The growing interventionism of the Trump administration in the economy and the financial bubble generated by the AI give the great US owners of tech a power recalling that of the great industry captains of the end of the 19th century “.
Far from the laissez-faire and the dogma of free-march long in vogue among the Republicans, the second term of Donald Trump is currently marked by an increasing intervention of it in the economy, in particular in the new technologies sector.
In recent weeks, the American president has authorized Nvidia and AMD to sell their IA chips bridled in China again, for a unique tax of 15%; Asked for the resignation of the boss of Intel, for his supposed links with China, and a manager of Microsoft having served under the Biden administration; Taken a participation in Intel and MP Materials, which mine critical minerals; And finally allowed Nippon Steel to buy US Steel, in exchange for a stake in Washington in capital.
STAT-TRATEGE OR CAPITALISM OF CONNIVENCE?
Some of its interventions are part of a strategic reflection which places the Trump 2.0 government in the logic of the strategic state as it is currently practiced in China or was in France of the Glorious Years. The investment in MP Materials, following which the United States government has 15% of the company, aims for example to ensure a supply of rare land and precious minerals necessary for the American industry of new technologies, in order to secure its value chain, on the model of what Beijing did. The investment in Intel is akin to a rescue aimed at keeping the American company alone capable of melting semiconductors.
Other actions seem to further reflect Trump’s love for business and sign mutually beneficial agreements. This is the case of the authorization granted to Nvidia and AMD to sell their chips again in China, which goes against the strategy of restriction of access to American AI technologies for the Chinese, conducted since the first Trump administration.
This agreement made teeth cringe, including in the republican camp. “What is the next step? To allow Lockheed Martin to sell F-35 to China against a 15% commission?” Liza Tobin, a former national security council of the first Trump administration, offended himself. “There are restrictions on sensitive technologies for a reason, and now they are for sale: large companies can get rid of it provided they go to the checkout.”
Interventionism already present under Joe Biden
Certainly, Donald Trump did not invent the intervention of the American state in the economy. If he professes of the laissez-faire for a long time, he has never hesitated to act to defend his interests. Even the very liberal Ronald Reagan had in his time set up customs duties and import quotas to protect American steel and automobile.
More recently, Joe Biden is also largely intervened in the economy, in particular to promote the conversion of industry to renewable, through the inflation Reduction Act, and strengthen American autonomy on semiconductors, via the Act chips. He notably allowed Intel to receive $ 8.5 billion to produce in the United States.
But the Biden administration was also characterized by a very hard tone towards tech giants, embodied in particular by the anti-monopoly policy led by Lina Khan at the head of the FTC, the American competition gendarme, which led to the opening of several trials against the companies of Silicon Valley.
When the bosses of the AI court Trump
Trump’s interventionism is more marked by personal ties woven with tech barons. Where they had largely criticized his policy during his first mandate, they rushed to pay him their tributes from his re-election.
Mark Zuckerberg, who has long taught left -wing ideas, criticized the policies of diversity, equity and inclusion and deplored the absence of “male energy” in business during an interview in January. He recently dined at the White House with Sam Altman, Openai boss and former financial support from the Democratic Party who also made his eyes to the President. Jensen Huang, the boss of Nvidia, takes great care to take care of his relationship with Trump, which he praised several times and which he recently accompanied during a trip to the United Kingdom, where his business and Openai (Sam Altman was also on the trip) announced massive investments. And there is of course Elon Musk, inseparable from Trump at the start of his mandate until the two men engage in a spectacular public confrontation. However, they now seem to be rebuilt.
This strategy is already bearing fruit, the American president being quick to reward those who show loyalty to him. Even more when they have large financial resources and are ready to get their hands in the pocket. At the end of August, Apple (including CEO, Tim Cook, also recently praised Trump) obtained a customs duties in exchange for an investment promise of $ 600 billion in the American economy. Nvidia has obtained the possibility of selling its H20 chips in China again for a 15% obolance on its sales, paid in Washington, and battle now to obtain the right to sell unavailable fleas. Meta, Apple and Google now hope to obtain from the American president that he taps the fist on the table towards the EU so that they no longer have to comply with European regulations which they deem too restrictive.
2.0 thieves barons?
The big bosses of AI companies, which has become an ultra-strategic sector for the United States, which is running in mind, closely close to China, manage, by dint of curbs and financial promises, to exert a significant influence on the domestic policy-one of the first decrees of Trump canceled a decree of its predecessor aimed at supervising the AI-and outside the United States. A situation that is reminiscent of that of the “thieves’ barons” of the 19th century, these large bosses like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and JP Morgan who, taking advantage of the period of strong growth and massive industrialization post-war secession, have built real economic empires in petroleum, steel or the railway.
Empires which in return them allowed them to exert a strong influence on policies with donations, and therefore to influence the decisions of the White House according to their interests. The thieves’ barons have thus promoted the expansionist policy of the United States in Latin America, or the entry into war against Spain concerning Cuba, in order to secure new markets and access to raw materials.
If he benefits the great American patterns of AI, this new state of affairs could ultimately harm American economic domination, which, as certain commentators note, is increasingly similar to state capitalism as it is practiced in Beijing. The 2.0 thieves’ barons must however remain on their guard: a century earlier, the excessive power of their predecessors led President Theodore Roosevelt to pass a battery of anti-monopoly laws, which led to the dismantling of their respective empires. In the event of a democrat alternation during the next election, history may well be repeated.
