https://www.cato.org/blog/government-ownership-stakes-companies-becoming-routine-under-trump

The Commerce Department announced this week that six more companies are set to join the federal government's rapidly expanding corporate portfolio, bringing the total to 30 by our count (see table below). Perhaps most striking about the announcement is how unremarkable government ownership is becoming.
The seven nonbinding letters of intent would provide up to $874 million in CHIPS and Science Act research and development incentives. Six recipients would be new additions to the portfolio. The seventh, GlobalFoundries, already has a proposed Commerce stake attached to a separate $375 million quantum foundry award. Commerce says a minority, noncontrolling equity stake in each company will be a condition of final funding.

Zoom out and the pattern is more striking. Since December, the CHIPS Research and Development (R&D) Office has announced 19 final or proposed company awards totaling up to $3.8 billion. They cover 18 companies because GlobalFoundries has two separate projects. Three agreements are final, while 16 remain letters of intent. All 19 have been publicly tied to equity.

Commerce's current funding rules state that award recipients may be required to provide equity, warrants, intellectual property licenses, royalties, revenue sharing, or other instruments to generate a government return. The Biden administration, by contrast, used the same CHIPS R&D appropriation through separate competitions to award funds to private companies without taking ownership stakes. That makes the Trump administration's insistence on equity a policy choice. The CHIPS Act itself authorizes Commerce to make grants, cooperative agreements, and "other transactions" but doesn't expressly authorize the department to acquire stock.

Commerce says that these stakes enhance the return for taxpayers, but even a profitable portfolio would not resolve the underlying institutional problem. The federal government is now acting as regulator, customer, financier, and shareholder. Decisions involving contracts, trade restrictions, permits, and additional subsidies can affect the value of its holdings. Competitors have reason to question whether the playing field is level. And if a portfolio company falters, Washington will have an added incentive to protect its investment with more taxpayer support.

Calling the stakes "minority" and "noncontrolling" does not eliminate those conflicts. Public announcements often reveal little about valuations, shareholder rights, oversight, or exit plans. Meanwhile, future administrations will inherit the same tool and can use it to assemble portfolios reflecting their own political priorities.

A year ago, these deals looked like a scattered series of one-off improvisations. Commerce now announces companies in batches and openly describes a "portfolio approach." As I argued in a December 2025 essay, the administration has been assembling a pseudo-sovereign wealth fund under executive control, one deal at a time.
The latest six companies are not especially remarkable. What is remarkable is that federal corporate ownership is becoming routine under a Republican administration, while a Republican-controlled Congress is not just letting it happen but may even enshrine the practice in statute.

Republicans warning that communists are taking over the Democratic Party might first ask why their own administration is so eager to have the government acquire pieces of private companies.

Washington's growing portfolio
Table with 5 columns and 30 rows of data. Sorted ascending by column "Announced" (column headers with buttons are sortable)Company
Category
Agency
Announced
InvestmentU.S. Steel/Nippon Steel
Steel
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
250625Jun '25
Golden share with veto rights over major corporate decisions

MP Materials
Minerals
Defense
250725Jul '25
$400 million preferred stock and warrants, 15 percent if converted/exercised
Intel
Semiconductors
Commerce
250825Aug '25
$8.9 billion for 9.9 percent stake, plus 5 percent warrant if foundry ownership falls below 51 percent

Trilogy Metals
Minerals
Defense
251025Oct '25
Proposed $35.6 million for 10 percent stake, plus warrants for additional 7.5 percent stake

Lithium Americas
Minerals
Energy
251025Oct '25
$184 million debt-service deferral, with 5 percent company warrants and 5 percent Thacker Pass Joint Venture (JV) investment

Westinghouse
Energy (nuclear)
Commerce
251025Oct '25
20 percent upside participation, convertible to equity warrant if initial public offering (IPO) conditions are met

Vulcan Elements
Minerals
Commerce Defense
251125Nov '25
Proposed $50 million Commerce equity, conditional $620 million Defense loan plus warrants

ReElement Technologies
Minerals
Defense
251125Nov '25
Conditional $80 million Defense loan with warrants

Korea Zinc/Crucible Metals
Minerals
Commerce Defense
251225Dec '25
$210 million CHIPS funding, Commerce gets indirect Korea Zinc stake through the Crucible JV; Defense $150 million of JV equity and $1.25 billion of JV debt financing

xLight
Semiconductors
Commerce
251225Dec '25
$150 million CHIPS funding, with Commerce equity stake

L3Harris/Missile Solutions
Rocket motors
Defense
260126Jan '26
$1 billion convertible preferred security in Missile Solutions, plus warrants; converts to common at IPO

Atlantic Alumina Company
Minerals
Defense
260126Jan '26
$150 million Defense preferred equity stake

USA Rare Earth
Minerals
Commerce
260126Jan '26
Up to $277 million direct funding and up to $1.3 billion loan, with shares and warrants

GlobalFoundries
Quantum computing
Commerce
260526May '26
Proposed up to $675 million across two CHIPS LOIs: $375 million for a quantum foundry and $300 million for silicon photonics. A separate agreement gives Commerce an approximately 1% equity stake.

