The Brief

State capitalism. MAGA Marxism. Crony capitalism.

Those are just some of the terms business and political commentators have used this year to describe how President Donald Trump's policies are reshaping U.S. free-market capitalism. There are some differences in definition — but all of these terms underline how dramatically Trump has blurred the boundaries between business and government, to an extent that could have long-term consequences for the U.S. economy and the country's global standing.

"When the American government appears to favor a company over rival companies, that distorts the marketplace," says Ann Lipton, a veteran business law expert and professor at University of Colorado's law school.

"It means that other firms have less incentive to compete on innovation, which is sort of the opposite of how a free market is supposed to operate," she adds. "It's just bad for the economy."

There's ample evidence this year of Trump actively favoring some U.S. companies and investors, while threatening others. In August, he publicly called for the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan — until Tan came to the White House to meet with him, and agreed to give the U.S. government a 10% stake in the tech company.

Several other tech CEOs also spent the year appearing to personally court Trump. Take Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who runs the world's most valuable company and is among the donors funding Trump's controversial plans to build a White House ballroom. This month, Trump said the U.S. would grant Nvidia permission to sell one of its more advanced semiconductor chips in China — as long as the U.S. government gets a 25% cut of sales.

Lipton calls this capitalism by "schmoozing," and warns that it could seriously damage the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, thus hurting the overall economy in the long term.

"We're not going to get the best innovations. We're not going to get the best products," she says. "If [businesses] are competing on their ability to schmooze, then that's bad for everybody."

Intel did not respond to an NPR request for comment. In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Nvidia said, "In our discussions, President Trump focuses on his desire for America to win as a nation and his efforts to protect national security, American prosperity and technology leadership."

China-style 'state capitalism'

Business leaders have always spent some amount of time trying to cozy up to the White House, no matter its occupant. But Lipton and business insiders across the political spectrum say that Trump's direct influence over private companies this year — and the degree to which some of those companies and their leaders have sought to appeal to him personally — is pushing the U.S. economy away from free-market or "rules-based" capitalism.

This system, traditionally embraced by both businesses and Republicans, has helped make the United States into the dominant global economy.

But now, these business insiders say, Trump's policies are creating a government-controlled style of "state capitalism," in which the government — rather than competition between private businesses — shapes the economy. Some go so far as to call it "crony capitalism," meaning that the U.S. government picks winners and losers based on the president's personal relationships.

"We are seeing a shift away from the type of rules-based capitalism that has made America's economy so robust for so long. And there's a lot of risk in that," says Daniella Ballou-Aares, who co-founded the consulting firm Dalberg and served in President Obama's State Department. She now runs the Leadership Now Project, a coalition of business leaders that has endorsed candidates from both political parties.

In October, her group and The Harris Poll surveyed business leaders across the political spectrum — and found that 84% are worried "about the current political and legal climate's impact on their companies."

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang listens as President Trump speaks at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in November in Washington, D.C. Nvidia has spent the year seeking the U.S. government's approval to sell more of its semiconductor chips in China.

(

Win McNamee

/

Getty Images North America

)

A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says "this narrative about how [President Trump] reshaped capitalism is significantly overstated" and calls Trump's policies by and large "the traditional free-market policy-making that you would expect coming out of a Republican Administration."

The official dismissed claims that the White House is engaging in "crony capitalism," and says "there are companies that are benefiting [from Trump's policies] whether or not they have a good relationship with the administration."

The official also notes that so far, the U.S. government has largely sought to take ownership stakes or revenue-sharing deals from companies that play a role in economic and national security: For example, Intel and Nvidia both sell the semiconductors at the center of the artificial-intelligence arms race with China. The U.S. government has also taken stakes or other interests in U.S. Steel and MP Materials, a rare-earth minerals mining company, among others.

"What we're trying to do is very much embracing the free market and the growth that it unleashes, but making targeted interventions where there's too much on the line," the official says.

Tech winners vs. everyone else in corporate America

Businesses largely welcomed President Trump's victory in last year's election, in part due to frustration with what they perceived as a harsh and "anti-business" regulatory climate under President Biden.

And some seem pretty happy with his first year in office — especially the tech billionaires whose "Magnificent Seven" companies are powering the A.I. boom.

"The Magnificent Seven and Trump 2.0 are really on the same page to a large extent," says Daniel Kinderman, a political science professor at the University of Delaware who studies what he calls "authoritarian capitalism" and business responses to right-wing movements.

