By David Gaffen and Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said he wants to make more investments in healthy U.S. companies on Monday. Whether Corporate America is on board is another story.

The White House announced a near-10% stake in chipmaker Intel on Friday that converts government grants into an equity share.

Trump on Monday doubled down on the idea of deals in other sectors similar to the one announced with Intel.

The administration's approach does away with decades of thinking about the U.S. economy, where the government took corporate stakes in rare emergencies like the 2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent bailout of U.S. auto companies. Intel is struggling, but it still has a cash cushion of $9 billion and a market value of $105 billion.

To critics, the Intel move - along with the White House's full-court press to get the U.S. Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, its use of emergency powers to slap tariffs on imported goods and involvement in different mergers - threatens the business world's nimbleness.

"We're moving from a pure capitalistic economy to a much more state-engaged economy. ... That's a huge change for America and over where we've been. I've never seen an era like this," said Bill George, former Medtronic CEO and executive education fellow at Harvard Business School.

"I will make deals like that for our Country all day long," Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Monday, touting the company's rising stock price.

Trump said in his post that he would help companies that make similar "lucrative" deals with U.S. states, but didn't provide details. Intel had promised to use the CHIPS Act money to build plants in the United States.

However, the risks of the government's involvement are no more apparent than in Intel's own regulatory filing on Monday, where it laid out several new risk factors to having the government invested in the company - from potentially harming international sales, to limiting the chipmaker's ability to secure future government grants, or subjecting the company to additional regulations or restrictions in other countries.

Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan went a step further in a video posted on Monday by the Commerce Department, saying, "I don't need the grant."

He added: "But I really look forward to having the U.S. government be my shareholder."

Analysts also raised questions about how the Intel deal will affect customers.

"Is it conceivable that as part of something like this the administration might 'encourage' customers to use Intel’s capacity?" Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon wrote in a note on Tuesday.

Intel is not the only company where Trump has become personally involved.

The White House intervened to complete the purchase of U.S. Steel by Japan's Nippon Steel in June, taking what Trump called a "golden share" that gives Washington say over its operations. It took a stake in rare earths company MP Materials as well, and on Monday, White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said the government could take additional stakes in other companies.

"Companies that are nationalized in whole or in part don't do as well, because they're restricted from making the kinds of strategic decisions that would be solely market-based," said Nell Minow, chair of Portland, Maine-based ValueEdge Advisors.

The White House argues that the United States needs to develop more production capacity in critical industries rather than outsource that manufacturing to other countries.

Numerous CEOs met with Trump shortly after his re-election in November 2024, and that parade of visitors has continued into his term. It has yielded the likes of Apple CEO Tim Cook giving Trump a present of a customized souvenir plaque with a 24-karat gold base mined from Utah earlier in the month.

Apple - one of the biggest companies in the world, with a market value north of $3 trillion - has been trying to shift production away from China, which Trump targeted in his first-term trade war, to India, a move Trump has also criticized. Apple has announced roughly $600 billion in planned investment in the United States, though the White House has suggested it could also build smartphones domestically.

The United States does not have significant capacity to make smartphones.

"I think companies are just starting to realize, how much control do you want to give up and how much ownership do you want to give up to the government?" George said.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey in Washington, Ryan Patrick Jones in Toronto and David Gaffen in New York; Writing by David Gaffen in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Mark Porter)