.

The U.S. government is officially Intel’s largest shareholder after President Donald Trump decided to claim a 10% stake in the ailing American chipmaker. In a move long-unthinkable among Republicans, Trump went against traditional conservative economic policy and drew ire from conservatives who are otherwise loyal to the president.

Trump, for his part, has argued that the deal is a good investment that would make the U.S. “richer and richer,” and has suggested Intel is just the start of a wider initiative. “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,” the president told reporters, while also characterizing his move as part of an effort to reindustrialize the country. “That’s called INDUSTRIAL POLICY!” Trump tweeted. The comment has sent many wondering aloud if Trump’s decision goes as far as socialism.

For generations, one definition of socialism has involved the state ownership of the means of production for the benefit of all society. By that definition, some say Trump is no different from China or Russia.

The political hypocrisy, if it can be called that, has not been lost on either critics or the White House. When Barack Obama took control of Chrysler and General Motors in the last years of the 2008–2009 financial crisis, conservatives said it was a necessary emergency move to stave off the destruction of two American icons. Had Obama taken a 10% stake in Intel, Trump allies say, Fox News and others would have said he had gone communist.

Trump claims the case is different, that what he did with Intel was not a bailout but an investment. The former president noted that he converted $9 billion in grants to the company (already awarded by President Joe Biden under his bipartisan Chips Act) into equity for the U.S. government. “Now we own 10% of a very important company,” Trump said. Trump said the deal created $10 billion to $11 billion in immediate value for taxpayers. “Why are ‘stupid’ people unhappy with that?” Trump asked.

Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, a Fox Business host, said he was “very, very uncomfortable with that idea.” Trump’s informal economic adviser Steve Moore was more direct: “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 National Review editorialized: “government shouldn’t get into the chip business.” Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) sounded the alarm, tweeting that the deal risks creating a “semi-state-owned enterprise a la CCCP” (the former Soviet Union). Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made the point on X: “Wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea.”

Liberal Senator Bernie Sanders, for one, celebrated the deal, but others have not rushed to Trump’s defense. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, however, came to his former business school classmate’s aid, telling Laura Ingraham, “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, too, has warned in a required SEC filing that the deal would have several negative impacts on the company. It could prevent future government grants and investment from the company, damage Intel’s sales abroad, and increase the government’s scrutiny of its business. Intel is already reeling, having announced a 15% workforce reduction earlier this year. The company is worth around $110 billion as of Wednesday evening, down 50% this year, but its stock price did increase by 4% immediately following Trump’s announcement.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Trump also initially demanded the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan over his past work with China. The president changed his mind after personally meeting with Tan at the White House. “I liked him a lot, I thought he was very good,” Trump said afterwards.

Critics note that while the U.S. government is a non-voting shareholder, that won’t matter if the president of the United States is the largest shareholder in a company. The arrangement will be looked at skeptically by other governments, investors, and customers, according to the editorial in National Review.

If Intel’s stock rises and its business improves, Trump will be able to take credit for saving a pillar of American industry and technology. But if Intel’s business continues to suffer, the American taxpayer will be footing the bill. Trump has promised more of these deals in the future, so if it’s not socialism, the question remains: Is it capitalism? Or is it Trumpism?

At the very least, the Intel stake is a fundamental shift in the way the federal government does business with the private sector, and shows just how Trump has upended the Republican Party’s entire approach to economic policy.