Some of President Trump's policies, including his sweeping tariffs and his changes to immigration policies for highly-skilled foreign workers, have complicated the business of Big Tech. But most tech CEOs have tried to avoid criticizing those policies publicly, and instead focused on donating to Trump's personal projects. Apple's Tim Cook, for example, this summer presented Trump with a gold-plated and glass plaque as his company promised to invest $600 billion in the United States.

Such gifts appear to have helped: Apple's iPhones have escaped the worst of Trump's tariffs.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

Kinderman points out that for wealthy and powerful CEOs, Trump's degree of personal involvement in their businesses at least makes it efficient to deal directly with him — if they can keep him happy — instead of wading through the slow and complicated red tape of federal regulatory processes.

"These companies are a huge portion of the American economy," he says. "And I think Trump is also giving them, to a large extent, what they want."

In August, Apple CEO Tim Cook presented President Trump with a gold-plated and glass plaque, as his company pledged to invest a total of $600 billion in the United States.

(

Brendan Smialowski

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Still, he and others warn that, taken to the extreme, codependent relationships between political leaders and CEOs don't always end well for the latter.

In more authoritarian countries, where leaders exert much more control over private businesses, the stakes can be especially fraught. Russia, Hungary, and China all exercise some form of state-controlled capitalism, where an autocratic leader cultivates relationships with oligarchic business CEOs — and can quickly force them out of favor.

As one extreme example, Ballou-Aares invokes Jack Ma, the Alibaba founder who built one of China's biggest tech companies before criticizing the country's financial regulations … and then largely disappearing from public view for several years.

"We know that crony capitalism never really ends well for most companies," she says. "I mean, tell Jack Ma that autocracy is okay for business."

'Most CEOs are pretty frustrated'

Outside of Big Tech, many businesses feel a lot more conflicted about how President Trump is reshaping U.S. capitalism. Some have even filed lawsuits against the administration, over its tariffs and its immigration policies.

"Despite the handful of tech titans that do seem to admittedly genuflect at the White House and at Mar-a-Lago, most CEOs are pretty frustrated with what's happening," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale management professor who regularly speaks with CEOs.

Pockets of frustration from corporate America have become more visible recently. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued the administration over its plans to start charging $100,000 for H-1B visas for highly-skilled foreign workers — although it did so while praising Trump's "ambitious agenda."

And JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon, who runs the country's largest bank and is one of the most prominent non-tech CEOs in the country, recently told CNN why his company had declined to donate to Trump's White House ballroom.

"Since we do a lot of contracts with governments here and around the world, we have to be very careful about how anything is perceived," Dimon said. "We're quite conscious of risks we bear by doing anything that looks like buying favors or anything like that."

That said, most businesses are reluctant to publicly criticize President Trump or his policies. Smaller companies lack the power to effectively stand up to the White House. And even those running the country's biggest companies are unwilling to draw the personal attacks that Trump can often wield, or the ensuing partisan boycotts and financial damage that can follow.

Earlier this month, demolition work continued where the East Wing once stood at the White House. President Trump ordered the East Wing and Jacqueline Kennedy Garden leveled to make way for a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom that he says will be paid for with private donations from companies including Apple, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Google.

(

Chip Somodevilla

/

Getty Images North America

)

Many businesses have neither the appetite nor the capacity to take on the U.S. government. They just want to focus on making money, even if that means adapting to dramatic tariffs or other sharp shifts in government policy.

"It's tactical fire-fighting," says Drew DeLong, who advises businesses around the world as head of corporate statecraft for the consulting company Kearney, and who served in the State Department during Trump's first administration.

"Every moment and every hour you spend on tariff mitigation is one less hour that you spend on innovation," he says. "There is an urgency towards fire-fighting as best as they possibly can, but there's also a fatigue."

'Merger review has been weaponized'

The Trump Administration's approach to approving — or not — corporate mergers has drawn some of the highest scrutiny, because of the nexus of political and business issues at stake.

For example, the Federal Communications Commission this year approved several telecommunications mergers only after Verizon and T-Mobile agreed to terminate internal policies around "diversity, equity, and inclusion," or DEI. Then it threatened to take federal action against some ABC affiliates over Jimmy Kimmel's comments about Charlie Kirk's killing on his ABC late-night show; the owners of some of those stations were also seeking federal approvals for mergers. (ABC parent Walt Disney suspended Kimmel's show for almost a week, before reinstating him. ABC did not respond to requests for comment.)

