The U.S. government took a 10% stake in Intel last week, through a deal that will convert funding from the CHIPS Act into partial ownership of the tech company. But President Donald Trump has much larger plans for his government\u2019s takeover of private industry. At least that\u2019s what Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested Tuesday during an interview on CNBC.<\/p>\n
CNBC host Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Lutnick<\/a> about whether he thought it was \u201cfair for America\u201d that government was now taking control of Intel<\/a>. Sorkin brought up other companies that benefit from U.S. government dollars, asking if they were next.<\/p>\n \u201cWhy shouldn\u2019t the U.S. government say, you know what, we use Palantir services, we would like a piece of Palantir. We use Boeing services, we would like a piece of Boeing. There are a lot of businesses that do business with the U.S. government\u2014that benefit by doing business with the U.S. government. I guess the question is, where\u2019s the line?\u201d Sorkin asked Lutnick.<\/p>\n But Lutnick thought that all sounded great. \u201cOh, there\u2019s a monstrous discussion about defense. I mean, Lockheed Martin makes 97% of their revenue from the U.S. government. They are basically an arm of the U.S. government,\u201d Lutnick said.<\/p>\n Government takeover? <\/p>\n The Commerce Secretary went on to praise the technology that Lockheed has developed, describing the \u201camazing\u201d technologies that can \u201cknock a missile out of the air\u201d if it\u2019s coming toward you.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a lot of talking that needs to be had about how do we finance our munitions acquisitions,\u201d Lutnick said. \u201cI think a lot of that is talking and now you have the right people in the jobs, and Donald Trump at the head, thinking about what is the right way to do it. I tell you the way it has been done has been a giveaway.\u201d<\/p>\n Lutnick has previously insisted that the government has no governance role at Intel and isn\u2019t going to tell the company what to do. But Trump tells private companies and institutions what to do each and every day, trying to use his leverage to influence policies right down to who can be hired at universities and what they can teach.<\/p>\n Trump also used an interesting word when posting to Truth Social about the Intel stake: control.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,\u201d Trump wrote on Truth Social<\/a>.<\/p>\n There is clearly an understanding that U.S. government ownership comes with strings attached. Trump was never going to get a stake in a private business without some form of control.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t call it a sovereign wealth fund <\/p>\n Another CNBC host asked Lutnick about a U.S. sovereign wealth fund and whether there would be some kind of independent government board to oversee these investments. But Lutnick rejected the idea that what was happening resembled a sovereign wealth fund like those set up in countries like Saudi Arabia.<\/p>\n \u201cWell, let\u2019s be clear. There\u2019s no sovereign wealth fund now,\u201d Lutnick said defensively. \u201cWe\u2019re not spending the American taxpayers dollars on anything, right? Biden gave away $11 billion and Donald Trump took back, right? An equity stake for the money that Biden had given away. We\u2019re not starting a sovereign wealth fund.\u201d<\/p>\n Lutnick insisted that it should be called an \u201ceconomic security fund\u201d and would be coming from other countries that have supposedly pledged spending money on manufacturing infrastructure in the U.S.<\/p>\n Communism or something else? <\/p>\n Many online discussions about Trump gobbling up shares in private companies have tried to make comparisons to socialism or communism, but that\u2019s not quite right. The path that America is currently going down is better called something like corporate statism<\/a>.<\/p>\n Under communism, the theory is that the state owns the means of production and the wealth created is dispersed more evenly among the people. Under corporate statism, businesses and government are deeply integrated, but the ruling class keeps all the profits for themselves and everyone else just has to do their best selling their labor to make a living.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Lutnick was explicitly asked about China\u2019s system and what he would think if another country, like the UK, decided to start taking stakes in companies with a \u201cChina-like approach.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe British figured out, along with the Trump administration teaching them, that you need steel to be a real country to be able to defend yourself. And the British figured that out, they nationalized British steel,\u201d Lutnick said.<\/p>\n Not very conservative, is it? <\/p>\n Whatever you want to call this new system, everything about it still feels very new right now, even if the ruling class still had an outsized say in how government is run. And while some conservatives in the comments section of the Wall Street Journal might object, it seems clear the nation\u2019s wealthiest people have embraced Trump\u2019s idea for the future of the country.<\/p>\n Mark Cuban, a nominal \u201cliberal,\u201d at least by billionaire standards, may have spelled it out best on Bluesky this past weekend. Asked about what was happening at Intel, which one user described as a shakedown, Cuban made clear that he preferred paying Trump over whatever wealth tax progressives might hypothetically impose if they came to power.<\/p>\n