.

The federal government is now Intel’s largest shareholder, after President Donald Trump greenlit a 10% stake in the flailing American chipmaker. The decision departs from Republican economic orthodoxy dramatically, and has drawn criticism from conservatives who otherwise support the president.

Trump, however, has suggested it was a savvy investment. “We’re going to be richer and richer,” he told reporters. “This is the first one,” Trump continued. “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it. We’ve taken it down to a fine art.”

To many, that sounds an awful lot like what economists used to call industrial policy, in which governments shape and subsidize key industries. The question for conservatives, liberals, and moderates alike: Is it socialism? For generations of Americans, socialism has been defined at least in part as the government seizing the “means of production” on behalf of “the people.” By that definition, Trump’s decision is not all that different from what happens in places like China or Russia.

The political contrast is pungent. When former President Barack Obama moved to seize Chrysler and General Motors during the 2008–2009 financial crisis, Republicans branded it an emergency step to save iconic American companies from destruction. Obama tried to sell the public on it by saying the government would be a temporary shareholder and exit as soon as possible. Yet had Obama taken a 10% stake in Intel, Trump allies say, Breitbart and Fox would have accused him of instituting communism.

Trump sees it as a crucial difference. The Intel stake is an investment, not a bailout, he has argued. He also points out that he turned nearly $9 billion in grants — money the company would have gotten from the government under President Joe Biden’s bipartisan Chips Act anyway — into equity for the U.S. taxpayer. In this way, Trump has claimed, the deal created $10 billion to $11 billion in value for the government immediately. “Why are ‘stupid’ people unhappy with that?” he has asked.

GOP Critics, White House Spin

The Intel decision has provoked a backlash from leading conservatives. Trump’s top economic adviser at the time, Larry Kudlow, said on Fox Business that he was “very, very uncomfortable with that idea.” Steve Moore, another informal Trump adviser, was harsher still: “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.”

The conservative magazine National Review published an editorial declaring that “government shouldn’t get into the chip business.” Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, said the deal risked creating “a semi-state-owned enterprise a la CCCP,” an acronym for the Soviet Union. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted: “Wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea.”

Not all conservatives are opposed. Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was fulsome in his praise, for example. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appeared on Laura Ingraham’s show to defend the move as well, telling her, “That is not socialism. That’s the best businessman in the United States of America in the Oval Office doing fair things for us.”

Intel, for its part, has flagged trouble. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said the deal could “limit our ability to participate in future federal and state grants or other government funding programs,” hurt global sales, and lead to “increased government oversight and regulation of our business.” Intel has already struggled this year, announcing plans to lay off 15% of the workforce. Shares of the company were trading at around $110 billion as of publication, down 50% since the start of the year. They did rise 4% immediately following Trump’s announcement.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump initially demanded Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan’s resignation over past China ties, and then rescinded the order after a personal White House meeting. “I liked him a lot, I thought he was very good,” Trump said.

The U.S. government has committed to being a non-voting shareholder in Intel, and Trump has disavowed any interference with its management. But when the president of the United States is also your largest shareholder, influence is hard to avoid. If Intel rights the ship, Trump can claim credit for the central pillar of American technology; if it sinks, taxpayers will pick up the bill. And if Trump keeps his promise to pursue more arrangements like this one, the question of whether this is socialism, or capitalism, or just Trumpism may become a moot point.

At the least, it marks a sharp new phase in relations between the federal government and private business, and one that underlines how far Trump has broken the Republican Party’s traditional economic philosophy.