"Merger review has been weaponized into a tool for control," says Elizabeth Wilkins, the former chief of staff to Lina Khan, who oversaw U.S. merger review as chair of President Biden's Federal Trade Commission.

"With those kinds of tools hanging over corporate leaders' heads, we have seen an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear — which breeds silence," adds Wilkins, who now runs the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank.

The exception is, again, for leaders who cultivate close ties with the president. This year, the White House helped broker a deal for a coalition of U.S. investors to buy the U.S. operations of TikTok — and asked for an unusual multibillion-dollar payment to the federal government, which business experts have compared to a "shakedown" or "extortion." Some of those same investors, including Trump ally Larry Ellison and his son, David, are now seeking even more media deals.

Some business experts say now that corporate America has a better idea of President Trump's playbook in this administration, they expect to see companies and their executives feel more confident about how and when to push back against White House policies that they think will damage their businesses and the wider economy.

"I think it is clear that the administration's approach here is broadly unpopular, including with business," says Ballou-Aares.

But Kearney's DeLong, the veteran of Trump's first administration, warns businesses to brace for much more policy change, and uncertainty about what capitalism and the economy will look like in the future.

"This is just year one," he says. "Where do we go [during] the rest of this administration? Where do we go after?"
Copyright 2025 NPR

Take accountability and move forward.

Those were the two points Los Angeles Fire Chief Jaime Moore hit repeatedly when speaking with LAist’s Larry Mantle this week.

On taking accountability, Moore said hazardous conditions and decisions made before the Palisades Fire erupted a year ago meant “our firefighters never had a chance” to arrest the fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of structures.

On moving forward, he emphasized that reform is already in the works.

“Things have changed since the Palisades Fire, and we're going to continue making big changes in the Los Angeles Fire Department,” said Moore, who was selected for the LAFD top job by Mayor Karen Bass in November.

Here are three takeaways from the interview, which aired on AirTalk on Tuesday.

1. Staffing decisions hampered fire response

The LAFD uses a so-called pre-deployment matrix to set firefighter staffing levels ahead of high-risk weather.

According to the department’s after-action report, however, staffing levels on the day the Palisades Fire began fell short of the LAFD standard for extreme weather conditions. The National Weather Service had warned of low humidity, high winds and dry vegetation, what it calls a “particularly dangerous situation.” It’s the highest level of alert the agency can give.

Despite the high risk, the LAFD report said the decision not to deploy more firefighters in advance was in part made to save money.

Moore said Monday that the department has updated its policies to increase staffing for especially hazardous conditions, but he said he doesn’t believe additional resources would have stopped a fire of the magnitude that leveled the Palisades.

To suppress that kind of fire, he said, the department would need to pre-deploy resources across the city’s vast geography — to places like Baldwin Hills, Franklin Canyon, the Hollywood Hills, the Palisades, Porter Ranch and Sunland-Tujunga.

Moore said the department has already made new policies to call for more resources when the Weather Service issues a “particularly dangerous situation” alert.

2. LAFD is mostly an urban firefighting department

Moore referenced a key finding of the after-action report regarding a lack of training in wildland firefighting, which contributed to confusion and struggles to effectively utilize resources during the fire.

Wildland fires pose a number of challenges that are different from what firefighters face in urban environments. Those include the need to coordinate a large number of resources over vast areas, all while dealing with fast-moving flames that can rapidly tear through dry plants and structures.

The department found in its report that fewer firefighters were trained in fighting these wildland fires in recent years and that “leaders struggled to comprehend their roles.”

Some leaders in the department had “limited or no experience in managing an incident of such complexity,” the report said. And some reverted to doing the work of lower positions, leaving high-level decision-making positions unfilled.

“What we're doing now is really furthering that training and reinforcing that education with our firefighters so that they could be better prepared,” Moore said on AirTalk.

3. Changes to the after-action report

Early versions of the after-action report differed from the version released to the public in October, a fact that was first reported by the Los Angeles Times. The Times also reported that Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, who wrote the report, wouldn’t endorse the final version because of the changes.

Moore acknowledged to the L.A. Board of Fire Commissioners at a Jan. 6 meeting that the report had been watered down.

“It is now clear that multiple drafts were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership in that final report,” Moore told the commissioners. “This editing occurred prior to my appointment as fire chief, and I can assure you that nothing of this sort will ever again happen while I am fire chief."

