Uncle Sam isn’t just a lender, regulator, or buyer anymore. Under President Donald Trump, the federal government has become a shareholder in private companies.
Since January 2025, federal agencies have deployed nearly $21 billion across 17 businesses — from Intel Corp.’s (INTC) chip factories to rare earth magnet producers — acquiring stock and ownership stakes along the way. The administration also recently announced letters of intent for $2 billion in grants to nine quantum computing companies, including International Business Machines Corp. (IBM).
For retail investors tempted to ride the Washington-backed wave, it sounds like a can’t-miss trade. But big questions remain about the government’s exit strategy — and what this growing portfolio means for free markets.
The Trump administration frames the equity stakes as a way to counter China’s dominance in key sectors, shore up U.S. supply chains, and give taxpayers a share of the upside.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an independent think tank tracking the investments, the federal government has spent $20.9 billion across 17 equity and quasi-equity deals since January 2025. The concentration is striking. Over 52% of the money has gone to semiconductors, and another 42.5% to critical minerals. Together, those two sectors account for more than 94% of all investment dollars.
The single biggest position is Intel. Last August, the U.S. government agreed to buy 433.3 million Intel shares at $20.47 apiece, giving Washington a 9.9% stake and making it one of the chipmaker’s largest shareholders. It’s the biggest position in the government’s growing portfolio.
Investors piled in. Intel closed at $24.80 on Aug. 22, and by year-end it had surged over 48% to $36.90. As of mid-June, Washington is sitting on paper gains of more than $43 billion — and Intel shares have gained 440% since that August date. “U.S. involvement and its stake helped the stock take off in 2026,” says Brian Colello, senior technology equity analyst at Morningstar.
Other notable investments include:
Washington isn’t simply buying shares on the open market.
The CFR tracker shows debt is part of half the deals, while other investments involve convertible preferred shares, warrants, government-backed loans, price floors, and “golden share” rights.
“There are a number of different equity instruments, but warrants are typically what’s used,” says Arnab Datta, managing director for policy implementation at Employ America. “Warrants give you the right to purchase equity at a price that compensates you for that risk.”
But warrants don’t protect taxpayers from failure. “Importantly, in the case of failure, there’s no compensation back to the taxpayer,” Datta says.
What makes these deals historically unusual is the approach. Government intervention has typically stabilized companies during temporary crises or supported growth across an entire sector. Now, the Trump administration is operating more like an activist investor — buying stakes to shape the governance and commercial outcomes of specific businesses.
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative and a former Biden White House official, calls it a political and economic shift.
“There used to be, at least among Republicans, some hesitancy and skepticism about forceful interventions into the private markets,” Jacquez says. And unlike policy decisions in prior administrations, Trump hasn’t clearly explained why some companies get equity deals while others don’t.
“A lot of it seems to simply be about building a portfolio,” Jacquez says. “Trump wants to own part of these companies. He wants the value of those shares to go up. It seems like it’s now just become a transaction.”
The growing federal portfolio raises three sets of issues.
First, conflicts of interest. The government is simultaneously regulator, contract-awarder, and shareholder — every future regulatory decision, contract award, or loan creates potential conflicts. If the Pentagon owns part of one defense supplier, rivals may question whether they’re competing on a level playing field.
Second, transparency. Jacquez argues the biggest problem is the lack of clarity around how these deals are made and managed. The equity stakes are scattered across different departments, not held in a centralized fund. “These deals come with very little oversight and what seems to be a tremendous amount of corruption,” he says.
Third, exit strategy. When does the government sell? Right now, there’s no clear answer. Datta says if the goal is protecting taxpayers from risk, selling should begin once a company becomes profitable or a technology is commercialized. “The government shouldn’t be holding equity stakes for the sake of it,” he says.
For investors, the practical question is simpler: should you follow Uncle Sam into these stocks?
Federal backing can move stocks, attract private capital, and reduce financing risk. The perception that the government won’t let a company fail — already priced into Intel — is a powerful tailwind.
But it’s not a guarantee. Colello notes Intel still needs to build a competitive foundry business on its own merits. And the market may have already priced in the best-case scenario: Morningstar has a $90 fair value estimate for Intel, versus a $121 stock price.
Government money can lower risk, but it can’t make it disappear. For retail investors, federal backing is better treated as a signal — that Washington sees strategic value — rather than a complete investment thesis. It tells you the government believes in these companies. It doesn’t tell you they’ll succeed.
