The U.S. government has quietly assembled a multibillion-dollar portfolio of corporate investments that now spans dozens of companies across strategic industries, yet there is still no single public record showing exactly what taxpayers own.
Since returning to office, the Trump administration has committed approximately $26.7bn through 30 equity or equity-like transactions, ranging from semiconductor manufacturing to critical minerals and quantum computing. The expanding collection of holdings represents a significant shift in how Washington is supporting industrial policy, while also prompting questions about oversight, accountability, and the long-term management of government-owned assets.
Intel stake highlights the scale of federal ownership
The largest investment is the Department of Commerce’s 9.9% holding in Intel, a position initially valued at about $8.9bn when the agreement was completed. Following a sharp rise in Intel’s share price, that stake is now estimated to be worth around $42bn.
According to Intel’s securities filings, Commerce received most of the shares when the transaction closed, while the remainder remains in escrow pending the company meeting milestones linked to a Pentagon semiconductor programme. The agreement gives the government a passive ownership position, without a board seat or special access to company information, and requires Commerce to generally vote alongside Intel’s board.
Other transactions include a $400m investment in rare-earth producer MP Materials, intended to strengthen domestic supply chains for strategic minerals, a so-called “golden share” retained in U.S. Steel as part of Nippon Steel’s acquisition, and several recently announced investments connected to quantum computing companies.
Despite the growing number of transactions, there is no unified government register tracking these holdings. Instead, investments are spread across multiple agencies, including the Departments of Commerce, Defense and Energy, along with the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
While the DFC was granted statutory authority by Congress in 2018 to make equity investments abroad, the legal basis for many of the domestic holdings differs by agency, resulting in inconsistent public reporting.
Budget rules make portfolio performance difficult to track
Following the government’s investments has become more complicated because existing federal accounting rules were largely designed for grants and loans rather than equity ownership.
Research by Council on Foreign Relations fellow William Henagan suggests equity purchases are generally recorded as spending when the money leaves government accounts, but there is little mechanism within federal budgeting to reflect increases in the market value of those holdings. As a result, the substantial appreciation of the Intel investment does not appear as a gain in standard budget reporting.
For privately held companies receiving government investment, including firms such as Vulcan Elements and xLight, there are also no public securities filings available through the Securities and Exchange Commission that would normally disclose ownership information.
The Council on Foreign Relations currently maintains one of the most comprehensive publicly available trackers of these investments. Senior fellow Jonathan Hillman has argued that the transactions announced so far likely represent only part of a broader investment strategy and said the greater challenge will be creating an effective framework to oversee the government’s expanding portfolio over time.
Oversight may become the next policy debate
Government ownership of private companies is not unprecedented. During the 2008 financial crisis, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly known as TARP, gave Washington significant equity positions in financial institutions as part of broader rescue efforts. That programme operated under multiple layers of oversight, including a statutory inspector general, congressional reporting requirements and Government Accountability Office audits.
Today’s investment programme does not have an equivalent oversight structure.
The issue extends beyond transparency alone. As governments around the world increase investment in sectors viewed as strategically important, including semiconductors, advanced manufacturing and critical minerals, questions about governance, valuation and public accountability become increasingly important. Sovereign wealth funds in countries such as Singapore and Norway operate under well-established reporting frameworks, illustrating how state investment can coexist with detailed public disclosure.
Looking ahead, investors and policymakers will likely focus on whether Washington develops a formal system for tracking, valuing and reporting its corporate holdings. Comments from National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett describing the investments as a potential “down payment on a sovereign wealth fund” suggest the current portfolio could represent the beginning of a much broader government investment strategy rather than an isolated series of transactions.
