In an analysis for the Washington Post published Wednesday, reporter David J. Lynch argued that President Donald Trump’s recent maneuver to acquire a 10 percent government stake in Intel is a seismic break from decades of Republican economic orthodoxy (commonly known as "Reaganomics").
Lynch wrote that this intervention represents a radical departure from the free‑market creed that defined the GOP for "generations."
He noted that former President Ronald Reagan’s signature economic framework favored minimal government, deregulation, and empowered private enterprise. By contrast, Trump's dealings mark a turn toward centralized control, most notably by converting billions in Chips Act grants into a controlling stake in Intel.
READ MORE: 'It's a real gut punch': Rural voters 'stunned' by Trump's damage
Lynch emphasized how Trump’s embrace of direct equity ownership clashes with Reagan’s belief that the private sector, unfettered by government, drives efficiency and innovation.
In addition to the Intel deal, the writer highlighted Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy, efforts to pressure the Federal Reserve, and expanding executive influence over corporate decisions such as naming rights and headquarters relocations. Together, these actions illustrate a broader ideological shift away from traditional conservative principles of limited government and market autonomy, he argued.
The journalist included in the piece the visceral reaction from conservative commentators, who view the Intel stake as an affront to free‑market capitalism. One senior Republican economist told him, “I am appalled,” warning that such interventionism could undermine market functions and future economic growth by blurring the lines between public and private spheres.
Geoffrey Kabaservice, vice president of political studies at the Niskanen Center, told the reporter: “Much of what Trump is saying and doing are explicitly rejections of Reaganism."
READ MORE: (Opinion) Trump's reckoning may be right around the corner – here's why
He added: “Honestly, Ronald Reagan must be turning in his grave at this, because it just runs so counter to everything that generations of conservatives had believed about capitalism.”
Lynch also underscored the potential dangers of government ownership in private enterprise: distorting investment decisions, politicizing business strategy, and dampening innovation.
Observers warned of broader implications for industrial policy: the precedent set by the Intel equity deal may open the door to similar state interventions in defense contractors and agriculture, fundamentally altering the relationship between government and the private sector.