Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s State Capitalism Marks a Radical Break in U.S. Policy

Cato says Trump’s taxpayer‑funded equity buys blur the line between markets and government.

Opinion

A miniature residence of the President of the United States, the White House, against the backdrop of 100 US dollar bills.

Has Trump shifted America toward state capitalism? Examine government ownership in 28 companies, taxpayer-funded investments, and concerns over creeping socialism.

Max Zolotukhin / Getty Images

In 17 months of President Trump’s second term, he has overseen the U.S. government using taxpayer money to purchase equity stakes in 14 private and 14 publicly held companies. Over the USA’s 250 years, this is—by far—the most significant change in American economic policymaking.

The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, characterized Trump’s economic environment as state capitalism and a stepping stone toward what they refer to as “creeping socialism.” Cato’s Aug. 28, 2025 report notes, “Trump’s state capitalism – a hybrid between socialism and capitalism – won’t make America great again.”


The practice of the U.S. government owning stakes in firms has raised concerns about the executive branch trying to “pick winners.” Additionally, it creates a conflict of interest between the government’s role as a regulator and a shareholder and the politicization of corporate decision-making.

Analyzing whether Trump’s economic-related policies signal a shift toward state capitalism or socialism requires comparing his actions to modern-day presidential history and the underlying political dynamics.

1980s-2000 economic assistance

During the 1980s-2000 period, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton were highly reluctant to engage in direct ownership of companies. The first of two exceptions occurred in 1987 when America faced technology competition from Japan. To address this issue, the Reagan administration helped fund a public-private research consortium (SEMATECH), and the government did not take any stock ownership. Next, in 1989, the George H.W. Bush administration created the Resolution Trust Corporation to manage and liquidate 747 failed and insolvent savings and loan associations.

2001-2016 presidential era

During the 2008 financial crisis, the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations used the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to take equity stakes in major banks, automakers, and insurance companies. This was structured explicitly as a temporary bailout, with liquidation as soon as the respective markets stabilized.

2021-2024 industrial policy

There was bipartisan congressional support for the Joe Biden administration to invoke the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which gave subsidies to semiconductor and green energy manufacturers. The funds were structured as grants, tax credits, and loans versus direct stock ownership.

2025-present

Upon taking office on Jan. 20, 2025, the Trump 2.0 administration shifted America from temporary emergency industry bailouts to a proactive form of state intervention and “creeping socialism.” Using taxpayer funds, the administration has expanded its portfolio to include stakes in 28 companies.

Privately owned companies with U.S. economic ownership

The following lists privately owned companies, private subsidiaries, or private joint-enterprise structures in which the Trump 2.0 administration has used taxpayer supported funds to acquire a financial stake: 1) USA Rare Earth, 2) Vulcan Elements, 3) ReElement Technologies, 4) Atlantic Alumina Company, LLC, 5) L3Harris Technologies – Missile Solutions Unit, 6) Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 7) Quantinuum, 8) PsiQuantum, 9) Atom Computing, 10) Quantum Technology Solutions, 11) Anderon, 12) xLight Inc., 13) Diraq and 14) Crucible Metals, LLC.

Ownership in publicly held companies

Six semiconductor and advanced tech firms with USA direct equity stake (stock symbol is noted) include: 1) Intel Corporation (INTC), 2) IBM (IBM), 3) GlobalFoundries Inc. (GFS), 4) Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI), 5) Coherent Corporation (COHR) and 6) MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings (MTSI).

America now has a share in these quantum computing firms: 1) Rigetti Computing, Inc. (RGTI), 2) D-Wave Quantum Inc. (QBTS), and 3) Infleqtion (INFQ).

In the minerals and automotive supply chain area, U.S. stockholding exists as follows: 1) 5% ownership in Lithium Americas Corporation (LAC), 2) 10% capital stock in Trilogy Metals Inc. (TMQ), and 3) 15% stake in MP Materials Corporation (MP).

There are two other uniquely structured companies with U.S. ownership: 1) a direct equity stake of up to 20% to help Westinghouse Electric Company build a multi-billion-dollar network of domestic nuclear reactors, and 2) a “Golden Share” of U.S. Steel Corporation (X), giving the executive branch direct corporate governance rights and a seat on the corporate board.

