Trump’s Intel Stake Sparks GOP Socialism Criticism Amid Bold Deals/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Donald Trump’s decision to secure a 10% U.S. government stake in Intel has ignited Republican criticism, with some calling it “socialism.” Trump insists the move benefits taxpayers and vows more similar deals, potentially targeting defense contractors. Critics warn the strategy risks politicizing corporate decisions and undermining free-market principles.
Trump’s Intel Stake Sparks GOP Socialism Criticism Quick Looks
- U.S. gained a 10% Intel stake by converting $11.1 billion in subsidies.
- Trump celebrated the deal as a taxpayer victory and job creator.
- Republicans, including Rand Paul, called the move “a step toward socialism.”
- Intel warned of possible global customer loss due to U.S. ownership.
- Trump hints at targeting defense contractors and forming a sovereign wealth fund.
- Support from Bernie Sanders underscores irony in GOP pushback.
Trump’s Intel Stake Sparks GOP Socialism Criticism Amid Bold Deals
Deep Look
President Donald Trump is defending his administration’s unprecedented move to take a 10% ownership stake in Intel, despite fierce backlash from within his own Republican Party. Critics have branded the deal — which converted billions in federal funding into equity — as a step toward “socialism,” a charge long associated with Democrats and one that Trump himself has often wielded against his political rivals.
Writing on Truth Social, Trump dismissed critics and hinted at more deals to come. “I will make deals like that for our Country all day long,” he wrote, later adding, “I want to try and get as much as I can.” His message signals a larger shift in U.S. economic policy, with the government taking a direct stake in corporate giants it views as vital to national security.
The Intel Deal and Its Fallout
The U.S. stake in Intel makes Washington one of the chipmaker’s largest shareholders. Trump has argued the deal cost nothing, since the $11.1 billion in question came from previously pledged CHIPS Act subsidies. After the announcement, Intel’s stock briefly rose before dipping again, reflecting investor unease.
Intel itself issued a warning to investors that some overseas buyers may avoid dealing with a company partly owned by the U.S. government. Already struggling after missing out on the artificial intelligence chip boom, Intel has lost more than $22 billion since 2023.
Analysts worry political influence could skew Intel’s decisions. Scott Lincicome of the libertarian Cato Institute suggested Intel may now prioritize projects favored by Trump — such as a long-promised Ohio factory — even if such moves aren’t financially viable.
“Innovation requires ruthless competition,” he said. “Now they might accept a disadvantage because they need the political win.”
GOP Divisions and Charges of Hypocrisy
Trump’s intervention has left many Republicans struggling to defend free-market orthodoxy.
Sen. Rand Paul declared the deal “a terrible idea,” warning it resembled government control of the means of production.
Sen. Thom Tillis pressed colleagues on the inconsistency: “How does this reconcile with true conservatism and true free-market capitalism?”
Still, many GOP leaders have remained silent, fueling accusations of selective outrage given Trump’s longstanding interventions in business. He has pressured Apple to manufacture iPhones domestically, warned Walmart against raising prices, and even demanded a cut of Nvidia’s chip sales to China.
A Pattern of Direct Government Stakes
The Intel stake is not an isolated event. Over the past year, Trump has taken steps that intertwine government finances with corporate fortunes:
- Approved Nippon Steel’s takeover of U.S. Steel in exchange for a “golden share” granting Washington veto power over strategic decisions.
- Spent $400 million on shares of MP Materials, making the U.S. government the largest shareholder in the rare earths company.
- Brokered deals with Nvidia and AMD that give Washington 15% of revenues from select chip sales to China.
A White House official, speaking anonymously, described these moves as “one-offs” justified by national security concerns. The official compared them to export restrictions on fighter jets, which also break with strict free-market rules.
Yet conservative commentators see a dangerous precedent. Radio host Erick Erickson called the Intel stake “a paradigm shift toward socialism,” echoing concerns that Washington is moving beyond oversight into ownership.
What Comes Next?
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has hinted that defense contractors could be the next targets of government equity deals, noting that Washington already provides billions in contracts to such firms. Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, suggested the administration is considering a sovereign wealth fund — essentially a government-run investment portfolio spanning multiple industries.
That possibility could mark a historic departure from traditional U.S. economic policy, aligning America more closely with nations like Norway, Singapore, or China that use sovereign wealth to control assets.
Unlikely Praise from the Left
In a twist of political irony, Sen. Bernie Sanders, a longtime critic of corporate subsidies, voiced rare support for Trump’s Intel deal.
“Taxpayers should not be providing billions of dollars in corporate welfare … without getting anything in return,” Sanders said. He argued that equity stakes ensure taxpayers receive a fair share of profits, a stance aligning him with Trump — if only temporarily.
The Bigger Picture
Trump’s embrace of state ownership marks a dramatic redefinition of Republican economic policy. For decades, GOP leaders preached free markets, minimal government intervention, and corporate independence. But Trump’s actions suggest a new model: targeted government stakes in companies deemed too important to national security to fail.
The gamble could pay off if Intel and other firms thrive, turning taxpayer-funded subsidies into profitable investments. But if stock values falter or companies suffer from political interference, taxpayers could be left holding the losses.
For now, Trump appears undeterred by accusations of socialism. Instead, he has signaled his administration will continue striking deals, blurring the lines between public policy and private enterprise — and challenging his party to reconcile free-market ideology with a president who believes government should act as both regulator and shareholder.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.