Body
Spirit Airlines shut down after the company and the Trump administration reached an impasse over what a potential government role in the struggling budget carrier would look like, according to the Associated Press. The carrier ceased operations on Saturday, ending 34 years in business. The breakdown came as the airline grappled with financial pressure that intensified amid surging fuel costs tied to the Iran war.
In the lead-up to the shutdown, AP reported that Trump had no qualms about a government takeover of companies, but only if the terms could be framed as an investment payoff rather than a rescue. The administration’s approach reflects a broader view, AP said, of government acting like an activist investor that shapes the direction of the U.S. economy.
AP said Trump told reporters on Friday that the government would buy a stake in Spirit only “if it’s a good deal.” In the same account, Trump argued against the idea of a bailout but said, “If we can help them, we will,” adding, “But we have to come first.” The story also said Trump did not immediately address the carrier’s shutdown when contacted.
Spirit was emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the administration had been weighing a $500 million deal that would have given the government a stake in the Florida-based airline, AP reported. Other budget carriers were also considered for similar packages, while the prospect of a government-backed stake drew objections from Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, AP said.
AP also placed Spirit’s impasse within what it described as a shift in Trump’s economic approach since returning to the White House. The report said Trump has taken a shine to the government owning some stakes in major companies—viewing investments as tied to economic security and to his own dealmaking—while he has frequently criticized Democrats and opponents as communists, contrasting that with his willingness to pursue state-connected ownership.
One example cited by AP was Trump’s approach to Intel. The report said Trump specifically took loans and grants from the Biden administration’s 2022 CHIPS and Science Act and converted them into an $11.1 billion purchase of Intel stock. AP said Trump had described the CHIPS Act in a 2025 address to Congress as a “horrible, horrible thing” and suggested Republican majorities should claw back funding to reduce the budget deficit.
AP reported that Trump had compared the potential Intel stake to his view of industrial policy and had monitored Intel’s stock. The story also cited Trump’s comments about his ability to influence outcomes tied to the stock and described his broader pattern of accessibility to business leaders alongside demands for them to align with the administration’s agenda.
The debate over Trump’s state-linked investments is not only about whether the government participates, AP reported, but about how and why. Critics framed the pattern as personal and power-oriented: Tad DeHaven, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said the moves were “entirely a reflection of a transactional-minded president who wants unilateral control of the economy,” adding that the underlying focus is “about power, it is about leverage and it is about control.”
Other analysts pointed to strategic logic for competing with foreign manufacturers. Sujai Shivakumar of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the Intel investment was “a strategic move, necessitated by the growth of China as an economic peer and rival.” He also said “the key point is that we should not sacrifice our national economic and industrial framework in the name of ‘free markets’ or other ideologies,” and described “pragmatism, in various forms of industrial and innovation policy” as part of the U.S. system’s history.
On the question of how industrial investments should be structured, AP said Monica Gorman of Crowell Global Advisors—who helped lead manufacturing and industrial policy in the Biden White House—said government investment can help even the playing field for American companies competing against subsidized foreign businesses. Gorman said, however, that it was unclear whether the Trump administration had fully grasped the risks of “making some bad bets,” and stressed that Congress should formalize the process through legislation rather than relying on the administration’s approach.
Gorman’s comments, as reported by AP, emphasized the need for guidance on when and how equity stakes and other mechanisms like loans and grants should be used in U.S. industrial policy, and said “Congress really needs to step in and design a legislative framework for U.S. industrial policy that governs equity stakes as well as other mechanisms such as loans and grants.” She added that “all of these are important tools in the U.S. industrial policy toolkit, but we need more guidance on when and how to use them.”