U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that he wants to increase investment in healthy U.S. companies.
The White House announced on Friday that it had taken a nearly 10% stake in chipmaker Intel (INTC.O), converting government grants into an equity share.
Trump doubled down on the idea of similar deals in other sectors, telling reporters at the White House: “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it.”
The move marks a sharp departure from decades of U.S. economic policy, where the government only took corporate stakes in rare emergencies, such as during the 2008 global financial crisis and the bailout of U.S. automakers. While Intel is currently struggling, it still has a cash cushion of $9 billion and a market value of $105 billion.
To critics, the Intel deal alongside White House pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, its use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, and its involvement in mergers threatens the agility of U.S. businesses.
“We’re moving from a pure capitalistic economy to a much more state-engaged economy… That’s a huge change for America. I’ve never seen an era like this,” said Bill George, former Medtronic CEO and Harvard Business School fellow.
In a social media post on Monday, Trump said he would support companies that strike similar “lucrative” deals with U.S. states but gave no further details.
Columbia Business School professor Shivaram Rajgopal said the Intel stake could be justified as strategic industrial support, comparing it to Amazon’s long-standing advantage of not collecting sales tax in many states. “That enabled Amazon to become a giant. Why is taking a 10% equity stake in Intel any worse?” he argued.
Still, risks are apparent. In a regulatory filing on Monday, Intel warned that the government’s investment could harm international sales, complicate future access to grants, or subject it to new restrictions abroad.
In a video released by the Commerce Department, Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan remarked: “I don’t need the grant, but I really look forward to having the U.S. government be my shareholder.”
Some Republicans criticised the move, with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky calling it a “terrible idea.”
“If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?” he asked.
Analysts also questioned the downstream effects. “Is it conceivable that as part of something like this the administration might ‘encourage’ customers to use Intel’s capacity?” Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon wrote in a note.
Expanding Beyond Chips
Trump’s involvement is not limited to Intel. The White House previously intervened in the purchase of U.S. Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel, securing what Trump described as a “golden share.” It has also taken stakes in MP Materials (MP.N), and brokered deals with Nvidia (NVDA.O) and AMD to take a share of revenue from chip sales to China that were once prohibited.
According to White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett, similar investments in other industries may follow.
Douglas Chia, an independent governance consultant, warned that the approach risks transforming publicly held companies into “state-controlled enterprises whenever the government feels like it, using ‘national security’ as justification.”
Trump’s Influence on Corporate America
Trump’s hands-on involvement extends into unexpected areas. He applauded American Eagle’s controversial ad campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney, suggested Goldman Sachs dismiss an economist, and criticised Apple’s production shift to India despite the company’s $600 billion U.S. investment plans.
“The president of the United States is telling Goldman Sachs they should fire an employee? That’s crazy,” said Nell Minow, chair of ValueEdge Advisors.
Numerous CEOs have continued to meet with Trump since his re-election in November 2024, although industry representatives say they are sometimes blindsided particularly on trade, where heavy tariffs have frustrated retailers.
Apple CEO Tim Cook recently presented Trump with a gold-plated plaque during a White House meeting. Despite its $3 trillion valuation and efforts to shift production away from China, Apple has been pressed by Trump to consider manufacturing smartphones domestically—despite the U.S. lacking sufficient production capacity.
“I think companies are just starting to realize how much control and ownership they are willing to give up to the government,” Harvard’s George concluded.
