The U.S. government has recently committed more than $10 billion in taxpayer funds to acquire minority ownership stakes in several private companies, a strategy driven by national security concerns. This initiative aims to strengthen strategic industries and reduce reliance on foreign nations, particularly China, for essential resources.

The investments encompass at least nine companies across sectors such as steel, minerals, nuclear energy, and semiconductors. Significant transactions include:

- **Intel**: $8.9 billion for a 9.9% stake, facilitated by the Commerce Department.
- **Lithium Americas**: $182 million in deferred debt service, acquiring a 5% stake in the company and a 5% stake in the Thacker Pass joint venture, managed by the Energy Department.
- **MP Materials**: $400 million investment for a 7.5% stake, with an option for an additional 7.5% stake, through the Defense Department.
- **ReElement Technologies**: $80 million investment with a right to future stock purchase at a set price, also through the Defense Department.
- **Trilogy Metals**: $35.6 million for a 10% stake, plus an option for an additional 7.5% stake, via the Defense Department.
- **Vulcan Elements**: Two separate investments totaling $670 million, with rights to future stock purchases.
- **Westinghouse**: An option to acquire an 8% stake, facilitated by the Commerce Department.
- **U.S. Steel**: A non-financial “golden share” approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

In exchange for these stakes, the government has provided a combination of grants, loans, and other approvals. However, the financial viability of many of these companies remains uncertain, with some facing significant challenges that may delay profitability for years. This unprecedented level of government involvement in the private sector has raised concerns regarding the transparency of the investment process, potential favoritism, and the risk of market distortions. Experts, including Aaron Bartnick, a fellow at Columbia University and former Biden White House official, have expressed skepticism about whether this approach will effectively address national security vulnerabilities or yield a return on taxpayer investments.

In a separate context, the U.S. government has escalated military operations in the Caribbean, deploying over 15,000 troops and conducting airstrikes in Venezuela, which have reportedly resulted in the deaths of at least 83 individuals. These actions have been justified by claims of targeting drug traffickers, with the Trump administration designating the Venezuelan entity known as the Cártel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization, alleging that President Nicolás Maduro leads this group. However, analysts have criticized this designation as misleading, arguing it refers to military corruption rather than a formal organization.

Phil Gunson, a senior analyst for the Andes region with the International Crisis Group, noted that the military's involvement in drug trafficking is primarily motivated by financial gain rather than ideological objectives. Alexander Aviña, an associate professor of Latin American history at Arizona State University, expressed concern that U.S. military interventions in Latin America have historically led to significant human suffering. He warned that current U.S. actions in Venezuela may be part of a broader strategy to exert influence over the region, potentially leading to further military actions against other countries.

The situation in Venezuela is exacerbated by a humanitarian crisis that has persisted for over a decade, with limited international airline access contributing to the country's isolation. While some Venezuelans may support U.S. intervention to remove Maduro, many others fear the consequences of such actions, which could worsen the existing humanitarian emergency. Aviña cautioned that any military action against Venezuela would likely violate the country's sovereignty and lead to increased human suffering, including potential displacement of people. He pointed out that the U.S. government's framing of the situation as a war on drugs, terror, and migration reflects a larger imperialist agenda in Latin America, with Venezuela serving as a focal point for these efforts.