Consider This from NPR - Should the government be in the business of business?

Episode Date: August 27, 2025

What happens when the federal government owns part of a company? That’s one of MANY questions about federal policy right now, as the Trump Administration aggressively pushes for stakes — and oversight — of major private companies.This week, the White House announced it was taking a ten percent stake in the struggling technology giant Intel.Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says the administration is considering similar moves with other companies tied to the defense industry, too. Trump looks ready to turn the U.S. into a corporate stockholder. Should the government be in the business of … business?For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at [e-mail] episode was produced by Connor Donevan and Henry Larson. It was edited by John Ketchum. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The story of how the U.S. government came to own 10% of a major tech company starts, as these things often do, with the post. President Trump took to Truth Social a few weeks ago to say, quote, the CEO of Intel is highly conflicted and must resign immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. Well, that CEO, Lipp Bhutan, paid a visit to the White House. And he came in, he saw me, we talked for a while. I liked him a lot. I thought he was very good. And it turned out there was another solution to the problem. I said, you know what? I think the United States would be given 10% of Intel.

And he said, I would consider that. On Friday, they confirmed they had a deal. Billions of dollars in grants funded by the Chips and Science Act and the Defense Department in exchange for 433.3 million shares of Intel. It's unusual for the government to get involved in private enterprise like this, especially for a Republican president. And a few Republicans have been speaking out, like Senator Tom Tillis, the retiring senator from North Carolina, on CBS last week, after the Intel deal was first floated. You're going to have to explain to me how this reconciles with true conservatism and true free market capitalism.

I don't see it. This is not the only business intervention of Trump's second term. As part of the government's approval of a sale of U.S. steel to the Japanese company Nipon Steel, the administration, negotiated what Trump called... A golden stock. We have a golden share, which I control. This gives the federal government veto powers and major sway in corporate decisions. That gives you total control, it's 51% ownership by Americans. Trump says he wants more deals like the one he just negotiated with Intel.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik told CNBC this week, the administration was thinking about stakes in defense companies. I mean, Lockheed Martin makes 90. 37% of their revenue from the U.S. government. They are basically an arm of the U.S. government. Consider this. President Trump looks ready to turn the U.S. into a corporate shareholder. But should the government be in the business of business? From NPR, I'm Scott Detrow.

The news is saturated with coverage of President Trump, but it is easy to to get overloaded. So on Trump's terms, we bring you short, digestible stories, five minutes or less, about the 47th president. Listen for same-day developments on tariffs, the economy, and all of the ways that Trump is governing like no president ever has before. Trump's terms, listen on the NPR app, wherever you get your podcast. It's consider this from NPR. President Trump's to acquire ownership in Intel would have been anathema to conservatives not that long ago. They believe the government should stay out of private enterprise, that intervention was more likely to hurt businesses and taxpayers than help. Michael Strain is Director of Economic Policy

Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, which continues to advocate for free market policies. So we invited him on to talk about the risks of Trump's plan to make the government a partial owner of the U.S. business. what was your first response to this intel deal when you heard about it well my first response was surprise and concern this uh is an unprecedented action by the u.s government outside of a crisis situation and even if you think that intel needs more support from the government taking an ownership stake is really just about the most aggressive way the government could provide that support. This is an administration, this is a president

that is very comfortable leaning on companies, people, organizations to do what he wants. What are your concerns in terms of two or three or four steps to align about how it could play out in real life? What are your worries? What are you thinking about? Well, I think this is bad for Intel. You know, Intel is going to have to do a whole lot of things in order to maintain its competitiveness. And some of those things are going to be politically unpopular, like closing factories, laying off workers. You know, now that the government owns 10% of Intel, the government may pressure Intel not to do politically unpopular things. Like, hey, we have to close a plant in this swing state for a financial reason, but now we might not do that because we're being told not to.

Yeah, exactly. And so that's, that's going to be bad for Intel. I think this is going to be bad for customers in the chip market in general. If you're a business and you're taking government contracts, are you going to feel like you have to buy from Intel, even if buying from Intel doesn't make the most business sense for you? You said earlier outside of a crisis. I mean, this has happened before in different ways. I mean, I think the most prominent example is the 2008 financial crisis shortly after that. The Obama administration took a major short-term stake in U.S. auto makers. The auto industry, especially, you could argue, that worked out pretty well for the companies, for the markets. How different to you is this? Well, I think it's quite

different. You know, those were policies that were enacted during a crisis, and those were policies that were designed to be temporary. We are not in a crisis right now, and the equity stake in Intel and the possibility of future equity stakes are not designed to be temporary. You know, if you think that Intel needs more taxpayer support, then you could extend loans under favorable terms to Intel. You could do greater subsidies to the semiconductor sector more broadly. Can I ask you something on that point, though? I want to read you a quote from what White House economics advisor Kevin Hassett, who said in the past, the federal government has been giving away money. Lickety split the companies and the taxpayers have received nothing in return.

And Senator Bernie Sanders, who I imagine is not one of your favorite members of Congress on policy, but the point is he's not normally a Trump ally. He's made a similar point. Is there an argument there that something like this is better than just a tax break or a subsidy or a bailout? No, I don't think so. You know, I think that Mr. Hassett's quote, you know, really does reflect just a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the government in these situations. You know, the government is not one business out in the market competing with other businesses. The job of the government is to advance the prosperity and security of the American people. And that happens when American businesses are doing as well as they can

to generate that prosperity. Secondly, this is going to be bad for the taxpayer. This is going to cost money. The U.S. government has already given intel billions of dollars of taxpayer money that could be used to fund hospitals or to reduce the budget deficit or that could just be left in the pockets of the people who earned the money. This relationship is going to mean that more good taxpayer dollars will be chasing bad investments in Intel. So even if you agree with Mr. Hassett's frame, which I do not,

I think this is still going to be a bad deal for the taxpayer. I'm curious, Michael, if it feels kind of lonely at the American Enterprise Institute right now. I mean, this is a Republican president. You have have many conservative voices going along with this and either not saying anything or agreeing or protesting in a very mild way. What do you make at this moment as a conservative? You know, I think it's a difficult moment. I think it's incumbent on people in Washington who genuinely believe in traditional conservative commitments about the importance of free markets, the importance of limited government, the importance of the rule of law. It's important for those people to speak out. And I agree with your characterization that not a lot of that is happening and that is troubling.

but I think it makes it all the more important for people who are willing to speak at to do so. Michael Strain, Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Thank you for talking to us about it. Thanks so much for having me on. This episode was produced by Connor Donovan and Henry Larson. It was edited by John Kacham. Our executive producer is Sam Yenigan. It's Considerivist from NPR.

I'm Scott Detrow. Thank you.