Voters oppose government equity stakes 49% to 19% as Trump expands Intel deals

Nearly half of American voters say the federal government should not own stakes in US companies, even as the Trump administration deepens its interventionist industrial policy.

Nearly half of American voters oppose the federal government taking equity stakes in US companies, a CNBC All-America Economic Survey found, as the Trump administration's industrial policy has produced a $42 billion windfall on its Intel holding alone.

"Almost a third of voters remain undecided, suggesting the debate is far from settled," said Micah Roberts, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, the Republican polling firm that helped conduct the survey.

The July 8-12 poll of 1,000 registered voters found 49% said government ownership in US-based companies is not appropriate, versus 19% who said it is. That marks a shift from October 2025, when 56% deemed such stakes inappropriate and 13% supported them. The undecided share grew to 32% from 31%.

The Commerce Department has negotiated roughly 30 deals worth nearly $27 billion, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, with the largest being a 10% stake in Intel acquired through an $8.9 billion grant. That position has since appreciated 372% to about $42 billion, fueling the administration's appetite for similar arrangements and intensifying a debate over whether the government should be both investor and regulator.

The poll reveals a sharp partisan divide. Two-thirds of Democrats said government equity stakes are not appropriate, compared with 34% of Republicans. Even among self-identified MAGA Republicans, sentiment was evenly split: 31% said such ownership is appropriate, 31% said it is not, and 38% had no opinion.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick discussed the Intel stake with Senate Republicans at a policy lunch last week. Sen. John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, said after the meeting he would "want to be cautious in this area." Sen. Jon Husted, an Ohio Republican, said government stakes "shouldn't be permanent" and is sponsoring legislation to limit them to eight years for national-security purposes.

The AI Frontier Tests the Model

The debate is extending into artificial intelligence. The Trump administration has held talks with OpenAI about a potential government stake when the company goes public, CNBC has reported. Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a roughly 50% government position in leading AI firms through a federal sovereign wealth fund, while OpenAI itself has suggested contributing about 5% of its equity to a public wealth fund modeled on Alaska's. Anthropic has proposed taxes on AI firms instead of direct ownership.

The proposals reflect an argument that the science underpinning AI grew out of decades of federally funded research. "When a public resource generates wealth, the public should share in that wealth," Sanders has said.

Critics warn that government ownership creates an inherent conflict of interest. They point to the US steel industry, heavily protected through tariffs for years, which was taken private by a Japanese firm in 2025 with the government retaining a golden share that allows it to veto certain business decisions.

A Pattern, Not a One-Off

Beyond Intel, the Pentagon backed MP Materials, a rare-earth miner, taking a 15% stake to secure domestic supply of critical components for advanced fighter jets and drones. It also issued a $620 million loan to Vulcan Elements, a defense startup that had received an investment from a firm linked to Donald Trump Jr., according to ProPublica. A White House official described that report as "fake news on steroids."

The Pentagon has denied that any company has received preferential treatment. But the pattern has drawn scrutiny from government watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers who question whether taxpayer dollars are being deployed efficiently.

With 32% of voters undecided, both supporters and opponents have room to sway opinion as the administration pursues additional stakes and as Congress weighs legislation that could either codify or constrain the practice.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.