President Donald Trump drew attention this week during a sit-down interview at the World Economic Forum, when Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo questioned his administration’s growing ownership in major U.S. companies.
Bartiromo pressed the president on how recent moves, like taking a 10% stake in Intel, align with his free-market principles.
“You’ve taken a 10% stake in Intel,” Bartiromo began.
“You’ve taken a stake in MP Mountain Pass. You told the defense companies two weeks ago, ‘Don’t pay any dividends, don’t do buybacks until you produce the weapons that we need.’ So please explain to our audience, how is that free market capitalism?”
Trump answered simply: “Well, it’s very free market.”
The response came off as vague, and Bartiromo didn’t follow up before Trump moved into a more detailed explanation focused on national security and how companies were spending their profits.
Tying Buybacks to Defense Readiness
Trump argued that U.S. defense contractors had been spending billions on stock buybacks instead of reinvesting in weapons production.
“They were buying back stock with all their money,” he said.
“Then they come to us for money… and they’d be doing tens of billions of dollars of stock buybacks, so I’m not letting them do it.”
He added that companies like those producing Patriots, Tomahawks, and F-35s need to deliver more, faster.
“I said, you have to build more plants,” he told Bartiromo. “When we need Tomahawks, I want them within 24 hours.”
While Trump insisted these policies still fit within the free-market framework, his critics say the administration’s actions reflect a sharp turn toward industrial policy, where the federal government plays a more hands-on role in the private sector.
U.S. Buys 10% of Intel
The Intel deal Bartiromo referred to was officially announced on Aug. 22, 2025.
The U.S. government made an $8.9 billion investment in Intel, buying 433.3 million shares at $20.47 each.
The funding came from previously approved CHIPS Act grants and a secure chip program. Intel said the government paid below market rate and now owns just under 10% of the company.
According to a statement from the Commerce Department, the deal gives taxpayers equity in exchange for funding that had already been committed.
The government also secured a warrant to purchase an additional 5% if Intel ever loses majority control of its foundry business.
“This is a great deal for America and, also, a great deal for INTEL,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at the time.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who helped finalize the deal, added:
“We should get an equity stake for our money. So we’ll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden administration. We’ll get equity in return for it.”
Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan welcomed the government investment, saying it reflects confidence in the company’s ability to boost domestic chip production.
“President Trump’s focus on U.S. chip manufacturing is driving historic investments in a vital industry that is integral to the country’s economic and national security,” Tan said in a press release.
Despite the sizable stake, officials emphasized that the U.S. government would be a passive investor, with no board seat, no governance rights, and it would vote in line with the company’s board.
The deal eliminates previous profit-sharing and clawback provisions associated with CHIPS Act funds to give Intel more capital stability as it moves forward with expansion plans.
Industry Reactions
The move has drawn support from major tech CEOs. Microsoft’s Satya Nadella called it “a defining moment for great American companies to lead the world in cutting-edge technologies.”
Dell CEO Michael Dell praised the collaboration between Intel and the administration, while HP and AWS expressed support for the deal and emphasized the broader importance of domestic semiconductor production.
But critics warn that government ownership, even in a passive form, blurs the line between private enterprise and state intervention.
Bartiromo’s question reflected that growing concern, as the Trump administration expands its footprint in industries deemed critical.
Trump brushed off the concerns. “It’s stupid market,” he said, referring to companies that rely on government contracts but use profits for buybacks.
“Why would I let them do stock buybacks and we give them… the business from us?”
Whether this represents a shift in Republican economic philosophy or simply a wartime-style exception is still unclear.
But Trump didn’t seem bothered. In his view, it’s not a contradiction; it’s common sense.
IMAGE CREDIT: ”Donald Trump” by Gage Skidmore, via Flickr. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. Image adjusted for layout.