Seven months into his second presidency, Donald Trump’s efforts to exert direct, personal authority over U.S. business are drawing comparisons to China-style state capitalism, albeit “with American characteristics.” Examples include a 10% government stake in Intel, a 15% stake in critical-minerals producer MP Materials, and a “golden share” in U.S. Steel. More controversial is the Trump administration’s deal with NVIDIA and AMD, which would allow limited sales of semiconductor chips to China in exchange for a 15% cut of revenue. Critics on both sides of the aisle warn that the arrangement risks incentivizing sales of dual-use technology to a strategic rival, undermining America’s edge in AI, and even violating the constitutional ban on export taxes. But the White House frames the Intel move as part of a broader strategy to create a sovereign wealth fund that could include more companies. Coupled with $1.5 trillion in pledged investments from Japan, the EU, and South Korea that Trump insists he will personally direct, the approach is putting a distinctly transactional, pay-to-play stamp on the U.S. economy that could last well beyond 2028.
Trump’s direct involvement in business is already unprecedented for an American president. He and his family have reportedly made $3.4 billion since his return to office, with more than $2.3 billion from cryptocurrency ventures alone, bringing his estimated net worth to about $10 billion. Over the past decade, his most loyal supporters — about 11% of U.S. adults — have consistently backed his commercial ventures, whether buying Trump-branded products or staying in his hotels, though many likely lost money on his crypto projects. His second inauguration drew $239 million in contributions, an all-time record, with many corporate donors later receiving favorable treatment. Trump also holds large personal stakes in Apple and NVIDIA, both of which have benefited from concessions his administration has extended to technology companies.
Preparations for the U.S.’s 250th anniversary next year are already generating an uptick in corporate contributions, widely seen as efforts to remain in Trump’s good graces. Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, Amazon, and Palantir have all contributed undisclosed amounts, while Chrysler brands signed on as exclusive automotive sponsors. These gestures fit into a larger system of measuring and rewarding corporate loyalty that continues to take shape, including administration-maintained “trackers” of which companies support Trump’s tax and spending law or announce “Trump effect” investments in U.S. manufacturing and innovation. Taken together, they signal that Trump’s direct interventions in the economy are not only deepening but also increasingly designed to pressure corporations to align with his political and social priorities — particularly with the midterm elections approaching.
President Trump is spearheading a campaign to redraw congressional maps in Republican-led states ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, aiming to cement his party’s hold on the House majority and advance his policy agenda in the second half of his term. About 40 congressional districts could be competitive this cycle, split roughly between Republicans and Democrats. In Texas, a mid-decade redistricting push could enable Republicans to flip as many as five House seats currently held by moderate Democrats. Similar efforts being weighed in Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and elsewhere could create more safely Republican districts.
Across the aisle, California’s push to redraw its own electoral maps could help Democrats grow their margin by three to five seats. Other Democrat-led states like New York and Illinois could follow suit, threatening moderate, blue-state Republicans who were instrumental in delivering the House majority in 2024. Regardless, Republicans have a clear advantage in the total number of states that could ultimately redraw their maps,simply because there are more states with Republican trifectas (both chambers of the state legislature and a governor’s office) where Democratic-held seats could be in play.
In Texas, the new maps become official once signed by Gov. Greg Abbott, although legal challenges are expected. In California, a November 4 special election will let voters decide whether to temporarily replace an existing map drawn by an independent commission with a new, partisan one. The state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, widely assumed to harbor 2028 presidential ambitions, is framing the move as a direct rebuke to Trump’s increasing authoritarianism — the kind of decisive action Democratic voters say they want from their leaders.
The party is historically unpopular, with voter registrations down in 2024 (although possibly already rebounding) and voters skeptical that it has what it takes to defeat the Trump agenda. At the same time, Democrats are highly enthusiastic about voting in the midterms, and independents are slightly more likely to lean Democratic and say sitting Democrats in Congress deserve reelection. Time will tell whether Democrats’ retaliatory redistricting — in California and possibly beyond — marks the beginning of their own populist, anti-establishment makeover, persuading voters that they are willing to go beyond mere rhetoric and use whatever power they do have to win.
A series of recent actions by the Trump administration are intensifying pressure on wind energy projects across the U.S., casting doubt on the industry’s near-term outlook. Developers face several headwinds: an accelerated phase-out of clean energy tax credits created under the Inflation Reduction Act, federal reviews of offshore and onshore regulations, and new or proposed tariffs that could significantly raise turbine and component costs. These measures build on earlier steps, including a pause on new wind energy leases and a halt to project approvals on federal lands and waters. BloombergNEF estimates that, combined, they could drive a 50% decline in onshore wind installations through 2035 compared with a business-as-usual scenario.
More recently, the administration canceled a major wind farm in Idaho and paused three offshore projects near New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland, two of which were nearly complete — fueling concerns that reviews of projects approved under former President Biden could set a precedent for reversing prior permits or blocking approval of any future projects.
Wind currently supplies more than 10% of U.S. electricity, making efforts to constrain the industry appear at odds with Trump’s declared “energy emergency” and the rising demand from AI-driven data centers. The impact could be particularly acute in Republican-led states such as Iowa, Oklahoma, and Texas, which together stand to lose a significant share of the roughly $317 billion in planned investment now at risk.
In Congress, some centrist Republicans and lawmakers from wind-heavy states have spoken out in defense of tax credits and permitting stability. But the most consequential activity has been at the state level: Since January 2025, more than 20 states have advanced wind-related legislation or regulatory changes, with restrictive measures only slightly outnumbering those designed to support or protect projects.
Democratic-led states such as Massachusetts, and New York have moved to accelerate offshore wind development before credit eligibility narrows, while several Republican-led ones, including Arkansas and Oklahoma, have advanced bills tightening siting, permitting, or decommissioning requirements. With many federal actions facing legal challenges, the trajectory of U.S. wind energy will hinge on both the courts and the pace of state-level policymaking. We will continue tracking developments as the industry adapts to a shifting policy landscape.
