.

In an executive order last week, President Donald Trump effectively made the federal government the largest shareholder in Intel, after approving a 10% stake in the beleaguered American chipmaker.

The move, a dramatic break from decades of Republican economic orthodoxy, has drawn blistering criticism from conservatives who usually support Trump. At the same time, the president has cast it as a brilliant deal that will make America “richer and richer” and suggested Intel could just be the start. “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,” Trump said.

Such an approach to government support for industry, which is likely to become a central part of the new Republican agenda if Trump is elected, harkens back to a term many economists disdained: industrial policy. Put simply, industrial policy represents a departure from conservative economic principles and the public hand in the means of production.

It’s raised the question: Is the deal socialist? Socialism has historically been described as government ownership of the means of production for the collective benefit of society. By that definition, Trump’s move was “exactly like what China or Russia would do,” as some critics pointed out on social media.

For what it’s worth, the political dynamic here is richly ironic. As the New York Times noted, former President Barack Obama’s effort to seize control of Chrysler and General Motors in 2008–2009 was widely seen at the time among conservatives as an existential threat to the American company (never mind that the move didn’t technically “nationalize” the automakers).

And yet if Obama had taken a 10% stake in Intel instead, Trump’s allies in conservative media would have condemned him for waging class warfare and leading the country down the road to communism.

Trump’s different, and that’s the point. In his telling, the Intel stake is an investment, not a bailout. He noted that he converted “almost $9 billion in grants” (grants that were already going to the company from the government via President Joe Biden’s bipartisan Chips Act) into equity for the U.S. government. With the Trump conversion, he said the federal government got $10 billion to $11 billion in value for taxpayers “right now, immediately.”

“Why are ‘stupid’ people unhappy with that?” he continued.

Conservative critics of the move, including Trump’s former economic advisers, were not buying it. “I was very, very uncomfortable with that idea,” said Larry Kudlow on Fox Business. Steve Moore, another informal adviser, was even more scathing: “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 put out an editorial warning that “government shouldn’t get into the chip business.” Senator Thom Tillis sounded the alarm that the deal risked creating a “semi-state-owned enterprise a la CCCP,” a reference to the old Soviet Union. Senator Rand Paul weighed in, too: “Wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea,” he wrote on X.

Intel, for its part, has warned that Trump’s move could complicate its ability to qualify for future government grants, limit global sales, and result in the company becoming more regulated in the future. In a required SEC filing last week, Intel warned: “These actions could harm our reputation and the market price of our common stock. They could also limit our ability to obtain funding under current and future government grants.” The struggling company, which announced earlier this year it would lay off 15% of its workforce, has a market valuation of roughly $110 billion. That’s down 50% so far in 2024, though its stock did rise by 4% right after Trump’s announcement.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Trump had initially insisted Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan resign over past ties to China, before relenting after a White House sit-down with the CEO. “I liked him a lot, I thought he was very good,” Trump said.

While Trump has said the U.S. government will not have any voting rights on Intel’s board and will stay out of its business decisions, the fact remains that if the president of the United States is also your largest shareholder, you will likely hear from him. If Intel rights itself and thrives, Trump will argue he strengthened American tech. If it languishes or loses more market share, American taxpayers could be left to foot the bill. Trump has promised more such deals, so the question of whether this is socialism or capitalism, or simply Trumpism, is far from settled.

One thing, at least, seems clear: The Intel stake is a historic shift in the relationship between the federal government and the private sector, and one that highlights just how Trump has upended the Republican Party’s understanding of economic policy.