Republicans hoping to defeat what they portray as a leftward drift in American politics may be overlooking a significant shift in the opposite direction. According to analysis by Eduardo Porter, the United States is moving toward greater state control of the economy, but this shift is not being driven by the left.
The latest evidence comes from data compiled by the V-Dem project in Sweden, which measures democratic erosion globally and has developed a scale to assess "state ownership of the economy." As noted by Cullen Hendrix from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, from 2002 to 2024, the US ranked among the four countries with the least state control. In 2025, the first year of Trump's second term, it dropped from second place to 16th.
Trump Administration's Corporate Stakes
By November of last year, the Trump administration had spent more than $10bn taking stakes in companies deemed essential for national security, from Intel to ventures mining critical minerals. It also acquired an option to take a stake in Westinghouse, which makes nuclear reactors, and pressured Nippon Steel into granting Washington a "golden share" in exchange for approval to purchase US Steel.
Despite these moves, the US remains far from the socialism favored by the Soviet Union and its satellites in the 20th century. By V-Dem's accounting, Washington's stake in the economy is still smaller than in 163 countries. Government-run companies are common in many market economies, including Norway, which has a majority stake in its massive oil company and ranks 18th. Even "communist" China sees private companies contribute 60% of GDP.
Strategic vs. Unstructured Approach
In a geopolitical landscape shaped by competition with China, there is a reasonable case for Washington to take equity stakes in industries critical for American leadership and security, which might not develop autonomously against rivals heavily subsidized by Beijing. However, Trump's approach lacks the discipline required for such strategic positioning.
The president's statist leanings mark a dramatic break with the market-focused presidencies of his recent predecessors, Democrat and Republican. His motivations appear embedded in a body of thought skeptical, if not outright hostile, toward essential building blocks of the global market economy. He has pushed back against globalization since his first term, seemingly drawn to Marxist-inspired dependency theory, which proposed protectionism and state industrial policy as paths to economic development.
Contrasting Models of Governance
Trump's desire to control the economy is evident. Though the supreme court rejected his attempt to take over trade policy from Congress, he still threatens to "STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT." His promise to give $5,000 to every American if Republicans maintain control of Congress underscores how he views state coffers as his private piggy bank. Even his anti-communist ads were paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Still, he has no interest in the dictatorship of the proletariat, caring little for the downtrodden. His preferred redistribution takes from those on the bottom to give to those on the top.
Watching the US president bow to Xi Jinping last week, it's tempting to think Trump wants to emulate China's leader. But Xi's China is too disciplined for Trump, relying on technocrats to execute a coherent strategy for technological superiority. Trump's model might instead be Vladimir Putin, who rules Russia like a fiefdom, or cold war-era Latin American dictators like Haiti's Papa Doc Duvalier or Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, who saw government as a tool to enrich their families. Trump's dealings with crypto suggest he views his administration as a road to family riches.
Karl Marx may not be Trump's guiding light, but his writings can help understand Trump's place in history. Marx proposed that The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte was meant to "demonstrate how the class struggle in France created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero's part."
Americans may be grateful their most recent class struggles didn't produce a homegrown Lenin. But they did deliver Donald Trump.
Perhaps this does not condemn the US to an autocratic future. Hendrix points out that while Trump "clearly wants to be king," the US's political economy may not let him. Putin established autocratic rule over a fairly primitive, oil-based economy. This kind of control "is much harder to achieve in a modern complex economy" such as that of the United States, Hendrix noted. You can't simply seize the oil to run the place.
Though Trump may fail, Americans' acquiescence as he grabs for power raises a question for those who freak out over Mamdani's city-run bodegas: why is Trump's lurch to take over the American economy any better than what they hear from the Democratic Socialists of America?
