Is the United States copying China? The Government takes stakes in Intel, MP Materials, and more.

In recent months, the United States has invested in several companies considered among the most strategic and important in the country, ensuring that they can manufacture their own semiconductors, extract their own rare earths, and produce their own steel without depending on others.

What the Trump administration has done is transform grant and loan programs into initiatives where, as part of the aid package, the government acquires an equity stake. Historically, the U.S. has done something similar during financial bailouts, but when the government has taken equity stakes in the past, it has always made clear that its goal was to hold those shares for as short a period as possible.

A political shift

Trump’s policy represents a major shift from the region’s stance in recent years, as it will begin to influence corporate profits and decision-making—raising questions about market confidence in the country, a key foundation of global investor trust Critics argue that the U.S. is now emulating financial systems it has long criticized, such as China—where 71% of the country’s 500 largest companies are state-owned—or Japan, where the central bank is the single largest shareholder of all listed firms. However, there are differences. In China, much of the investment and corporate support occurs at the provincial level, though the central government also provides subsidies and R&D programs. Each province backs different companies, particularly in sectors such as electric vehicles. This strategy has fostered high competitiveness by spreading investment across multiple firms rather than just a few.

Supporters of these policies argue that this is a way to protect the country’s future, ensuring that key industries like semiconductors, energy, and steel remain under U.S. control—an important factor in a world where China dominates key materials such as rare earths.

However, there are also risks. One is the growing state control over the private sector, which could divert resources toward politically favored but inefficient firms, weakening competition and long-term innovation. Moreover, by becoming a shareholder, the government exposes itself to corporate decisions that could create political conflicts or pressure for intervention in management. On a global level, this shift could erode international investor confidence in the U.S. free-market model, the same one that for decades has been the benchmark of global capitalism.

Which companies has the U.S. government invested in?

The companies in which the U.S. government has invested in recent months belong to various sectors, including technology and mining.

Intel (10%)

The past few years have not been Intel’s best. In 2007, the company decided not to produce chips for the iPhone—clearly a major strategic mistake. In the mid-2000s, it also chose not to invest in EUV lithography, the advanced technology that TSMC now uses to manufacture the world’s most sophisticated chips. In the last two years, Intel has been trying to catch up, and doubts remain across the industry about whether it can truly succeed.

The U.S. government’s investment in Intel is part of an ambitious program to restore national capacity to manufacture advanced semiconductors. The Trump administration negotiated an $8.9 billion equity investment in Intel in August, representing a 10% ownership stake at the time.

The investment is financed through grants previously awarded to Intel under the CHIPS Act, aimed at expanding and modernizing its plants in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico, and Oregon. These facilities will produce next-generation chips for strategic sectors such as defense, artificial intelligence, and automotive.

The goal is to guarantee U.S. technological sovereignty and reduce dependence on Asia—particularly Taiwan—for a critical component of the modern economy. Through this investment, Washington seeks to secure stable supply chains and maintain innovation leadership against China.

MP Materials (15%)

MP Materials is at the center of America’s effort to rebuild its domestic rare earth supply chain, essential for electric motors, wind turbines, and defense systems. In July 2025, the Department of Defense agreed to invest $400 million in convertible preferred shares of MP Materials, along with additional warrants. The initial conversion price was set at $30.03 per share, giving the government a potential 15% stake once converted.

The investment has been carried out through a mix of grants, loans, and strategic purchases to expand its Mountain Pass mine in California—the only large-scale rare earth mine in North America—and build a magnet processing plant in Texas. The motivation is geostrategic: to reduce reliance on China, which controls more than 80% of global rare earth refining.

Lithium (10%)

The Thacker Pass project, operated by Lithium Americas in Nevada, has received strong backing from the U.S. government as part of its energy transition policy. The Department of Energy (DOE) restructured the project’s loan and included warrants granting the government a 5% stake in Lithium Americas and another 5% economic interest in the joint venture with General Motors, at a nominal exercise price.

This is not a direct cash equity purchase, but it provides economic ownership when the warrants are exercised as part of the loan guarantee package.

The government’s main motivation is to secure a domestic lithium supply, a critical mineral for electric vehicle batteries and energy storage. Washington aims to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers—particularly China and South America—and build a national value chain from extraction to battery cell manufacturing.

Trilogy Metals (10%)

Trilogy Metals has become a focal point of U.S. critical minerals policy. A few weeks ago, the company received a $17.8 million investment from the government to advance the Ambler Access Project, a key mining district for copper, zinc, and cobalt in Alaska. The transaction was structured as common stock plus warrants, with the goal of the government reaching a 10% ownership stake (and an additional 7.5% via warrants) once conditions are met.

The investment is justified by the need to strengthen domestic supplies of essential metals for electrification, defense, and advanced manufacturing. Copper and cobalt are vital for power grids, batteries, and military technology, making the development of the Ambler district a strategic priority for the U.S. administration.

Nippon Steel (golden share)

In this case, the situation is reversed: Japan’s Nippon Steel proposed to acquire U.S. Steel, a symbol of American industry. Although this is a foreign investment, the U.S. government has intervened directly through CFIUS (the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) to supervise and condition the transaction.

In 2025, the White House approved the deal under a national security agreement that included a key clause: the creation of a “golden share” in favor of the U.S. government. This special share, controlled by the Department of the Treasury, does not carry economic rights but grants a veto power over decisions affecting national security—such as plant sales or the transfer of sensitive technology.

Through this mechanism, Washington ensures that strategic steel production remains under national oversight, balancing openness to foreign investment with control.

The motivation behind this intervention is not financial but strategic: to preserve industrial security and domestic employment, ensuring that foreign investments align with national interests.

A new era of strategic capitalism

The country that for decades placed its faith in the power of the market has now decided to reinforce its industrial base through a more active role of the state. Stakes in companies such as Intel or MP Materials are described as a strategic necessity —a way to protect critical sectors in an increasingly competitive global environment. The challenge will be to maintain a balance between national security, economic efficiency, and investor confidence, without losing what has long made the U.S. economy a model of innovation and trust.