The Trump administration has now announced or completed deals to take ownership stakes in 40 private companies. Just this week, the Commerce Department added four more proposed stakes to the running count we maintain at the Cato Institute’s Restoring Free Enterprise initiative. Those inclined to applaud the president’s dealmaking should consider what a Democratic president might do with those stakes after Trump is no longer in office.
Democrats are certainly thinking about it. Semafor reports that former Biden officials are licking their chops at the prospect of using government ownership to pressure gun and oil companies. Doug Farrar, who worked for then-Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan during the Biden administration, sees a future president leveraging government ownership to turn the screws on AI companies, "especially a Democrat who wants to seriously regulate this industry." Remember when the Biden administration bullied social media platforms to remove content it didn’t like during the COVID pandemic? That was done without government ownership.
I warned about this two weeks into Trump’s second term after he signed an executive order seeking to create a sovereign wealth fund, noting that a government investment fund would eventually become a vehicle for Democratic administrations to pursue policies Republicans oppose. The White House ditched the idea for a formal fund and proceeded to cobble together an ad hoc presidential portfolio despite having no clear legal authority to do so.
If a Democratic administration had done this, it would be practically impossible to imagine a Congress controlled by Republicans allowing it to continue. And yet congressional Republicans, who never miss a chance to tag Democrats as socialists and communists, have collectively done nothing to stop the Trump administration. In fact, congressional Republicans are actively trying to give the executive branch—and thus future administrations, not just the current administration—the legal authority to continue doing it.
The Trump administration’s supporters cite its claims that equity stakes are better for taxpayers than blank checks, or that they are necessary to bolster supply chains for national security. Setting aside that they aren’t the administration’s true motivation, neither justifies Washington becoming a shareholder in a portfolio of companies.
Sure, if the government is already handing a company money, getting shares in return sounds better than a straight giveaway. But the trade-offs can’t be ignored.
When the government picks a racehorse, that horse is given advantages and privileges that leave the competing horses at a disadvantage. But the danger goes well beyond current competitors. Upstart firms, including those that don’t yet exist, already face a steep hill to climb in bringing their products and ideas to market. Government ownership steepens that hill, threatening to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit critical to America’s economic success.
The value of the shares on the government’s books isn’t the same as revenue in the Treasury. Realizing the gains requires selling the shares and subtracting what taxpayers put in. And as my colleague Scott Lincicome explains, Intel’s stock gains partly reflect expectations of government favoritism, including pressure on other companies to use Intel products. That points to the possibility that the government is diverting private investment from businesses with better commercial prospects.
Even if the administration could sell its entire Intel stake today, it would net roughly $28 billion—less than 1.5% of the $2 trillion deficit Washington ran up in the fiscal year just ended under President Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress. The stakes the administration has acquired should be divested, regardless. But if the administration wants to raise funds productively, it could revisit Cato’s recommendations to sell excess federal buildings and privatize government businesses like Amtrak.
The national security rationale also sounds reasonable until you realize the federal government already has plenty of ways to support companies on such grounds without becoming an owner. Our Restoring Free Enterprise initiative lays out both market-based and government alternatives to equity stakes that would help bolster critical supply chains. Easing permitting requirements and removing tariffs on production inputs would make it easier for private companies to invest and expand supply. And the government can address specific defense needs through purchase contracts or stockpiles of critical materials.
Invoking "national security" also has a long-standing tradition in Washington as an excuse for politicians to justify actions they might not otherwise get away with. Back in April, the administration pursued a bailout that could have given the government 90% of Spirit Airlines on dubious national security grounds, until a group of the airline’s bondholders balked at the terms.
Last week, Politico reported that the Federal Aviation Administration is exploring an ownership stake in a company that develops software for managing air traffic control. National security or not, having the government become an investor in a company it is supposed to evaluate objectively is an objectively bad idea.
Defenders will also point to promises that the government will remain a passive shareholder and argue that concerns about federal control over the corporate boardroom are overblown. That’s a painfully naïve view of how Washington works. The Trump administration is already using contracts and regulatory authority to favor companies it owns.
While Trump’s supporters may applaud that favoritism today, will they still applaud when a President Gavin Newsom or President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does it?
No.
That is why Republicans should use the time they still have to end this ownership experiment instead of waiting until a Democratic president makes them wish they had.
There are two elements of the Senate race in Maine that truly stand out on the ground. One is that this is a small state, at least in terms of population. The other is that Susan Collins has been a senator here for three decades. The upshot is that almost everyone I've met here has met her.
Philip, a lifelong Mainer in his 70s from Bangor, told me in an accent straight out of "Murder, She Wrote": "It would be stupid, in my opinion, not to vote for Susan, she's chairman of the appropriations committee, and she's brought a lot of money to the state," adding, "we've got new fire stations in every little town you can think of."
