In a move that has sent shockwaves through both political and business circles, President Donald Trump announced on August 11, 2025, that the United States government now owns and controls a 10% stake in Intel, one of the country’s most prominent technology companies. Trump’s declaration, made in his trademark style on social media, was emphatic: “It 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.” The president’s announcement followed a tense period during which he called for Intel’s CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, to step down, only to later meet with Tan and demand the government’s stake. Tan ultimately agreed, cementing a deal that has become a focal point of debate across the nation.
According to Milwaukee Independent, this unprecedented government acquisition has not only upended decades of economic orthodoxy but has also exposed deep rifts within the Republican Party. Historically, since the 1980s, Republicans have championed free markets and minimal government interference in business, often decrying even modest regulations as creeping socialism. Yet, as the publication notes, many Republicans are now publicly cheering a president who “threatened a CEO and stated openly that he shook the man down for a major share in his company.” The spectacle has left political observers and party loyalists alike questioning the ideological direction of the GOP.
To understand how the party arrived at this juncture, it’s essential to trace the evolution of Republican ideology over the past several decades. In the aftermath of World War II, both major parties shared a consensus around the government’s role in regulating business, safeguarding civil rights, and upholding a social safety net. This bipartisan spirit, however, began to erode in the 1980s with the rise of the so-called “Movement Conservatives”—an extremist faction whose roots, as Milwaukee Independent details, stretch back to opposition against New Deal reforms in the 1930s. These Movement Conservatives, united by their opposition to business regulation, taxes, and civil rights advancements, sought to dismantle the postwar system and restore an earlier, less regulated era.
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign marked a turning point, as he appealed to both economic conservatives and social traditionalists, promising to slash taxes and defend states’ rights. However, beneath the rhetoric of economic freedom, the Movement Conservatives’ coalition was fueled by appeals to racism and sexism, as Reagan sought to mobilize voters resistant to the gains of the civil rights and women’s liberation movements. Over time, the Movement Conservatives purged the party of moderates and traditionalists, culminating in the 1994 Republican takeover of the House under Newt Gingrich, who set out to reshape the party as an instrument for dismantling modern government.
This ideological hardening had profound effects on American democracy. As Milwaukee Independent recounts, Republicans began to view political competition not as a contest of policy but as a battle for the soul of the nation—one that justified extreme measures to keep Democrats out of power. Tactics such as voter roll purges, gerrymandering, and relentless accusations of voter fraud became commonplace. The 2000 presidential election, for example, hinged on a razor-thin margin in Florida, where Republican operatives and a Supreme Court decision ultimately handed victory to George W. Bush despite Al Gore’s popular vote lead.
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Republican leaders responded with a strategy of total opposition. As the publication notes, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his colleagues resolved to block every initiative put forward by the new president, regardless of merit. The party also moved to tilt the electoral playing field in its favor, leveraging Supreme Court decisions that loosened campaign finance restrictions and launching efforts like Operation REDMAP to redraw congressional districts for partisan advantage. By 2012, despite Democrats winning a majority of House votes nationally, Republicans maintained a decisive majority in the chamber.
Yet, as the Movement Conservatives’ economic agenda of deregulation and tax cuts proved increasingly unpopular, the party doubled down on appeals to its base’s grievances, amplified by talk radio and the rise of Fox News. The 2016 election of Donald Trump, who openly courted the party’s most hardline elements, marked the culmination of this trajectory. Trump’s presidency was characterized by a willingness to flout democratic norms and embrace the use of state power to achieve political ends—culminating in the violent attempt to overturn the 2020 election after Joe Biden’s victory.
Now, with Trump back in office, the government’s intervention in Intel represents a dramatic break from the free-market principles that once defined the Republican Party. As Daily Kos reports in its in-depth series on the Trump administration’s approach to strategic industries, the Intel deal has sparked fierce debate over its legality, constitutionality, and implications for American capitalism. The author of the series proposes an alternative: the creation of a U.S. Strategic Investment Fund (SIF), a professionally managed, arm’s-length public investor that could take minority, passive stakes in companies critical to national resilience—such as semiconductors, critical minerals, and frontier biotech—while earning market-rate returns.
Unlike Trump’s ad hoc and likely unlawful intervention, the proposed SIF would be established by Congress, with clear statutory authority, rigorous oversight, and transparent governance. The fund’s dual mandate would be to earn competitive long-term returns and advance U.S. economic and national-security resilience. Eligibility for investments would be tied to publicly maintained lists of critical and emerging technologies, ensuring that decisions are neutral and transparent rather than political. Governance would be modeled on best practices from international funds like Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global and Singapore’s Temasek, with independent boards, professional managers, and strict anti-corruption safeguards.
The Daily Kos series emphasizes the importance of learning from both U.S. and international precedents. Past crisis programs, such as the Treasury’s TARP investments and the airline stock warrants auctioned in 2024, have shown that taxpayers can benefit when public support is structured to include upside potential. The SIF, proponents argue, would not be a bailout machine or a vehicle for industrial policy as usual, but rather a strategic, long-term investor designed to strengthen the country’s resilience without distorting markets or politicizing corporate governance.
Supporters of the SIF model contend that it could anchor key capabilities domestically, crowd in private capital, and reduce the cost of future crises. Skeptics, however, warn of the dangers of politicization, legal risks, and potential market distortions. As the Daily Kos analysis notes, these risks can be mitigated through rigorous statutory safeguards, neutral eligibility criteria, and robust oversight mechanisms—including an Inspector General, regular audits, and public transparency requirements.
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s longstanding advocacy for greater taxpayer accountability and public upside in corporate support is cited as an instructive parallel. Her proposals for corporate governance reform and economic patriotism align with the SIF’s goals, though the fund would be narrower in scope, focusing on strategic investments rather than sweeping changes to corporate charters or board composition.
As the national conversation around the Intel deal continues, the stark contrast between Trump’s approach and the SIF alternative highlights a broader debate about the appropriate role of government in the economy. Is the path forward one of ad hoc intervention and political leverage, or of lawful, transparent, and accountable investment in the nation’s future? The answer, it seems, will shape not only the fate of Intel but also the trajectory of American capitalism itself.
In this moment of upheaval, the choices made by Congress and the American people will determine whether the country can chart a course that is both resilient and true to its democratic principles.
