.

President Donald Trump has made the federal government the U.S. government’s largest shareholder by authorizing a 10% stake in the struggling American chipmaker Intel. The move reverses a longtime Republican economic orthodoxy and has provoked a torrent of outrage from conservatives who otherwise support the president.

The president has insisted the deal is a “smart investment” that will make the United States “richer and richer.” He also teased that Intel is only the first in a series of similar moves. “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it,” Trump said. “We’re now engaged in a situation that I think is very similar to what was called industrial policy at one time.”

The move has left many wondering whether Trump has crossed into socialism. In recent decades, socialism has been largely defined by one metric: government control of the means of production for the public good. By that standard, Trump’s deal is indistinguishable from what China and Russia do.

The political irony has been lost on no one. In 2008–2009, then-President Barack Obama took control of Chrysler and General Motors to stave off the financial crisis. It was largely seen by conservatives as a stopgap intervention to prevent the failure of cherished American companies. But if Obama had taken a 10% stake in Intel, Trump confidants told me, the conservative media would have railed that he had turned communist.

Trump insists this is a different case and that this is not a bailout but an investment. “I converted $9 billion in grants, which I took from Joe Biden and his bipartisan Chips Act that was going to go to Intel. I made it equity for our government,” Trump said, adding that “we made $10 billion, $11 billion in one fell swoop for the taxpayers.” Why are “stupid” people unhappy with that?” he asked.

Prominent conservatives have been outspoken in their displeasure. Trump’s former top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, said on Fox Business that he was “very, very uncomfortable with that idea.” Trump’s informal adviser Steve Moore was more direct. “I hate corporate welfare. That’s privatization in reverse. We want the government to divest of assets, not buy assets. So terrible, one of the bad ideas that’s come out of this White House,” he said.

National Review put out an editorial saying “government shouldn’t get into the chip business.” Senator Thom Tillis said the deal was “creating a semi-state-owned enterprise a la CCCP.” Rand Paul picked up on that reference on social media: “Wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea.”

But not everyone has been so vocal. On the left, Senator Bernie Sanders cheered the decision as a positive example of the government using its power to shape industry for the good of the public. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, a former Trump speechwriter, immediately rushed to Trump’s defense, telling Laura Ingraham, “That is not socialism. That’s the best businessman in the United States of America in the Oval Office doing fair things for us.”

Intel has said the deal could have complications. In a SEC filing, the company warned that the arrangement could limit its ability to obtain government grants in the future, “adversely affect global sales of our products,” and subject its facilities to “additional regulation.” Intel, which has already announced plans to cut 15% of its workforce earlier this year, said the deal does not affect any plans to close certain factories. Intel’s market capitalization is currently at around $110 billion, down 50% since the start of the year. Its stock did increase 4% on the day of the Trump announcement.

The Wall Street Journal reported Trump was irate at Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan for previous ties to China, and that he demanded Tan resign as a condition for the deal. But after the two met at the White House, Trump backed down, and the deal moved forward. “I liked him a lot, I thought he was very good,” Trump said.

Trump’s promise that the U.S. government will be a non-voting shareholder and not interfere with Intel’s business decisions is immaterial to many critics. As governor of a publicly traded company, they note, the president of the United States inevitably wields influence when he or she is the largest shareholder.

If Intel recovers, Trump can take the credit for righting the ship on a pillar of American tech. If it continues to struggle, taxpayers could be on the hook. Trump has promised to do more deals like this, and with this on,e he has redrawn the line on what the federal government will do with private business. At the very least, this is the end of a Republican orthodoxy on economic policy as the party has been reshaped by Trump.