Politics aside, one thing is undeniable about the Trump administration: It’s doing deals
Over the past year, the White House has backed a series of complex, strategic transactions involving Intel, MP Materials,and other key industry players. These aren’t traditional subsidies or one-dimensional grants. They combine equity stakes, warrants, low-cost loans, regulatory coordination and strategic commitments designed to reshape supply chains and accelerate domestic production
That doesn’t mean Washington has suddenly discovered transactions. The government has always used grants, contracts, and loans. What feels different now is the structure: more creativity, greater complexity, and a willingness to take real equity risk, along with a greater emphasis on using federal participation to change how the market perceives a project
Companies that still see Washington primarily as a lobbying exercise, rather than a strategic financial partner, risk missing where the real value lies — not just in funding, but in the range of tools only the government can bring to the table
Washington Meets Capital
The defining feature of the current administration’s industrial policy isn’t ideology but deal architecture. Federal transactions increasingly resemble private equity, except with instruments Wall Street can’t offer: permitting clarity, interagency coordination, infrastructure access, and strategic designation
That’s why headline equity percentages can be misleading. In several recent transactions, the cash was meaningful but not decisive
Take the Trilogy Metals and the Ambler Road projectin Alaska. The headline was the government’s roughly $35 million equity investment. But the bigger story was the government approving construction of Ambler Road, as it made the minehe announcement. A $35 million investment helped unlock roughly $548 million in market-cap gains. The stake mattered, but the real leverage was in what the structure unlocked
Changing the Playbook
For decades, success in Washington ran on relationships and a familiar playbook. Even as administrations changed, the system stayed the same. New leaders usually came from the same world, Congress remained a center of gravity, and experienced operators knew who mattered and how decisions got made
Donald Trump disrupted that model. He pulled in outsiders to assemble deals at a pace resembling a traditional investment banking transaction rather than a typical government-led deal, making old relationship maps less useful
Don’t get me wrong: Access still matters and always will, but it’s no longer what sets companies apart. Structure does. I’ve seen this happen firsthand in recent work we’ve done with the Department of Energy. When the new administration paused previously awarded grants for review, the old playbook — point to prior awards won, lean on relationships, and assume the award should survive — wasn’t enough. What moved the process forward for all of our clients was a more commercial and collaborative conversation: helping the administration understand what each project actually did, why it fit the administration’s priorities, and why it would hold up in real life, not just on paper.
These deals are different from standard Wall Street transactions because they try to advance policy goals, not just hold up financially. That has opened the door to companies outside the traditional Washington usual suspects — companies such as defense contractors Lockheed Martin or Raytheon that had a leg up because they were safe hands for policy execution, not always because they were better investments. This administration has shown more willingness to challenge that model and back newer players, such as Anduril, Castelion, or CoAspire, that can deliver both.
That has exposed a gap in the market. Companies coming from private capital often don’t understand the tools the government can bring to a transaction. Their bankers may know how to underwrite a deal, but not how the government can add value. On the other side, lobbyists may understand the mechanics of Washington, but not what drives enterprise value
The door to federal capital now has two locks: political access and transaction literacy. Without both keys, you’re unlikely to get the deal you actually need
What to Know
Federal engagement can no longer be treated as a traditional government affairs exercise alone. It’s increasingly a capital-allocation decision that affects ownership, governance, and long-term competitive positioning. In strategic sectors, this is no longer peripheral. It’s a core strategy
Executive teams should be asking harder questions earlier. What statutory authorities does the relevant agency actually have? Where does the real leverage sit in the structure: cash, regulatory certainty, infrastructure access, procurement, or strategic designation? How will federal participation alter the capital stack? Are you optimizing for short-term liquidity or long-term industrial advantage? And is the transaction being put into terms that match the administration’s policy objectives and investment logic?
That’s the new rule of doing business with Washington. Relationships may still get you in the room. But in this market, only transaction fluency gets the deal
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners
Stephen Empedocles is the CEO and founder of Clark Street Associates. He works on strategy, messaging, and value proposition development for all of the firm’s clients
Interested in writing? Review ourauthor guidelines, and submit pitches toInsights@bloombergindustry.com
Providing news, analysis, data and opportunity insights
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and re
