Wall Street leader steps into the heart of US defense
Subscribe to our free newsletter today to keep up to date with the latest manufacturing news.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has suggested that US defense contractors could be the next target of an unprecedented wave of government equity stakes. The statement, made during an interview earlier this week, follows a controversial decision by the Trump administration to convert $11.1 billion in federal funding into a 9.9 percent ownership stake in Intel.
The comment is more than a passing idea. It signals a growing federal appetite for strategic control over industries previously considered off-limits to direct state participation. “Lockheed Martin makes 97 percent of their revenue from the US government,” Lutnick said. “They are basically an arm of the US government.”
A financial shift in the US defense complex
This statement reflects a broader shift toward economic statecraft. Lutnick’s remarks echo those made by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who told CNBC this week that further moves like the Intel stake could follow. Together, the officials paint a picture of an administration increasingly comfortable with partial ownership of private sector firms involved in critical infrastructure and national security.
Industry analysts are already parsing the implications. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and other defense firms generate most of their income from federal contracts. Equity stakes would not signify a bailout, but rather a public claim on reliable profit streams. While unusual, the logic presented is that taxpayers should be entitled to returns on their investment, particularly when those firms operate almost exclusively with government funding.
Critics, however, warn of an erosion of traditional boundaries between public capital and private enterprise. Vance Gunn, a former Office of Management and Budget official under Trump’s first term, described the trend as “corporate socialism,” where profits remain privatized but risk is absorbed by taxpayers.
From chips to combat
The Intel acquisition is the clearest sign yet of a more aggressive federal industrial strategy. It arrives amid a series of related decisions: the government took a “golden share” in US Steel following its sale to Japan’s Nippon Steel, a 15 percent stake in rare earth miner MP Materials, and now claims 15 percent of chip sale revenue from Nvidia and AMD’s exports to China.
The Intel deal, however, is by far the most contentious. The company is undergoing a workforce reduction of more than 20,000, even as it accepts significant government support. Public backlash has spanned the political spectrum. Republican critics include former Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Thom Tillis, who warned of a creeping “semi-state-owned enterprise” model. Businessman Kevin O’Leary, speaking on CNBC, stated bluntly: “Intel should have been sold for car parts three years ago.”
On the other side, support for the move came from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He argued that if companies receive billions in public funds, then the public deserves a stake in the outcome. “The taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment,” he wrote on social media.
Lutnick, too, framed the shift as an overdue correction to previous federal handouts. The CHIPS and Science Act, championed by the Biden administration, had provided Intel with significant subsidies without equity claims. “It was just a giveaway of money,” he said.
Public control and private risks
The broader implication is a federal strategy that seeks not just to influence but to co-own strategic firms. This, some suggest, may foreshadow the creation of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund. Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative, characterized it as a necessary evolution, not a break from capitalism. “This is about keeping the United States competitive with other nations in the 21st century,” he wrote.
Not everyone agrees. The National Review’s editorial board wrote that a government $37 trillion in debt has no business playing investment banker. Meanwhile, Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome warned of subtle coercion, where companies might feel pressure to align with government priorities rather than market forces.
Intel itself acknowledged the complications in a recent filing. The firm warned that foreign regulators might impose restrictions due to its new government ties. That risk is not abstract: 76 percent of Intel’s revenue came from international markets last year, including 29 percent from China.
At issue is more than ownership. With stakes in companies that produce vital technologies and military systems, the government is potentially reshaping procurement, pricing, and innovation ecosystems. Critics argue that investor signals may become less reliable. Others suggest the risks of politicization now mirror those in centralized economies that Washington has historically criticized.
The shift in posture extends beyond policy. President Trump, after initially calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan’s resignation over ties to Chinese firms, later met with him to finalize the deal. The reversal highlights the transactional nature of the administration’s approach, where strategic alignment can override past political criticism.
A government share in Intel may be just the beginning of a new chapter in American industrial policy.
Sources