Trump keeps taking government stakes in big companies. What's next?

President Donald Trump has been busy in recent months adding a new role to his list of job titles: Investor-in-Chief.

Less than a year into his term, Trump has led the federal government to take ownership stakes in five publicly-traded companies: Intel (a 10% stake), MP Materials (15% stake), Lithium America (10% stake), Trilogy Metals (10% stake), and U.S. Steel Corp. (a "golden share" partnership with U.S. Steel buyer Nippon Steel).

The Trump administration clearly isn't done. At least five quantum computing funds are in different stages of talks or consideration about exchanging stakes in their company in return for federal funding, according to a new report in The Wall Street Journal. Deputy Commerce Secretary Paul Dabbar, a former quantum executive, is reportedly helming the discussions, with IonQ, Rigetti Computing, and D-Wave Quantum among the potential targets. All three companies have experienced robust share growth, with IonQ stock returning 277% over the past year, while Rigetti (3,180%) and D-Wave (2,775%) have significantly outperformed over the same time period.

With a developing government portfolio in his pocket and more likely on the way from the quantum sector, Wall Street is wondering when and where – not if — Trump will add to this burgeoning investment holdings. And whether it’s actually a good deal for the American taxpayer.

“The U.S. government’s decision to take equity stakes in private critical mineral companies marks a new phase in how Washington approaches industrial policy,” said Stephen Empedocles, the CEO of advisory firm Clark Street Associates, which helps companies do business with the federal government. “Historically, federal engagement has relied on grants, loans, and tax incentives to stimulate private investment while maintaining distance from ownership.”

Empedocles noted that direct U.S. government equity investment is rare outside of crisis periods such as the 2008 financial crisis.

“Today, however, the motivation is clear," Empedocles said. "The administration wants to accelerate domestic mineral production, reduce dependence on China, and show tangible progress toward rebuilding critical supply chains."

With the Trump administration in profit-seeking mode, what other companies might be added to the corporate partner stakeholder list? These firms and sectors could be first in line.

Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin is the archetype of a national-interest firm that could attract the White House's attention.

“While defense contractors already rely heavily on federal budgets, a symbolic equity position could formalize shared alignment without interfering in management,” said Dean Lyulkin, founder and CEO of Cardiff, a U.S.-based small business lender with over $10 billion funded.

In August, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the Trump administration was mulling over ownership stakes in major defense contractors and cited LMT by name, noting that given Lockheed draws most of its revenues from government contracts, the military contractor is “basically an arm of the U.S. government."

Palantir

The Denver-based software firm generates more than half its revenue from U.S. government and defense contracts, making it another contender for the Trump portfolio.

“Palantir is profitable, deeply embedded across intelligence and military agencies, and operates in precisely the kind of dual-use frontier technology the administration wants to secure,” Lyulkin said.   

A non-voting U.S. Treasury stake would make sense. “The deal would return some taxpayer-funded value while reaffirming Palantir’s role as a strategic partner,” Lyulkin noted. “The idea isn’t to control the company, but to mirror Israel’s model of early capital that can later be bought back.”

Copper mining companies

The U.S. government’s recent 10% stake in Trilogy Metals, paired with approval of the Ambler Road project in Alaska, follows the same playbook as earlier deals with Lithium Americas and MP Materials, Empedocles noted.

In each case, Washington leverages its capital and regulatory authority to advance projects that expand domestic access to materials like lithium, copper, and rare earths. “These investments are also acting as a hedge for the taxpayers in a new area with uncertain outcomes, like onshoring critical minerals,” he said.

It’s also important to keep scale in perspective when examining future government business partners. The $35.6 million Trilogy investment itself is small relative to the projected cost needed to develop the region but, politically, it’s meaningful.

“It allows the White House to demonstrate action and momentum on domestic copper production at a time when tariffs have made imported supply more expensive,” Empedocles said. “However, looking at the results, the Ambler region represents a small fraction of U.S. copper reserves, and production is still years away.”

The real near-term opportunity could lie in the lower 48 U.S. states, where existing mines already contain vast, slightly uneconomic copper deposits that could be unlocked with new extraction technologies. “A modest investment there could bring faster, larger-scale gains than any single greenfield project,” Empedocles said. “Remember, mining isn’t the same as supply chain security. Without domestic refining, we’re still dependent on foreign processing, which means control remains overseas.”

Nobody linked to the White House has named any names, but Phoenix-based Freeport-McMoran is among the world’s largest copper producers, generating 1.26 million metric tons of copper in 2024.

What it means for public policy

The implications of the federal government’s interest in taking ownership stakes in companies extend beyond mining, defense, and technology investments.

“This model signals a change in U.S. industrial policy, one that treats the federal government less as a grant-maker and more as a strategic investor,” Empedocles noted. “It sets a precedent for similar approaches in semiconductors and other critical supply chains.”

For companies, it creates new partnership opportunities but also introduces greater scrutiny.

“That’s because federal shareholders bring new expectations for transparency and performance,” Empedocles added. “It also introduces a new overlay of U.S. strategic interests into executives’ business decision-making.”