.

The federal government is now Intel’s largest shareholder after President Donald Trump approved the 10% stake in the ailing U.S. chipmaker. The decision breaks with decades of Republican economic orthodoxy and is drawing heavy criticism from conservatives who typically support the former president.

Trump, however, insists it’s a good deal for America, one that will make the United States “richer and richer.” Trump has also suggested it’s the first of several deals he plans to do. “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,” Trump said, outlining what used to be known as industrial policy — the idea that the government should directly help design and build its large industries.

Critics are asking whether it goes too far, whether Trump’s decision amounts to socialism. After all, socialism for more than a century has partly been defined as government ownership of the means of production for the good of all. If so, Trump’s move is not so different from what goes on in China or Russia, some say.

Others on the right note the political irony. When President Barack Obama took effective control of Chrysler and General Motors during the financial crisis of 2008–2009, conservatives accepted it as a necessary, if still distressing, use of government power to keep American icons alive. But if Obama had instead taken a 10% stake in Intel, Trump’s allies say, Fox News and other conservative outlets would have railed about communism.

Trump sees it differently. He’s framing the deal as an investment, not a bailout. Trump pointed out that he turned nearly $9 billion in grants already committed to the company under President Joe Biden’s bipartisan Chips Act into equity for the U.S. government. The deal, Trump claimed, produced a gain of $10 billion to $11 billion in value immediately for the taxpayer. “Why are ‘stupid’ people unhappy with that?” he tweeted.

Conservatives Prominent say otherwise. Trump’s former top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, appeared on Fox Business and said he was “very, very uncomfortable with that idea.” Steve Moore, another informal Trump adviser, was blunter. “I hate corporate welfare. That’s privatization in reverse. We want the government to divest of assets, not buy assets. So terrible, one of the bad ideas that’s come out of this White House,” Moore tweeted.

National Review ran an editorial saying, “government shouldn’t get into the chip business.” Senator Thom Tillis went on the Senate floor to declare that it risked turning Intel into a “semi-state-owned enterprise a la CCCP,” a reference to the former Soviet Union. Senator Rand Paul made the same point on X: “Wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea.”

Defenders of the move point to the decision’s progressive supporters, such as Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders has celebrated the move as an instance of using the power of government to determine what industry looks like for the benefit of the people. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also rushed to Trump’s defense. “That is not socialism. That’s the best businessman in the United States of America in the Oval Office doing fair things for us,” Lutnick told Laura Ingraham on Fox News.

Intel is not so happy, warning in a required filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the agreement will likely limit its ability to win future government grants, hurt international sales, and expose Intel’s activities to more government regulation. The company has already been struggling; it announced plans in March to slash 15% of its workforce. Intel’s market capitalization is around $110 billion, down 50% since the beginning of the year, although the stock price jumped 4% in reaction to Trump’s announcement.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump first insisted Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan resign over his past work in China, but changed his mind after a personal meeting at the White House. “I liked him a lot, I thought he was very good,” Trump said.

Trump said the U.S. government will be a nonvoting shareholder and that Intel management would make its own business decisions. It’s unclear whether that will hold, of course. Conservatives are quick to note that when the president of the United States becomes a company’s largest shareholder, it’s hard for him not to have influence.

The success of the deal will depend on Intel stabilizing and beginning to recover. If that happens, Trump will claim it as evidence that he built up an American technology mainstay. If not, taxpayers will lose. Trump has not ruled out similar deals with other companies, openly promising to do more of them, which is why conservatives see it as such a defining test for the country’s long-term direction.

At a minimum, the decision to take a stake in Intel changes the federal government’s relationship with private business fundamentally, as well as what’s possible inside the Republican Party.