Whatever you make of President Donald Trump’s hands-on approach to publicly traded companies—and whatever you think it should be called—his brand of capitalism appears here to stay.

Trump has moved to take a cut of Nvidia (NVDA) and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) chip sales and snag a "golden share" from U.S. Steel's sale to Nippon Steel. Intel (INTC) last week agreed to give the U.S. government a 10% stake in the company in exchange for funding not long after Trump had taken the unusual step of demanding that its CEO be fired.

More could be on the way. Trump yesterday said he would “make deals like that for our Country all day long.” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC Tuesday suggested that Pentagon officials were “thinking about” investing in defense firms, while National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett has said it’s "possible" that the government seeks stakes in more companies.

Trump’s administration has cited economic security and national security risk as supporting deals with chipmakers. His election mandate was "to take the reins and rebuild the economy that Americans enjoyed during his first term," a White House spokesperson said in a recent statement to Investopedia. 

Some commentators and others have lately opined about an emergence of American "state capitalism" or "national capitalism," essentially a reference to Washington's present affinity for particularly close involvement with companies and money.

Broadly speaking, state capitalism refers to a system in which states exert control over business activity through government-owned enterprises or market intervention; It's sometimes conflated with "state monopoly capitalism," where governments boost businesses and their interests.

Governments, including that of the U.S., often conduct business with companies and industries, directly or indirectly, during emergencies, economic crises, and wartimes, arguably deviating from pure, free-market capitalism.

And past administrations have in recent years intervened in aid of the U.S. financial services and automotive industries, to name a few. But Trump’s moves, The Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip recently wrote, represent "a sea change from the free market ethos the U.S. once embodied.”

They have also created some perhaps-unexpected political side-effects. Self-identified democratic socialist senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), for example, said he supported the premise of chipmakers giving the U.S. government something in exchange for funding. Libertarian senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has called it a "terrible idea."

Some investors Investopedia spoke with were concerned about the White House’s stance toward publicly traded companies, a move that would seem to pick winners and losers. Others were unfazed. Pimco’s Mohamed El-Erian told CNBC that he's "nervous" that the government may seek active roles with companies that go beyond ownership. Mark Lehmann, chief of Citizens JMP Group, called the Intel deal a "slippery slope” on CNBC.

Analysts have said that subsidies with strings attached could be a poorer proposition than funding that was previously free. Former Commerce Department officials Mike Schmidt and Todd Fisher, wrote in the Journal recently that the U.S. deal puts Intel "at a cost disadvantage" to its peers and doesn't solve its most pressing problem—a lack of customers.

Analysts have speculated that other companies may seek to refuse similar funding. And Intel has concerns of its own: In a Friday regulatory filing the company said risks associated with the deal could include legal challenges, uncertain tax and accounting, dilutive transactions to existing shareholders, reduction of voting and other governance rights of stockholders, possible negative impact to its international business.”