The Trump administration, in a pioneering move uncharacteristic of free-market conservatism, has taken stakes in well over 30 companies, from Intel to U.S. Steel to Venezuela’s second-largest oil producer. Whatever conservatives think the merits of such a move are, it serves as a warning, because progressives sense an opportunity. And we will almost certainly be regretting the precedent the moment a Democratic administration returns to the White House.
The US government now has around 30 equity stakes in private companies. How many were coerced like this? https://t.co/pBcd0Tq9sZ
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) August 3, 2026
According to Politico, several former Biden administration officials see an opening in the Trump administration’s moves. The White House has justified the stakes under national-security and supply-chain concerns, arguing that the government should invest in American companies and share in their success. The vice president has at times suggested the move ensures the benefits are “democratized,” a phrase he has used when floating taking stakes in AI companies.
But as usual, progressives see it very differently. A July report from the Roosevelt Institute, a think tank run by Elizabeth Wilkins, former chief of staff to Biden antitrust chief Lina Khan, argues that if progressives do the same, the federal government could now more effectively ensure that companies deliver on the climate, energy and labor goals the Democrat Party could want.
And with the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), let’s expand this to its natural conclusion. Imagine a government board member who can veto corporate strategy in the name of “climate justice,” “workers rights,” or even "equitable distribution of profit." Imagine government bailouts even worse than what we’ve already seen, as officials help mismanage a company and then rescue it with taxpayer money. Imagine political appointees dictating hiring, investment and location decisions not because they make economic sense, but because they fit a partisan agenda.
Even worse? The Trump administration broke the glass ceiling, so we have very little room for criticism of the move in principle.
Todd Tucker, the Roosevelt Institute’s director of industrial and trade policy, even went on to describe the administration’s move as “ingenious” and revealed that similar plans had been discussed early on in the Biden administration.
“Fast forward now, of course, there’s dozens of deals across a whole wide range of sectors that vary a lot between each other,” Tucker said. “But I think [it] normalized this idea, you know, which I think again, sort of before 2024, I associated a lot with Bernie Sanders.”
The genie is out of the bottle, and there really isn’t anyone to blame but ourselves. Amid a campaign against the DSA, here we are practically doing their job for them.
President Trump is a man of practicality, a businessman, but in many ways those skills require limitation when they are applied in public office. Deal-making and equity stakes can look like good strategy in a company boardroom, but in government, they set precedents that outlast any single administration. For a long time this strategy would have been rejected by conservatives, a gross distortion of free markets, an unnecessary fiscal reliance on taxpayers, and a recipe for failure, incompetence and socialism.
Now, with that precedent set, the DSA does not need to win any more arguments; it just needs to win the next election.
