.

The federal government officially became Intel’s largest shareholder on Thursday after President Donald Trump approved a 10% stake in the ailing American chipmaker. The move represents a significant break from decades of Republican economic orthodoxy and has drawn criticism from conservatives who otherwise support the president.

Trump has argued, though, that the deal is a smart investment that will make the United States “richer and richer.” He has also suggested that Intel is just the first of many such moves to come: “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,” Trump said, signaling a new approach that would see the federal government more closely directing and backing major industries in a way that was once called industrial policy.

Will this be called Socialism? 70 years of “academics” have defined Socialism as government ownership or control of the means of production for the purpose of serving society. Therefore, by that definition, Trump has crossed the line by investing in Intel. The definition of capitalism requires minimal interference from government. As for private business in America, they have been begging for help from Washington. To me, there is no difference between this and what happens in Russia and China.

The move is a political irony that is not lost on observers: Former President Barack Obama’s decision to seize control of Chrysler and General Motors during the 2008–2009 financial crisis was characterized by conservatives as a necessary evil to rescue storied American companies from ruin. If Obama had taken a 10% stake in Intel, Trump allies say, the conservative media would have accused him of embracing communism.

The president argues that this is not a bailout, but an investment. Trump converted nearly $9 billion in grants, money that Intel was already due from the government under President Joe Biden’s bipartisan Chips Act, into equity for the U.S. government. Trump has said he used that deal to produce $10 billion to $11 billion in immediate value for taxpayers. “Why are ‘stupid’ people unhappy with that?” the former president asked.

Prominent conservatives have pounced. Larry Kudlow, Trump’s former top economic adviser, said on Fox Business that he was “very, very uncomfortable with that idea.” Steve Moore, another informal adviser, was more pointed: “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.”

National Review published an editorial warning, “government shouldn’t get into the chip business.” Senator Thom Tillis called the deal an “alarming move,” saying it risks creating a “semi-state-owned enterprise a la CCCP.” (The Soviet Union.) Senator Rand Paul later retweeted Tillis’s warning, adding: “Wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea.”

The company itself has warned that the deal might have negative consequences: In a required SEC filing on Wednesday, Intel warned that the arrangement could hurt its ability to obtain future government grants, its global sales, and subject it to heavier regulation. Intel is already in trouble: Earlier this year, the company said it planned to lay off 15% of its workforce. The company is worth about $110 billion on the markets, though its shares are down 50% so far in 2024, and shot up 4% in immediate response to Trump’s announcement.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had initially demanded the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan over past ties to China, only changing his mind after a personal meeting at the White House. “I liked him a lot, I thought he was very good,” Trump said afterward.

Although Trump’s deal stipulates that the U.S. government will be a non-voting shareholder in Intel and does not have a seat on its board, skeptics of the deal say that the moment the president of the United States becomes a company’s largest shareholder, that influence is inevitable.

If Intel right the ship, Trump will take credit for shoring up a pillar of the American tech industry. If it sinks further, the taxpayers will pay the price. But with Trump promising future moves of this nature out loud, the question of whether the Intel deal is socialism, capitalism, or simply Trumpism will only get louder.

At the very least, it marks a fundamental break in the relationship between the federal government and private business — and underscores just how far Trump has transformed the Republican Party’s approach to economic policy.