The appreciation for Collins among ordinary Mainers represents the daunting uphill battle Democrat Troy Jackson faces in a race where polls give him a slight lead, but the word on the street has him dead in the water.
Speaking of fire stations, I met Andy and Hank, both firefighters, at Seasons restaurant in Bangor. And just like Philip, they can't really see Collins going down.
"We've all met her," Andy said of "Susan," not "Collins," adding, "She's an institution in Maine, I can't believe that Jackson can beat her."
Hank was hardly alone. Everyone I spoke to at Seasons seemed to agree, even the Democrats, who have a unique affection for Collins. As the burly Hank put it, "I'll believe she loses when I see it."
In fairness, while Collins may be the Tom Brady of New England politics, even he lost twice to Eli Manning in the Super Bowl. So Jackson does have a chance to unseat the 73-year-old stalwart of the Senate.
John and Jeff, two voters I spoke with, are hoping and voting for just that. Jeff told me his top issue this election is ICE, saying, "We shouldn't have federal troops in every city … the Portland police should be able to handle things without having immigration backing them up."
John went a bit further. When asked about the riots in France, he told Fox News Digital, "We should probably start rioting more in America, to be honest," but then hedged a bit with, "I would say, not riot. Protest."
I met Paul at the bar of the Hollywood Casino in Bangor. He and the bartender, both in their early 70s, knew each other from the town where they grew up, "up north." Frankly, it seems like everyone in Maine knows everyone.
Paul lives in South Carolina now, making him a bit of a two-for-one for this columnist. He told me he thinks the GOP will hold the Senate seat in the Palmetto State and that Maine will "come around for Susan like it always does," adding, "She has a house right up the road."
The word that kept resounding in my mind as I wandered the dusty back alleys of Bangor and marveled at the sea of colors clinging to the leaves along the dusky Penobscot River was "Susan." Almost everyone I talked to called her by her first name, a level of familiarity I have rarely encountered while covering a political race.
The inescapable reality of this Senate campaign in Maine is that many Mainers under 40 have no memory of a time when "Susan" was not their senator. And to break that streak would require a call to arms that Troy Jackson just can't seem to muster.
Among the kindest words I heard about Jackson in Bangor were those of a woman in the antiques emporium on Main Street who said, "Somebody had to run."
Maine voter Wendy told Fox News Digital of Jackson, "He was a last-ditch effort," adding that she hopes Collins wins.
One word I didn't hear much in Maine, and this is a problem for Jackson, is "Trump." Almost everyone I spoke with sees Collins as independent of the president, who, after all, would serve only two years of the six-year term she is running for.
At Reagan National Airport on Tuesday, I bumped into former U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, himself the kind of institution in my home, the Mountain State, that Collins is in Maine. He was on his way to campaign for her.
The message of Manchin's mission was clear: a former Democrat, a centrist, a guy who can get things done with both sides, but also very much a former senator who could not survive the purity tests of the modern, far-left Democratic Party.
For Collins' part, Republicans across the country, especially in Maine and even in the White House, are willing to look past her centrism and just be thankful a Republican has a shot in a state like Maine.
But let's be honest: Polls or no polls, a Collins loss would be an absolute shocker in Maine, and one that this column sees no evidence is in the works.
Saudi Arabia may now be bearing the brunt of Houthi attacks that have sought to murder civilians at its airports, cripple its critical energy infrastructure, and demolish its military installations. But make no mistake, Saudi Arabia is only the Houthis’ most immediate grievance. They have the potential — and arguably the inclination — to do much worse. Their slogan, “God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Cursed are the Jews, Victory to Islam,” should not be read as a rhetorical flouri
The FCC should utilize its $9 billion 5G Fund to subsidize direct-to-device satellite service in areas where traditional cell tower construction is impractical.
The FCC should utilize its $9 billion 5G Fund to subsidize direct-to-device satellite service in areas where traditional cell tower construction is impractical.
We need to protect eligible Americans’ right to vote without fear. If the administration believes it can win voters over, the answer is policy and persuasion, not tactics that risk making people afraid to exercise their fundamental right.
We need to protect eligible Americans’ right to vote without fear. If the administration believes it can win voters over, the answer is policy and persuasion, not tactics that risk making people afraid to exercise their fundamental right.
Turn on a tap in Riyadh, Jeddah or Dammam, and the water almost certainly started as seawater. Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest producer of desalinated water. For most of the Kingdom’s cities, desalination is not a supplement to the water supply; it is the supply itself. This makes desalination plants more than industrial infrastructure. Each is a critical point of failure for the cities it serves. Their most vulnerable point is not inside the plant, but in the stretch of open water in front
Former Sen. Jon Tester praised the passage of the bipartisan 21st Century Road to Housing Act, noting its success in balancing restrictions on Wall Street investors with incentives for professional housing providers to increase supply.
