The response to the government taking a stake in Intel was telling. Sen. Rand Paul called it “a step toward socialism,” while Sen. Bernie Sanders praised it. If the far left is cheering President Trump’s “Intel deal” and the libertarians are panicking, you should pay close attention as the deal signals more deals to come in other industries the administration cares about.

And sure enough, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox Business that shipbuilding is among the “critical industries” the administration is already evaluating for government ownership stakes.

His comments confirm what insiders are calling a doctrine of “geopolitical capitalism”: the U.S. government will systematically take equity stakes in industries it deems essential for national security. Smart money is already moving. Investors who recognize the roadmap can position before the next stake is announced.

What Does a Government Equity Stake Mean?

Government equity stakes aren’t new, but they’ve almost always been crisis tools. During World War II, Washington financed and co-owned shipyards and factories to meet production quotas. In 2009, the Treasury took stakes in GM, Chrysler, and AIG during the financial crisis. Those positions gave the government voting power, dividends, and eventual profits when shares were sold back to the market.

The Intel deal is different. It wasn’t a bailout or crisis-driven; it was proactive. The Treasury now owns roughly 10% of Intel’s equity. That makes Washington a shareholder alongside mutual funds and pensions. It also means the government participates in Intel’s profits. It doesn’t mean day-to-day control; Intel’s board and management still run the company. But it does create what investors call a “policy put”: Intel now has government capital and implicit political protection, while shareholders know the status of “too strategic to fail” is protecting their company.

This is why Bessent’s comments matter. If shipbuilding or grid hardware gets the same treatment, expect those industries to enjoy the same combination of direct capital, policy tailwinds, and downside protection.

From One-Off Deal to Playbook

Bessent described America’s “five to seven strategic vulnerabilities,” arguing COVID was a “beta test for a kinetic war.” The sectors on the administration’s list are: semiconductors (chips and packaging); commercial shipbuilding and maritime supply chain; medical supplies and pharmaceuticals; large-capacity batteries (EVs and grid storage); critical minerals (lithium, nickel, rare earths); and grid hardware (especially large power transformers).

This sounds like an explicit industrial strategy incorporating a fusion of tariffs, subsidies, and government equity stakes meant to make the U.S. self-sufficient in key industries.

The New Model Is In Motion

The administration is rolling out the model sector by sector:

Intel: Treasury bought a ~10% stake.

U.S. Steel: The government secured a “golden share” in the Nippon Steel deal.

Nvidia/AMD: These companies were forced to pay 15% of Chinese AI-chip sales to the Treasury in exchange for export licenses.

MP Materials: Pentagon put $400 million into the company, including a 15% equity stake, and guaranteed floor prices for rare earths.

CHIPS Act funds: Just $4.3 billion of the $39 billion authorized has been deployed, giving the administration dry powder to convert subsidies into stakes.

The pattern is clear: identify a vulnerability, use tariffs to disadvantage foreign suppliers within this sector, then inject capital into domestic players in exchange for equity.

A Crisis Model in Peacetime

This strategy echoes the naval buildup of the 1980s and the auto rescue of 2009, creating permanent moats for “national champions.” It’s wartime-like economics, without the war and with a dividend.

Bottom Line

The Intel stake signaled a playbook: tariffs plus Treasury equity stakes to rebuild U.S. industries. ETFs like LIT, PPA, PAVE, and UUP let investors align with government-backed champions in batteries, shipbuilding, and grid hardware, capturing the upside from America’s new industrial strategy.

Read today's edition.

November 28, 2025