featured
U.S. Stake in Intel is a Very Bad Idea // Ron Paul
Ron Paul | Trusted Newsmaker
The U.S. Stake in Intel: A Step Toward Corporatism, Not Capitalism
The Announcement
The Trump administration announced a $10 billion deal for the U.S. government to take a 10% equity stake in Intel. Framed as a bold move to secure America’s leadership in semiconductors, Treasury Secretary Howard Lutnick called it “historic.” Critics, however, argue this is less about innovation and more about creeping corporatism.
Debt, Deficits, and Denial
The deal comes at a time when Washington is already on track to add $3.3 trillion to the national debt, with annual deficits topping $2 trillion. Ron Paul warned that interest payments now exceed military spending, a signal of deep fiscal irresponsibility. Rather than cuts, Congress continues to rationalize more spending, ignoring the looming collapse of the dollar system.
A Dangerous Precedent
Ron Paul argued that this Intel stake is a clear example of corporatism — government and corporations acting as one while remaining formally separate. As Ludwig von Mises warned, corporatism is a step on the road to fascism. While not outright fascism yet, the arrangement allows elites to prop up failing companies at taxpayer expense, distorting the free market and burdening the middle class.
Manipulating the Market
The deal raised eyebrows because, just days earlier, Trump publicly called for Intel’s CEO to resign, causing the stock to dip. Soon after, the government bought a 10% stake. This sequence suggests direct political interference in markets, where presidential tweets and letters from hawkish senators like Tom Cotton influence corporate leadership and stock prices — all before taxpayer money is injected into the company.
Irony of Competing with China
Senator Tom Tillis pointed out the irony: in order to compete with China, the U.S. is imitating China by taking partial ownership of private companies. What starts as “strategic investment” risks morphing into semi-state-owned enterprises, blurring the line between free-market capitalism and centralized economic planning.
Why It’s Fascism, Not Communism
Chris Rossini of the Ron Paul Institute explained the distinction: communism nationalizes all capital, while fascism allows corporations to remain private but act as arms of the state. Under corporatism, corporations don’t go bankrupt when they should; instead, they are kept alive to serve government goals. Consumers lose, and government power expands. Intel’s bailout, repackaged as investment, fits this model perfectly.
The Real Cost
Propping up Intel with CHIPS Act money undermines the free market’s ability to allocate resources efficiently. Instead of letting resources flow to productive ventures, they’re trapped in a company shielded from failure. This ensures not innovation, but stagnation. Worse, it sets a precedent: if Intel can get a bailout via equity, why not every other struggling corporation?
Empire Abroad, Intervention at Home
Paul drew parallels between foreign policy and corporate bailouts: the U.S. takes from its own poor to prop up foreign governments, just as it now takes taxpayer dollars to prop up corporations. In both cases, intervention enriches elites while ordinary people suffer. The principle of liberty — both in markets and foreign affairs — is abandoned for short-term political gain.
The Intel stake is not just a financial decision — it’s a dangerous ideological turn. By merging government and corporate power, Washington risks moving further from free markets and closer to authoritarian corporatism. Competing with China should not mean becoming China. If liberty and sound money are not restored, bailouts disguised as “strategic investments” will only accelerate the decline of America’s economy and freedoms.
//