Some changes were small but telling. A section titled “Failures” later became “Primary Challenges.”

Moore told LAist that changes between versions “ made it easier for the public to understand,” but an LAist review found the edits weren’t all surface-level.

In the first version of the report, the department said the decision not to fully pre-deploy all available resources for the particularly dangerous wind event “did not align” with their guidelines for such extreme weather cases. The final version said that the initial response “lacked the appropriate resources,” removing the reference to department standards.

The department also removed some findings that had to do with communications.

One sentence from the initial version of the report said: “Most companies lacked a basic briefing, leader’s intent, communications plan, or updated fire information for more than 36 hours.” That language was removed from the final report.

LAist has asked the Fire Department for clarification about why these assertions were removed but did not receive a response before time of publication.

Olympic organizers announced Tuesday that registration to buy tickets will run through March 18, with sales beginning in April. LA28 CEO Reynold Hoover said that locals will get the first bite at the apple.

The registration period opens 7 a.m. Wednesday.

" Our host city communities here in Los Angeles and Oklahoma City will have the opportunity to be a part of a local presale," Hoover said outside the Coliseum while surrounded by Olympic athletes from Games past. "With our thanks and as part of our commitment to making sure that those who live and work around the games, where the games will take place, can be in the stands and cheer in 2028."

Olympic organizers also provided more details on ticket prices for the first time. One million tickets will sell for $28 a pop and around a third of tickets will be under $100, according to LA28 Chair Casey Wasserman.

That means the majority of tickets to the Olympic Games will run into triple digits. If the World Cup is any indication, some tickets could get astronomically pricey.

Interested fans can go to LA28.org to register. Those who are selected will get an email with a time slot to purchase tickets.

The L.A. County Board of Supervisors took a step toward banning ICE from unlawfully operating on county-owned property and to post signage designating those spaces as “ICE Free Zones.”

The board unanimously approved the motion at Tuesday’s meeting, directing staff to draft the policy.

The draft could include requirements for county employees to report to their supervisor if they see unauthorized immigration activity on county property.

The city of Los Angeles passed a similar order last July, which strengthened protocols that prohibit ICE from operating on city-owned property. The agenda staff report points to an “ICE Free Zone” ordinance passed by the city of Chicago in October.

Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Hilda Solis co-authored the motion.

Horvath said the county will not allow its property to be used as “a staging ground for violence caused by the Trump administration."

Solis added that their action as a board could have a ripple effect on other city councils and local governments.

“Even though it's taken us this long to get here …I think it's really important for our communities to understand what we're saying is you don't have the right to come in and harass people without a federal warrant,” Solis said. “And if you use our property to stage, then you need to show us documentation as to why.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said in an X post that the county cannot exclude federal agents from public spaces.

"Anyone who attempts to impede our agents will be arrested and charged, including county employees," Essayli said in the post. "We have already charged more than 100 individuals for similar conduct."

Since June, ICE raids have ramped up across the nation, heavily targeting certain immigrant communities like those in Los Angeles.

The motion directs the draft to include language that prohibits all types of ICE operations on county land, including staging and mobilizing without a warrant.

The motion cites an incident on Oct. 8, when county officials say federal agents raided the Deane Dana Friendship Park and Nature Center in San Pedro, arresting three people and threatening to arrest staff.

The motion also requires that the county post 'Ice Free Zone' signage on all of its properties.

Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center of Human Rights and Constitutional Law, told LAist the policy is enforceable under Fourth Amendment case law.

“You have to make sure that when you post that signage … that means that you routinely, or semi-routinely, assess who's coming in to the property, so that you can control access,” Perez said. “But if ICE shows up with a warrant, with a subpoena, then all bets are off, and they can enter into the property and do what they need to do.”

Perez said the county has moved “incredibly” slow on this issue.

“It's embarrassing that the county is moving six months later, given how we've been facing violent, aggressive, invasive and illegal raids now for so long here in Southern California,” Perez said, adding that local governments have not been fast or creative enough in protecting immigrant and refugee communities.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, one of the region’s largest immigrant advocacy groups, supports the motion.

"We do not want our county resources being used for federal immigration enforcement activities, which disrupt, uproot, and terrorize our communities,” Jeannette Zanipatin, policy director for CHIRLA, said in a statement. “It is important for all public spaces to be really safe for all residents.”

County staff have 30 days to draft a plan to implement the new policy.