Key facts
- US state ownership of the economy dropped from second place to 16th in 2025, according to V-Dem project data.
- Donald Trump's administration spent over $10 billion on stakes in companies for national security.
- Trump has threatened to "STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT".
- Trump promised $5,000 to every American if Republicans maintain control of Congress.
Republicans are campaigning on an anti-communist platform, but Donald Trump's administration has implemented policies that increase state control over the economy, a move that critics argue is inconsistent with free-market principles. Data from the V-Dem project in Sweden indicates that the US dropped from second place to 16th in its ranking of state ownership of the economy in 2025, the first year of Trump's second term.
During his tenure, Trump's administration invested over $10 billion in companies deemed critical for national security, including Intel and ventures focused on mining essential minerals. The administration also secured an option to take a stake in Westinghouse, a nuclear reactor manufacturer, and compelled Nippon Steel to grant the US government a "golden share" in exchange for approving its acquisition of US Steel.
While the US still exhibits less state control over its economy than many countries, and a case can be made for strategic equity stakes in key industries amid competition with China, Trump's approach is characterized as a "wanton lunge for private assets" lacking strategic discipline. This statist tendency marks a departure from recent market-focused presidencies and appears influenced by dependency theory, which advocates for protectionism and state industrial policy.
Trump's actions, such as threatening to halt trade with countries with which the US has a deficit and viewing government coffers as a personal resource, highlight his statist leanings. However, the author notes that Trump does not seem interested in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or redistribution for the benefit of the downtrodden, suggesting his actions are more about personal enrichment and control.
Comparisons are drawn to leaders like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, with the author suggesting Trump's model might align more with dictators who used government power to enrich themselves and their families. The article concludes that while Trump may aspire to autocratic rule, the complexity of the US economy might prevent him from achieving it, but the public's acquiescence to his power grabs raises questions about why his approach is seen as more acceptable than that of democratic socialists.