.

The U.S. federal government is officially Intel’s largest shareholder, after President Donald Trump gave the federal government a 10% stake in the financially troubled American chipmaker on Thursday. The move, which runs against the grain of Republican economic orthodoxy, has also prompted criticism from conservatives who otherwise support Trump.

Trump has described the deal as “such a smart thing” that will make the U.S. “richer and richer.” He’s also suggested that the move is just the beginning of a broader strategy to use government investments in private industry to create wealth. “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,” Trump said.

Trump has thus embarked on a clear new direction, one that harkens back to what economists used to call industrial policy: the government’s direct shaping and subsidizing of major industries. It’s led to the question of when buying a stake in a private company becomes socialism.

Socialism has long been defined in part as the government taking control of the means of production for the good of all society. If so, Trump’s move isn’t all that different from the economic models in China, Russia, or other places, some critics say.

The political irony is not lost on observers. When former President Barack Obama intervened to take control of Chrysler and General Motors during the 2008–09 financial crisis, the measure was widely seen by conservatives as a necessary last-minute bailout of American icons on the brink of collapse. But if Obama had instead taken a 10% stake in Intel, Trump allies say, conservative media would have been screaming that he was turning America into a communist nation.

Trump sees this case differently, arguing that it’s not a bailout because he took a stake in the company rather than giving it a grant. (He also converted nearly $9 billion in grants that were already going to the company from President Joe Biden’s bipartisan Chips Act into government equity in the firm, a point he left unmentioned in his remarks.) Trump said that the move creates $10 billion to $11 billion in “fairness” value for taxpayers immediately. “Why are ‘stupid’ people unhappy with that?” he asked.

Others have not been so sure. Trump’s former top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, called the plan “very, very uncomfortable with that idea” on Fox Business, and Steve Moore, another Trump informal adviser, told CNBC, “I hate corporate welfare. That’s privatization in reverse. We want the government to divest of assets, not buy assets. So terrible, one of the bad ideas that’s come out of this White House.”

The conservative National Review published an editorial warning that “government shouldn’t get into the chip business.” Senator Thom Tillis also sounded the alarm: “Look, when you start taking equity in a business, it starts to look like you’re creating a semi-state-owned enterprise a la CCCP,” the former Soviet Union. Senator Rand Paul made the same point on social media: “Wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea.”

But not everyone is opposed. Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders cheered the move, which fits with his view that government should be using its leverage as a shareholder to shape industry for the public good. Howard Lutnick, secretary of commerce under Trump, rushed to the president’s defense in an interview with Laura Ingraham: “That is not socialism. That’s the best businessman in the United States of America in the Oval Office doing fair things for us.”

Intel itself has also raised potential problems. In a SEC-required filing, the company warned that the deal could reduce its ability to get government grants in the future, damage its sales abroad, and expose its operations to greater regulation. Intel, which is struggling, also announced earlier this year that it would lay off 15% of its workforce. The company is worth about $110 billion, down 50% so far in 2024, though shares of Intel did rise 4% on Thursday after Trump’s announcement.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had at one point demanded the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan over prior connections to China, but changed course after a one-on-one meeting at the White House with the Intel executive. “I liked him a lot, I thought he was very good,” Trump said later.

While Trump and Lutnick have said the U.S. government would be a non-voting shareholder and wouldn’t interfere with Intel’s business decisions, some analysts are skeptical that this will hold. It’s “difficult to believe that Trump, once appointed Intel’s largest shareholder, won’t try to leverage that influence and advance his own goals and policy aims, regardless of the impact on shareholders,” Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities wrote in a note to clients.

The move will either backfire if Intel continues to languish and end up costing taxpayers, or if it turns around and the country becomes more self-sufficient in chips, it will become another feather in Trump’s cap to wave in 2024. Trump has said he would be willing to pursue more deals like this, which will ensure that the debate about whether this is socialism or capitalism (or just Trumpism) will only get louder. At the very least, the new government stake in Intel marks a new era in the relationship between the federal government and private business, and how far Trump has moved the Republican Party’s economic policy from past orthodoxy.