Taxpayer alert and Congressional oversight

No one can deny that the Trump 2.0 administration has made a direct pivot toward a state-directed economic environment. There are two things Americans and Congress need to reflect upon. First, a Dec., 2025 YouGov/Economist poll of Americans found capitalism remains the overwhelmingly preferred economic system, and only 21% prefer socialism.

Secondly, many countries have struggled and been harmed by state capitalism because it often leads to corruption, inefficiency, and poorly managed resources. Well-known examples include Algeria, Brazil, China, India, the Soviet Union, and Venezuela—nations the U.S. should avoid emulating.

The conservative Cato Institute’s observation that Trump has created state capitalism and a stepping stone toward socialism is alarming. America’s economic stance from 1776 until 2025 was quite rewarding; we’re now in dangerous territory.

Congress’s passive stance during Trump’s economic upheaval brings to mind Plato’s famous adage: “silence gives consent.” A return to rigorous, bipartisan congressional oversight is long overdue.


Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa and a non-paid freelance guest columnist contributor to 158 newspapers and 47 social media platforms in 44 states.


Read More

Person holds a check from the U.S. Treasury Department.

As America debates Social Security and federal spending, older adults face rising costs and financial insecurity. Here's why retirement policy affects every generation.

MargJohnsonVA/Getty Images

We Will All Grow Old Someday

America is debating budgets, taxes, deficits, and spending priorities. Those discussions are necessary. But amid the political arguments, we cannot lose sight of a simple truth: every budget reflects our values.

Nearly every American hopes to grow old. Yet growing old with dignity has become increasingly difficult for many seniors living on fixed incomes. Rising housing costs, groceries, utilities, insurance premiums, and prescription drug expenses continue to strain household budgets. For many older adults, retirement is no longer a season of security but one of constant financial calculation.

Keep ReadingShow less
Empty money in wallet.

What does it mean to be the working poor? Explore the gap between poverty and a living wage, why millions of working Americans struggle, and solutions to reduce economic inequality.

photobyphotoboy/Getty Images

The Concept of the “Working Poor” Should Be Unacceptable

What does the phrase "working poor" mean? The first point is that you are working; you have a regular job—you aren't working catch as catch can; you are employed. But despite working, you are poor. What does it mean to be poor? It turns out that "poor” means different things depending on what standard you apply.

Some definitions seem rooted in the old institution of the poorhouse, which was a home for paupers. Thus, dictionary.com defines “poor” as having little or no money or other means of support. To me, that’s the definition of being destitute, not poor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman holding out an empty wallet at a table.

Many Americans wrongly associate poverty primarily with Black and Hispanic communities. Explore how this misconception influences public opinion, politics, and anti-poverty policy.

skaman306 / Getty Images

More Whites Live in Poverty than Either Blacks or Hispanics - Correcting the Perception of Poverty

From observing people and politicians over the years—I can find no data on this—I have the impression that liberals as well as conservatives think that the typical person living in poverty is Black or Hispanic. The image most Whites have of people of color is someone who is poor—except for celebrities—with little education; they are not aware of many people of color who are middle class. On the other hand, they are not aware of many Whites who are poor and so they think their number is low.

Why is the perception of poverty important? The perception of who is poor has significant impact on the support for government programs that aid the poor. Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “Whether the Issue is Gun Violence or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is non-existent among MAGA Republicans and for that matter has always been weak among Republicans; 45% of Republicans would even cut food stamp support. Their attitude is "it's your fault;" so government has no responsibility to help. They feel the causes of poverty are personal: bad life choices, drugs, lack of work ethic, and the breakdown of families—all negative perceptions of Black culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress at sunset

America's national debt is projected to reach $45 trillion by 2029. Explore Congress's constitutional "Power of the Purse," federal spending, appropriations, and the policies contributing to rising deficits.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Congress Must Enforce the Power of the Purse as Debt Soars

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (Appropriations Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, U.S. Constitution). Congress’s “Power of the Purse” means the President cannot spend money or authorize expenditures unless Congress has passed a specific law funding it (Congress.gov).

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the total federal debt held by Americans is on track to hit $40 trillion by the end of 2026. Currently, every resident in America carries a $122,642 share of this debt.

Keep ReadingShow less