will be funded with more debt on top of an already-massive debt load. But, if the fund were used to make investments in strategic interests that further the United States, such a fund could better position and protect our country.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

YES: A U.S. sovereign wealth fund could stabilize government finances, support programs like education and retirement, and save for future generations. Many countries, including China and Norway, and states like Alaska, already benefit from such funds. However, financing remains a challenge for the U.S., especially given the current budget deficit. Unlike oil-rich nations, the U.S. would need to