• Kevin Hassett, a top Trump administration economic adviser, disclosed a personal stake of up to $5 million in Coinbase while leading federal digital asset policy.
  • The administration is separately proposing the government take a 10% non-voting equity stake in Intel via the CHIPS Act, a move sparking market distortion concerns.
  • The developments highlight mounting tensions over government intervention, ethics, and market integrity in critical tech sectors.

Kevin Hassett, the former director of the National Economic Council who now leads the administration's digital asset efforts, holds a personal equity stake in Coinbase Global Inc. valued between $1 million and $5 million, according to a financial disclosure released in June. The filing also noted a $50,001 salary for advisory council work with the cryptocurrency exchange.

The disclosure immediately raises conflict-of-interest questions, given Hassett's direct influence over the formulation of federal policy governing the very industry from which he derives significant personal income. Unlike cabinet members, senior aides like Hassett are not required to divest their holdings, a loophole that has intensified public scrutiny. Efforts to reach Hassett for comment through official channels were unsuccessful.

This personal financial revelation arrives amid a broader and more controversial policy push from the administration: the proposed acquisition of equity stakes in private companies. The most prominent example is a plan for the government to take a 10% non-voting stake in Intel Corp. as part of the CHIPS Act, an effort to bolster U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and secure a return for taxpayers.

Proponents argue the stake is a necessary tool to counter competitors like Nvidia and shield national supply chains. However, the proposal has drawn sharp criticism from some economists and industry watchers who warn it could distort markets, crowd out private investment, and introduce operational risks by making the government a major shareholder. The arrangement is also seen as creating an uneven playing field, as it does not apply equally to other CHIPS Act recipients like TSMC and Micron.

The administration's approach marks a significant shift towards direct financial intervention. Historically, such government equity acquisitions, like those in the Synthetic Fuels Corporation in the 1980s, have a mixed track record, often plagued by inefficiency and politicization. The Intel proposal is viewed as a new and controversial precedent.

Together, Hassett's disclosed stake and the Intel equity plan underscore a mounting debate over the appropriate role of government in private markets, the transparency of senior officials, and the integrity of policy decisions in an era of rapid technological transformation.