In 2025, the U.S. administration implemented economic policies that led to varied discussions among business and political commentators regarding their impact on U.S. free-market capitalism. These policies included direct government involvement with private companies, such as acquiring equity stakes and influencing regulatory approvals, prompting terms like "state capitalism" and "crony capitalism" from some observers, while administration officials characterized them as consistent with traditional free-market principles with targeted interventions. The shifts influenced corporate responses, regulatory practices, and drew attention to the evolving nature of U.S. industrial policy.
Policy Characterizations and Expert Observations
Business and political commentators employed terms such as "state capitalism," "MAGA Marxism," and "crony capitalism" to describe the administration's policies and their perceived influence on the U.S. economic system in 2025.
Ann Lipton, a business law professor at the University of Colorado, suggested that government favoritism towards specific companies could distort the marketplace, potentially reducing innovation incentives and impacting free-market functionality. She characterized certain interactions as "capitalism by schmoozing," cautioning about potential effects on U.S. business competitiveness and long-term economic outcomes if competition shifts from innovation to political relationships.
Daniella Ballou-Aares, co-founder of Dalberg and head of the Leadership Now Project, stated that a deviation from "rules-based capitalism" carries risks. An October survey by her group and The Harris Poll indicated that 84% of business leaders expressed concern about the political and legal climate's impact on their companies.
An unnamed White House official, however, described the narrative of the administration reshaping capitalism as "significantly overstated." The official asserted that policies were largely consistent with "traditional free-market policy-making expected from a Republican Administration," refuting claims of "crony capitalism" by stating that some companies benefited irrespective of their relationship with the administration.
Government-Corporate Engagements and Equity Investments
The administration engaged directly with U.S. companies and investors throughout the year, including acquiring equity stakes in several domestic firms.
- Intel: In August, President Trump publicly called for the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan. Following a White House meeting, Tan agreed to provide the U.S. government with a 10% stake in Intel, valued at approximately $8.9 billion. This investment is passive, without board representation, and typically involves voting with the company's board, with limited exceptions.
- Nvidia: Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, secured permission for the company to sell advanced semiconductor chips in China, with the condition that the U.S. government receive a 25% share of the sales. Huang was noted as a donor to a White House ballroom project.
- U.S. Steel: The administration obtained a "golden share" in U.S. Steel in June as a condition for approving Nippon Steel's acquisition of the company. This share grants the government veto power over certain decisions, including job relocation and plant closures.
- Other Strategic Investments: The federal government also invested in MP Materials (a rare-earth minerals company), Lithium Americas, Trilogy Metals, and the nuclear energy firm Westinghouse. The agreement with MP Materials restricts the nomination of non-U.S. citizen board members without Department of Defense consent.
- TikTok: The White House facilitated a deal for U.S. investors, including Larry Ellison, to acquire TikTok's U.S. operations. This transaction included a substantial payment to the federal government, which some business experts described as a "shakedown" or "extortion."
- Apple: Apple CEO Tim Cook presented an item to the President and announced a $600 billion investment commitment in the United States. Apple's iPhones were notably excluded from certain tariff implementations.
A White House official stated that the U.S. government primarily pursued ownership stakes or revenue-sharing agreements with companies deemed critical to economic and national security, particularly those involved in semiconductor production and artificial intelligence. The official characterized equity stakes as a "powerful tool" used "judiciously in very specific sectors for very specific reasons," citing national and economic security implications. The administration's intent was described as embracing the free market while implementing targeted interventions in areas of significant national interest, aiming for alignment between corporate interests and U.S. economic national security goals.
Corporate Responses and Challenges
Businesses broadly responded positively to President Trump's election victory the previous year, with some attributing this to perceived regulatory challenges under the preceding administration. Leaders of major technology companies, particularly those in the artificial intelligence sector, expressed satisfaction with the administration's initial year. Daniel Kinderman, a political science professor at the University of Delaware, noted that major technology companies and the administration largely aligned on certain objectives. He also observed that for some CEOs, direct engagement with the President offered an alternative to navigating established federal regulatory processes.
However, some policies, such as tariffs and adjustments to highly-skilled foreign worker immigration, presented complexities for large technology companies. While many tech CEOs generally refrained from public criticism, opting to focus on contributions to administration-associated projects, others expressed frustration. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale management professor, indicated that a majority of CEOs felt frustrated.
Examples of corporate actions included:
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the administration regarding proposed fees for H-1B visas for highly-skilled foreign workers, while simultaneously commending the administration's broader agenda.
- Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, publicly explained his company's decision not to contribute to a White House ballroom project, citing concerns about potential implications of appearing to seek favors due to its global government contracts.
Drew DeLong, head of corporate statecraft at Kearney, described the situation for businesses as "tactical fire-fighting," noting that resources allocated to tariff mitigation reduced time available for innovation, leading to a sense of strain. Many businesses prioritized commercial operations and adapted to policy changes, while public criticism of the administration's policies from most businesses remained limited, often due to concerns about potential public criticism or negative consequences.
Regulatory Scrutiny and Implications
The administration's approach to corporate merger approvals also received scrutiny. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved telecommunications mergers after Verizon and T-Mobile agreed to discontinue certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. The FCC also reportedly considered federal action against some ABC affiliates regarding a late-night show's commentary, concurrently with the owners of these stations pursuing federal merger approvals. Elizabeth Wilkins, former chief of staff to a previous Federal Trade Commission chair, stated that merger review had been utilized as a control mechanism, contributing to an environment of uncertainty among corporate leaders.
Experts, including Nathan Lane, an assistant professor of economic development at the London School of Economics and Political Science, noted that the specifics of the industrial policy were often complex and "ad hoc." Concerns were raised by several commentators regarding potential risks such as politically motivated decisions, cronyism, and market distortions. While the financial scope of these actions may be limited, their structural implications are considered significant.
Historically, U.S. government intervention in private industry has typically occurred in periods of economic distress, such as the 2008 financial crisis. Current interventions are being implemented outside of such urgent economic conditions. The U.S. has increasingly adopted industrial policy over the past decade, with the first Trump administration implementing protectionist measures and the Biden administration pursuing state-influenced economic strategies through legislation like the CHIPS Act.
Aaron Bartnick, a former White House economic security official, commented that the administration has introduced a "new group of tools into the economic statecraft toolkit," which future administrations may find compelling to utilize. He also noted that specific criteria for company and industry selection, as well as valuation methods for government stakes, have not been publicly detailed. A White House official indicated that further equity investments are anticipated, though the specific criteria for selecting recipients have not been fully disclosed, and long-term exit strategies and financial returns are yet to be determined.