Trump’s Corporate Investments Find Unexpected Fans Among Democrats. Some Are Considering Their Own Version.

President Donald Trump's growing portfolio of corporate investments is finding some unexpected admirers among Democrats, with several prominent figures considering whether the federal government should take ownership stakes in private businesses to advance their own economic priorities.

The administration has announced more than $30 billion in investments and financial arrangements involving nearly 50 companies, including semiconductor manufacturer Intel and critical-mineral producers. While Democrats have questioned how those deals were negotiated, some see an opportunity to use the same approach to support clean energy, domestic manufacturing and other industries.

The debate is gaining attention following the Nov. 3 midterm elections, which handed Democrats control of both chambers of Congress. Their new majorities will give them greater power to examine Trump's corporate arrangements, even as some party figures consider whether the underlying investment strategy is worth retaining.

According to Axios, former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is among those open to the idea of the government acquiring small ownership stakes in private companies.

Granholm, who served under President Joe Biden, told a gathering of energy and climate experts in Berkeley, California, last month that Trump's approach had broadened the possibilities for federal industrial policy. She subsequently told Axios that government stakes could be considered when national security or America's ability to compete internationally justified the investment.

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen has also expressed openness to federal ownership positions, although he has questioned the transparency and accountability surrounding Trump's agreements, according to Semafor.

Their interest marks a notable development in a policy debate that has traditionally divided lawmakers over how far Washington should intervene in private markets.

The federal government has long supported selected industries through subsidies, tax credits and loans. Taking a direct ownership stake goes further, giving taxpayers a financial interest in a company's performance rather than simply providing funding.

Trump has increasingly favored that approach for businesses considered important to national security, domestic manufacturing and supply-chain resilience.

One of the largest examples came in August 2025, when the government agreed to acquire a 9.9% stake in Intel through an $8.9 billion arrangement.

Under the agreement announced by Intel, Washington would receive approximately 433.3 million shares at $20.47 apiece. The investment was funded through federal money previously allocated under the CHIPS and Science Act and the Secure Enclave program.

Rather than providing the funding solely as grants, the agreement gave the government an ownership interest in the American chipmaker, allowing taxpayers to benefit financially if Intel's share value increased.

The position was structured as a passive investment, meaning Washington would not receive a seat on Intel's board or ordinary corporate governance rights. Intel said the arrangement would support its U.S. semiconductor manufacturing expansion and strengthen domestic technology supply chains.

The administration has pursued similar financial arrangements involving critical minerals, energy and other strategic industries, although the structure varies from company to company.

Some deals involve equity ownership, while others include warrants that could allow the government to acquire shares later. The $30 billion figure covers announced arrangements and should not be interpreted as money already spent on completed stock purchases.

An Axios analysis published in January found that publicly traded companies involved in several of the administration's early investment deals had experienced substantial share-price gains following their announcements.

That performance has attracted attention to the government's potential financial returns, although rising stock prices do not establish that every investment will prove profitable or that federal participation alone caused the gains.

Not everyone in the Democratic Party is convinced that direct ownership is the right approach. Illinois Rep. Sean Casten has argued that Washington needs a more active industrial strategy to compete with countries such as China but has warned about the risks of government ownership.

Speaking at a University of Chicago event, Casten questioned the country's longstanding reluctance to consider industrial policy while expressing reservations about the government becoming a shareholder in private businesses.

His concerns reflect a broader argument over whether federal investment decisions could favor politically connected companies, distort competition or expose taxpayers to financial losses.

Those questions are already central to Democratic plans for congressional oversight. The Washington Post reported that Democratic lawmakers were preparing investigations into the relationships between major corporations and Trump's administration, including whether companies benefited from government contracts, investment agreements or regulatory decisions.

The administration has defended its deals as voluntary arrangements intended to strengthen American industry and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.

For Democrats interested in a different version of the policy, clean energy and electricity infrastructure are among the areas under discussion.

Supporters argue that the government could provide long-term capital for projects that are strategically important but difficult to finance entirely through private markets. An ownership stake could also give taxpayers a share of any eventual financial gains.

Critics contend that such investments create risks when elected officials influence which companies receive federal support, particularly if the terms of the deals or the criteria for choosing beneficiaries are not made public.

Government ownership is not new in the United States. Washington acquired major stakes in banks and automakers during the 2008 financial crisis, although those investments were primarily intended to stabilize struggling businesses rather than support selected industries over the longer term.

Semafor reported in October that some Democrats were already discussing how federal ownership could be used to support their own economic priorities, including clean energy and other industries.

But there is no agreement within the party on adopting Trump's approach. While figures such as Jennifer Granholm and Chris Van Hollen have expressed interest in government investment stakes, others, including Rep. Sean Casten, have questioned the risks of Washington owning shares in private companies.