AI Freedom or Corporate Socialism? Trump’s Intel Bet Misses the Mark

Originally published on Substack. 

The good news first: the administration’s new AI executive orders and America’s AI Action Plan move in the right direction—streamline rules, reject Europe’s micromanagement, and let engineers build. That’s how you unleash innovation.

But in nearly the same breath, the White House is negotiating a 10% government stake in Intel and exploring broader equity grabs in other chipmakers that took CHIPS money—industrial policy in a red hat (Reuters, Financial Times).

Where’s the outrage? If the right won’t push back against corporate socialism when it wears their jersey, they’ll get four years of Biden-style economics with different branding.

Let’s start with what’s working. The AI plan’s deregulatory thrust is the right instinct. It explicitly aims to remove red tape and rescinds the prior administration’s attempt to hard-code centralized controls into AI governance—clear the runway and let the private sector fly.

The contrast with the EU’s AI Act—a dense rulebook that front-loads compliance and slows deployment—couldn’t be sharper.

If we want to win the compute, model, and application races, we cannot copy Brussels-style preclearance and call it safety.

But then comes the self-inflicted wound: turning CHIPS handouts into equity. The administration is in talks to take a 10% stake in Intel and is eyeing stakes in other firms that received subsidies, effectively converting grants into government ownership.

That’s not market discipline; that’s creeping nationalization. It also validates the worst critique of the CHIPS and Science Act: once Washington opens the subsidy spigot, it starts steering corporate strategy. Intel itself already secured up to $7.86 billion under CHIPS during Biden to build projects in Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oregon (Intel press kit).

If Intel can’t compete without Uncle Sam, the market is saying “fix the business, not the taxpayer.”

Some argue an equity stake “secures” supply chains. That’s seductive—and wrong.

Government owners pursue political timelines, not product roadmaps. They tilt procurement, muffle competitive pressure, and invite lobbying arms races. If “national security” justifies a permanent bail-in of private balance sheets, where does it stop—GPUs, data centers, cloud providers, AI labs?

The durable answer is broad, neutral conditions for investment: faster permits, reliable energy, predictable taxes, and strong property rights. That attracts every player and lets the best ideas win—without Washington picking favorites.

The same drift shows up in fiscal policy. The One Big Beautiful Bill is marketed as a growth machine, but the numbers tell a different story. Nonpartisan scorekeepers estimate it adds over $3 trillion to deficits over a decade, more once interest is counted, and much more if “temporary” provisions become permanent. Meanwhile, the bill is stuffed with targeted carve-outs and design tweaks that privilege friends and favored sectors—precisely the cronyism conservatives blasted in Biden-era industrial policy.

Don’t take my word for it; read the House section-by-section summary and see how the tax code is micromanaged, provision by provision. And yes, the branding is cute—but baselines, sunsets, and scoring games don’t change the fiscal reality.

If Republicans normalize debt-financed favoritism, they torch their own case for restraint, if they haven’t already.

Here’s the bigger picture: industrial policy with Republican decals is still industrial policy. Can you credibly oppose Biden’s subsidies while cheering GOP equity stakes? Can you rail against regulatory overreach and then hard-wire procurement preferences and tax favoritism for your allies? And can you claim to be the growth party while pushing an omni-bill that expands deficits and entrenches complexity?

That’s not conservative economics; it’s political project finance.

What would a principled, pro-innovation path look like?

​Double down on the deregulation spine of the AI orders—speed permits for all data centers and fabs, not just the politically connected. Compete with the EU not by out-regulating or out-subsidizing, but by out-freedoming: keep the rulebook light, the courts predictable, and the capital deep. Replace corporate-specific deals with broad-based tax policy that lowers marginal rates and eliminates distortions across the board. And on semiconductors, focus the state on lowering costs and removing trade barriers.

The right also needs a spine. Many conservatives are soft-pedaling criticism because they don’t want to be at odds with the president. I get it. But loyalty without accountability just cements bad policy.

If the movement doesn’t correct course now—on Intel, on CHIPS creep, on the omni-bill—it will spend the next four years normalizing the very ideas it vowed to defeat. That’s not a culture war; it’s a surrender on economics.

America will win the AI race the same way it won every other technological revolution: by trusting markets over ministries.

Keep the smart parts of the AI orders. Scrap the corporate socialism. And stop pretending that deficit-spending and carve-outs don’t matter just because they’re wrapped in the right slogan.

The path to prosperity isn’t complicated: less spending, rule of law, sound money, and permissionless innovation. Everything else is just noise.