Washington, D.C. — Kevin O’Leary, the well-known television personality from “Shark Tank,” has publicly criticized former President Donald Trump’s recent decision to acquire a 10% stake in Intel, labeling it “a really, really bad idea.” O’Leary’s comments, made during a segment on Fox Business, reflect growing unease among conservative figures about the implication of government investments in the private sector.

The backlash to Trump’s move comes as some of his traditional allies in the Republican Party express concern over what they consider an unprecedented level of government intervention in a major corporation, which they perceive as straying from the party’s historical stance of minimal government involvement in business affairs. Just a day prior, O’Leary called the Intel deal “abhorrent,” emphasizing that the government should “stay in its lane” and avoid using taxpayer dollars to support a company he believes has “performed so miserably.”

This harsh critique mirrors a broader debate among Trump’s backers, with many aligning themselves against the notion of the state playing a role in the ownership of private industry. Some even likened the partial nationalization of Intel to communism, marking a significant shift in the political dialogue surrounding economic policy.

Defending the administration’s actions, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick underscored that Trump’s move is part of a larger consideration towards national defense. He hinted at potential future stakes in defense contractors, suggesting that such companies already function as extensions of the government. “If we need to stabilize our industries for defense reasons, we have to look at our own security,” Lutnick remarked.

Further complicating matters, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett characterized the Intel stake as a “down payment on a sovereign wealth fund,” a concept that he claims aligns with Trump’s long-term vision of bolstering U.S. economic power through calculated investments in key sectors. Hassett projected that this acquisition could be a precursor to additional transactions across different industries.

However, O’Leary remains skeptical of the strategy, arguing that Intel has lost its competitive edge and should have been dismantled and sold to more viable entities. He has consistently positioned himself against government meddling in business, questioning why taxpayer money is being funneled into a struggling company. “Intel is a dog,” he declared. “I would never put my own money into it, and I certainly don’t want to put my tax dollars into it.”

The evolving situation has ignited heated discussions about the balance between public ownership and free enterprise. Many in the conservative economic realm have described Trump’s latest approach as “curious and problematic,” raising alarms regarding the risks that such government intervention may pose to long-term business viability.

The ramifications of Trump’s Intel move extend beyond party lines, as some Democratic lawmakers have voiced support for government investments in critical industries. Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, critiqued the arrangement, arguing that taxpayers should not subsidize wealthy corporations without clear benefits in return. On the flip side, Republican Senator Rand Paul labeled it a step toward socialism, asserting that such actions represent government control over the means of production.

As the debate continues to unfold, both O’Leary and other critics urge the administration to reevaluate its strategy, raising critical questions about the future of business in the United States and the role of government in shaping its fate.