The real test will be to see who retains control of these positions in the future.

I do not have confidence they will remain in control of the government.

NAZIs here we come.

This is giving me flashbacks of English history. At various times, the king was desperate for sources of revenue that were not under Parliament's control. So it may be here. Trump acts as though he wants money that he doesn't have to go through Congress to get.

The obvious question doesn't show up until the final paragraph:

Republicans warning that communists are taking over the Democratic Party might first ask why their own administration is so eager to have the government acquire pieces of private companies.

The article notes earlier that this de facto sovereign wealth fund is under executive control - it's an arm of Trump. So the elephant in the room, the failure of Republicans to note that this ownership is a socialist or communist practice, equates to why Republicans in House and Senate treat Trump so delicately. Why does the presence of Trump in the system make what would be a radioactive socialist policy choice into something mundane and commonplace, and as the article says, enshrined in statute?

For the HN audience, how does state ownership keep consumer choice in place? How does the best market fit, the most efficient company, succeed against state-owned (and therefore automatically privileged) companies? Is Trump in the system enough to quell your otherwise easy objections to this process?