A piece from the libertarian CATO Institute noted that “Industrial Policy [is] the Gateway Drug to Cronyism.” Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden called the arrangement “nothing more than corporate extortion,” while Rep. Daniel Goldman of New York described it as a shakedown that wouldn’t end at Intel. My colleague Tim Noah called the move a form of “fascist corporatism.”
The responses capture the ideological confusion of this moment. Critics from across the political spectrum were quick to paint the arrangement as socialism. Senator Bernie Sanders—who’s long been a proponent of public ownership in large corporations—was among the few who praised the deal, pointing out that he had introduced a similar amendment during debate over the CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law under Joe Biden. (Trump was able to secure the government’s stake in Intel in part by withholding billions in funds designated for Intel in the CHIPS Act.)
Still, what matters most here is not the terminology but the precedent. The Intel deal should be treated not as a scandal, but as a shift in America’s approach to capitalism—one that could serve Trump’s cronyism or, if the left seizes it, a more democratic vision of public ownership and global competitiveness.
Intel is not the only company being targeted for government ownership. As part of an unprecedented deal, chipmakers Nvidia and AMD will now turn over 15 percent of their revenue from sales in China. In July, the Pentagon became the largest shareholder in MP Materials, the country’s only operational rare earth mine. A month earlier, the U.S. secured a “golden share” in U.S. Steel as part of its $15 billion takeover by Japan’s Nippon Steel, giving Washington the right to appoint an independent director to the company’s board.
Industrial policy is no longer a fringe idea: It was a key component of Biden’s presidency and one that was widely praised by policy experts. It is here to stay. The only question is who will benefit from it.
As commentator Krystal Ball recently put it on Breaking Points, “I hope there’s some bold Democrat out there somewhere who’s looking at all of this [and saying] okay, they’ve laid down the marker here. We can take this model and expand it and actually do it in the American interest.”
Even if it takes Trump, like a broken clock, to stumble into the point, the underlying principle is sound: The government should hold equity in more of corporate America, not less. Other nations already do this. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund owns shares in thousands of companies worldwide. China’s sovereign wealth fund, the China Investment Corporation, manages over a trillion dollars in assets worldwide, making it one of the largest state investors in global markets. Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund is a key part of its foreign policy. Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, has suggested that the United States establish a sovereign wealth fund. Democrats should be taking notes. The United States, by contrast, has been content to subsidize corporate America without demanding ownership in return.
The same logic applies, more urgently still, to fossil fuels. Oil and gas companies are huge recipients of public support in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and infrastructure guarantees. Their core incentive is to extract and burn as much carbon as humanly possible. No serious observer still believes the free market can manage the climate crisis. Nationalization would not only ensure that the vast sums of public money already flowing into fossil fuels yields a return for taxpayers. It would also make possible a managed and just transition away from carbon. Norway’s state-owned oil company has demonstrated that public ownership is not only feasible but profitable.
Taken together, defense, energy, and medicine are the three pillars of a secure society. All are already heavily subsidized, propped up, and protected by the state. The question is not whether governments will be involved but whether that involvement will continue to serve shareholders or be redirected toward a more livable future.
The neoliberal era insisted that markets knew best and the government’s role was to step aside. That consensus has collapsed. Industrial policy has returned. The choice now is between a corporate-led version that socializes losses while privatizing gains, or a democratic version that ensures public investments yield public returns.
Trump may be pursuing this for all the wrong reasons—cronyism, control, or just plain spectacle—but the move nonetheless cracks open a door others should be ready to walk through. If the left seizes this moment, it can help build a new common sense: one in which public money buys public power, and ownership becomes the foundation for a more equitable, sustainable economy. If it fails, Trump and his allies will be more than happy to define state capitalism on their own terms.
Hence then, the article about the one area where democrats should follow trump s lead was published today ( ) and is available on The New Republic ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( The One Area Where Democrats Should Follow Trump’s Lead )
Also on site :