Former Sen. Jon Tester praised the passage of the bipartisan 21st Century Road to Housing Act, noting its success in balancing restrictions on Wall Street investors with incentives for professional housing providers to increase supply.
The first Russian diesel tanker under the new deal between Russia and the United States is now heading for New York with a 40,000-metric-ton cargo, enough to cover barely two hours of American demand.
The deal began with a phone call, in which Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to
Wesleyan University computer science professor Sebastian Zimmeck argues that artificial intelligence poses a threat to democratic citizenship by encouraging cognitive surrender and requiring both individual critical thinking and robust regulatory oversight to protect personal agency.
Wesleyan University computer science professor Sebastian Zimmeck argues that artificial intelligence poses a threat to democratic citizenship by encouraging cognitive surrender and requiring both individual critical thinking and robust regulatory oversight to protect personal agency.
Federal agents took possession of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s laptop and personal cellphone when they raided her Washington home last week. While some members of the GOP leadership team have taken potshots at the Minnesota Democrat, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., ought to stand up for her rights as a congresswoman — now.
Pay no attention to the flimsy allegations driving the Trump administration’s investigation into Omar’s immigration paperwork. (The Washington Post reported said allegations were investigated and abandoned years ago.) What we have is the executive branch raiding a member of Congress’s home because of her race and politics. And yet, Politico reported Wednesday that Johnson had not instructed the House’s top lawyer, Matthew Berry, to intervene on Omar’s behalf.
What we have is the executive branch raiding a congressmember’s home because of her race and politics.
MS NOW host Chris Hayes, who interviewed Omar for “All In” on Thursday, raised her attorneys’ claim that the Justice Department violated her rights as a member of the House. Article I, Section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution protects all members of Congress from being prosecuted for “any Speech or Debate in either House.” Supreme Court rulings and other precedents have extended that protection to almost all “legislative acts” federal lawmakers undertake when drafting laws and ruled that it shields their staffers and any documents produced as part of their official duties.
Omar said the agents who searched her home asked her to sign a document essentially waiving her rights under the speech and debate clause.
“That was obnoxious,” she said. “I just I couldn’t understand why they would think that I would sign such a thing.”
The legislative branch has an incentive to call out what happened to Omar. Lawmakers need the freedom to openly debate ideas and policies, especially those the president favors, without the threat of the chief executive jailing them for disagreeing. That’s why the House as an institution has often intervened and fought to protect its members from executive overreach — even if it means lawmakers crossing the aisle.
Federal investigators seized the phone of Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., in August 2022 as they investigated President Donald Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Perry was one of the House Republicans most involved with Trump’s attempt to discard enough Electoral College votes to triumph after losing the 2020 election.
The House filed a motion in early 2023 to access sealed material case to ensure that Perry’s speech and debate clause rights were protected. Soon after, Berry, the House’s general counsel, filed an amicus brief arguing that the speech and debate clause applied to the contents of Perry’s phone and any “informal fact gathering” he might have been doing. Though Perry’s early involvement with Trump’s scheme to overturn the election made him a valid target for investigation, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and House Minority Whip Kathleen Clark, D-Mass., signed off on the House’s intervention. According to the rules of the House, their support wasn’t necessary, but a bipartisan front sent a powerful message to the courts.
Republicans have spent four years hammering special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, especially his subpoenas of some members’ phone records (though not the actual contents of those calls). Just last month, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee accused Smith and the Biden-era DOJ of violating the speech and debate clause in the process.
The House GOP should keep that same energy for Attorney General Todd Blanche and the seizure of Omar’s devices. But House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, a fellow Minnesotan, told Fox News that he was all for the investigation without raising any separation of powers concerns. And with a potentially rocky midterms looming, Johnson may be afraid that coming to Omar’s defense will cost him his leadership over the GOP caucus.
But no matter how useful Omar is to the GOP as a foil, Johnson should instruct Berry to ensure that Omar’s rights as a legislator are being protected. Even if Emmer and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise disagree, Johnson voting with Jeffries and Clark would be enough to set the ball rolling. While he may seem to act like a member of the White House staff, Johnson’s responsibility to protect the rights and privileges of Ilhan Omar, House representative, should supersede any misgivings he holds against Ilhan Omar, Democrat.
Journalist Bernard Goldberg criticizes President Donald Trump's perceived affinity for Vladimir Putin and his stance on the war in Ukraine, arguing that such diplomacy undermines American values and harms both nations.
Journalist Bernard Goldberg criticizes President Donald Trump's perceived affinity for Vladimir Putin and his stance on the war in Ukraine, arguing that such diplomacy undermines American values and harms both nations.
Login