IBM/Anderson
Quantum computing
Commerce
260526May '26
Proposed $1 billion for a minority stake in Anderon; IBM will contribute $1 billion plus assets and intellectual property

Atom Computing
Quantum computing
Commerce
260526May '26
$100 million planned funding, with minority equity stake

Diraq
Quantum computing
Commerce
260526May '26
Up to $38 million planned funding, with minority equity stake

D-Wave Quantum
Quantum computing
Commerce
260526May '26
Proposed $100 million for $100 million equity stake at final award

Infleqtion
Quantum computing
Commerce
260526May '26
Proposed $100 million for common stock priced 15 percent below the lower of the letter of intent-date or final agreement market price

PsiQuantum
Quantum computing
Commerce
260526May '26
$100 million planned funding, with minority equity stake

Quantinuum
Quantum computing
Commerce
260526May '26
Proposed $100 million for common at lower of 20 percent below $60 IPO price or 15 percent below the award date closing price

Rigetti Computing
Quantum computing
Commerce
260526May '26
Proposed $100 million over three years for common stock priced 15 percent below the lowest of the May 20 or award-date close

SandboxAQ
Semiconductors
Commerce
260626Jun '26
$500 million CHIPS funding, with minority equity stake

I-Pulse
Semiconductors
Commerce
260626Jun '26
$250 million CHIPS funding, with minority equity stake

Kepler Computing
Semiconductors
Commerce
260701Jul '26
Proposed up to $245 million in CHIPS funding, with minority equity stake

Multibeam Corporation
Semiconductors
Commerce
260701Jul '26
Proposed up to $140 million in CHIPS funding, with minority equity stake

Extropic
Semiconductors
Commerce
260701Jul '26
Proposed up to $75 million in CHIPS funding, with minority equity stake

Thintronics
Semiconductors
Commerce
260701Jul '26
Proposed up to $50 million in CHIPS funding, with minority equity stake

OBSIDIA Semiconductors
Semiconductors
Commerce
260701Jul '26
Proposed up to $34 million in CHIPS funding, with minority equity stake

Aeluma
Semiconductors
Commerce
260701Jul '26
Proposed up to $30 million in CHIPS funding, with minority equity stake equal to the award amount.

Did he campaign on this? Why is it happening?

Control. Shades of fascism.

What about this?
Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump's investment firms are tied to $6.3 billion in Pentagon contracts, watchdogs warn

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/donald-trump-jr-eric-trumps-161241272.html

Investment firms and venture capital funds tied to Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are linked to approximately $6.3 billion in Pentagon and federal defense contracts. These holdings span over a dozen defense tech, space, and software startups that experienced sharp increases in government funding during President Trump's second term

boognish_bear said:

---

Did he campaign on this? Why is it happening?

---

You can't really have crony capitalism without the cronies being able to make insider trades and profit from them.

The real grift about politicians and insider trading isn't so much just the timing of the trade as it is their ability to divert funds from the public till in ways that profit them personally.

They like to scream "Meritocracy." Many of these companies are unproven businesses with close ties to someone in or near the presidency. We provide the seed funding and the contracts. They take the profits.

The defense contracts should be a great concern. With no proven track record, these companies may not be able to deliver, or deliver poor quality. As we're seeing in Russia, this could endanger our troops.

I am in much agreement. Additionally we are doing nothing to control monopolies.

I am automatically opposed to the idea, but I am curious what the defense from a Republican would be. I guess I always assumed Republicans would never ever even think of this, or even Democrats, so I havd not fully thought this through.

In its basic elements, it seems a mild form of nationalization that gives the government some measure of control over these companies' direction. Not only that, it also exposes the government to profits if these companies do well. I wonder if there is a way to keep the governmeng from exerting influence, but use these profits to pay down our debt.

I am still opposed, because these companies will see massive whiplash from administration to administration, and I do not trust that the profits will actually pay down the debt.

Yes, but something somewhat similar is set up in Norway and seems to work fairly well, according to several people when I was there a couple of years ago.

Here is a bit of information, and if anyone is interested in more specific information let me know:

Norway distributes money from its North Sea oil wealth (the Government Pension Fund Global) through a strict fiscal spending rule, parliament-approved state budgets, and public welfare funding. Funds are never handed out as direct cash checks to citizens.

The Spending Rule3% limit: The government can only spend about 3% of the fund's total market value each year, matching the estimated long-term real return.

Protecting capital: Keeping withdrawals tied to expected annual growth ensures the original capital remains untouched for future generations.

Balancing the economy: Limiting yearly transfers prevents inflation and protects Norway's domestic economy from oil price swings.

Budget Allocation ProcessParliament approval: The Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) decides how much money to transfer into the annual national fiscal budget.

State funding: Transferred money covers roughly 20% to 25% of the state's regular public spending needs.

Public services: Budgeted funds support hospitals, schools, infrastructure, public pensions, and general welfare

I agree with both points.
What it does demonstrate is that there is a method and a country where profits benefit everyone and country comes first and isn't just a campaign slogan.