A socialist government?: The controversy in the US for Trump's decision to buy a part of the Intel chips company

Trump's measure is generating this type of criticism because it breaks with the American tradition and conservative orthodoxy of a limited, less interventionist government. And some economists warn that their promise to help companies that negotiate with the US government increases the potential for corruption and market inefficiencies.

“We are observing that investment decisions will have to be made based on politics and not the economy,” said Tad Dehaven, an economic policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research center.

“This is to inject the government directly into the life and soul of the decision making of a huge corporation,” he added.

While Trump ensures that the US paid “zero” for the approximate equivalent to US $ 9,000 million Intel shares without the right to vote, the transaction was far from being free.

The US converted the default construction subsidies contemplated in the 2023 chips act – a legislation aimed at promoting the national manufacture of semiconductors – in Intel actions.

Trump's actions are not completely unprecedented.

During the 2009 financial crisis, the US partially took part of the General Motors automaker, and Citigroup and AIG financial corporations to avoid the collapse of those companies.

These interventions were justified by Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama as emergency measures temporarily taken to avoid an economic collapse of national scale.

Although Trump's government explains Intel's measure as a decision taken to protect an industrialist that is vital for national security – logical environment behind the president's decisions to impose sanctions, deploy the National Guard in US cities and replace theoretically independent public officials – the legality of his action is based on guarantees with little external supervision.

“This is not really about strengthening Intel, it is about taking control over it and perhaps making more money,” said Robert Atkinson, president of the Foundation of Computer Technology and Innovation.

If having state assets in private companies is an unusual maneuver for the US government, that is not exactly weird in other parts. China and Russia invest strongly in their national companies. Even European democracies have a story of supporting what they consider as key industries, such as aerospace, communications and energy.

On Tuesday, US Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, outlined a similar strategy, commenting that the US is considering acquiring actions in defense contractor and ammunition companies.

“Lockheed Martin receives 97% of its federal government income,” he said. “If we are adding fundamental value to your business, I think it is fair that Donald Trump think of the American people.”

Another Trump economic advisor, Kevin Hassett, suggested a more extensive plan: that this type of government interventions are the first step towards the creation of a sovereign investment fund.

The president has frequently praised the investment funds led by other nations, such as China and the Gulf monarchies, as effective means to generate income for the government.

While he has not pressed to Congress to formally authorize the creation of a US Fund, the Investment Model in Intel could offer an alternative route without the supervision and regulation that would accompany a legislative act.

“I am sure that at some point there will be more transactions, if not in this industry, in others,” Hasset predicted.

The “Gold Action” of the Government in the Us Steel steel company that was negotiated as part of the company's Japanese purchase, the slice of earnings in early sales of Nvidia and AMD microchips to China, and the promise of foreign investment in US industries could contribute more active for said fund.

“South Korea will deliver US $ 350,000 million to the United States for investments that are property and are controlled by the United States and selected by me, as president,” Trump wrote in Truth Social last month.

Although Trump frequently boasts his skills to negotiate and his financial knowledge, Richard Stern, of the Heritage Foundation Conservative Research Center, said that the control of the State rarely equals the result of the capitalist free market.

“Even when I am the biggest genius of the businesses that ever existed, the truth is that part of what does so successful business is that the people involved are specialists. They know that business, that product, that field,” Stern said.

“No human being can be universally perfect in the management of every business of every industry on the planet,” he concluded.

Until now, very few Republican politicians – including those in Congress, who could affirm their authority to supervise – have ruled against the new interest of the president in capitalism administered by the State.

Kentucky's Senator Rand Paul, an occasional critic of Trump, is the remarkable exception.

“If socialism is for the government to take over the means of production” – he wrote in X- “Wouldn't it be a step towards socialism that the government has part of Intel?

As if to reiterate that argument, Vermont Bernie Sanders senator – a socialist declared – offered Trump's measured words.

“If microchips companies receive profits from the generous subsidies they receive from the federal government,” said the former presidential candidate in a statement, “US taxpayers are entitled to a reasonable revenue of their investment.”

The perspective that the economic power that Trump is accumulating with these recent measures can be soft for a future Democratic president is another of the reasons why they feel uncomfortable.

“Is there anyone who believes that it will be still while the government has 10% of assets in Intel and does not have something to say about Intel's policies about green technology, diversity, corporate responsibility, and so on?” Dehaven asked.

That does not seem to have dissuaded Trump, whose efforts can be part of a greater strategy or simply the enthusiasm of a businessman to get where he can, is directing the government's investments, suggesting Coca-Cola to change the formula of his soda or recommending Cracker Barrel (the traditional southern food restaurants) that reverses his old logotype.

“Everyone is rushing with the isms; corporatism, socialism, state capitalism,” said Dehaven. “In the end, it is Trumpism.”

Subscribe here To our new newsletter to receive every Friday a selection of our best content of the week.

And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download the latest version and act.