President Trump arranged to convert part of a CHIPS and Science Act grant into a 10 percent equity stake in Intel, a deal that the author says is consistent with a series of government interventions in industry. The article recounts earlier actions: a so-called golden share provision in the Nippon-U.S. Steel merger giving the government control over plant decisions, the Pentagon’s purchase of a 15 percent stake in rare-earth miner MP Minerals, and Trump’s intervention in chip exports—initially blocking Nvidia sales to China on national security grounds, then permitting sales while seeking a 15 percent cut of revenues, a demand reportedly imposed on Advanced Micro Devices as well. Senator Bernie Sanders praised the Intel arrangement, while Senator Elizabeth Warren withheld endorsement and argued for a more comprehensive strategy to limit buybacks and secure onshore jobs.
The author contends these policies are not democratic socialism but fascist corporatism. He notes legal and procedural concerns about a president converting grant terms into direct equity without further legislation, and about imposing ad hoc economic terms such as commissions on chip sales. The piece highlights elements the author views as authoritarian: loyalty tests imposed on hundreds of corporations, contractual language in other deals that names Trump directly, and a reported episode in which Trump tried to force Intel’s chief executive from office. The article frames those actions as personalizing and politicizing corporate governance in ways associated historically with fascist regimes rather than democratic, rule-bound socialism.
Beyond immediate legality and governance questions, the article places the Intel deal in a broader fiscal and political context. It cites Trump’s recent tax cuts and other revenue-seeking measures, proposals such as a patent tax, and his public statements that he hopes for many similar transactions. The author also raises the concern of personal enrichment and political loyalty, noting reporting that the Trump family has profited from investments since the election and that the president’s net worth has reportedly increased, though exact figures are not stated in the article. The piece warns that the business community’s muted response and the administration’s willingness to reshape markets by personal whim strengthen the case for describing these developments as fascist corporatism rather than conventional state-led socialism.
