Donald Trump has called himself "the most transparent president in history." To some extent, he's not wrong. For many people, if others could hear their inner monologue - if their dissatisfactions, desires, jealousies, and resentments were made public - they would be mortified. But Trump has no such psychological barriers. He floods Truth Social with daily posts and spends hours each week speaking candidly before cameras, truly embodying the principle of speaking his mind.

Among his many unconcealed desires is a craving for awards and gifts. Trump never hides his pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize, nor does he shy away from expressing dissatisfaction that Obama received it while he didn't. He often enthusiastically congratulates himself after winning tournaments at his golf courses: "Winning feels great." In April this year, after victory at a tournament at his Florida Jupiter golf course - one of six trophies he won that year - the U.S. President told accompanying reporters aboard Air Force One: "Did you hear I won? You know I won, right? Let me emphasize again, I won."

This obsession clearly hasn't escaped the attention of some major corporate executives, such as Apple CEO Tim Cook. This summer, after Trump threatened to impose hefty tariffs on foreign-manufactured semiconductors (which would drive up prices for devices like iPhones), Cook appeared at the White House in August with an additional commitment: Apple would invest an extra $100 billion domestically to develop American manufacturing.

That day, Cook brought more than just investment promises to the Oval Office - he also carried a white box. Inside was a unique gift custom-made for Trump: a glass Apple logo embedded in a gleaming 24K gold base. Cook extended his hand to the only person worthy of this reward, saying, "Congratulations, Mr. President." Trump immediately beamed with joy.

The return Cook ultimately received from the White House far exceeded the actual gold content of that medal. Trump announced that Apple and other companies investing in U.S. manufacturing would be exempt from chip tariffs.

Cook's "attentiveness" might seem excessive, but it's far from unique in Silicon Valley. Apple is just one of several major companies that have recently gained policy advantages by creating "reward moments" for Trump. NVIDIA and AMD successfully convinced Trump to abandon his opposition to their AI chip sales, with the condition of turning over 15% of sales revenue to the U.S. government - though it's a controversial (and possibly unconstitutional) agreement, it achieved its purpose. A month ago, Trump gave the green light to Japan Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel, provided they agreed to give the government a so-called "golden share," allowing government voting rights on key corporate decisions. In early September, tech industry leaders gathered at a White House dinner, all expressing appreciation for Trump's hands-off approach to AI issues.

Government support for specific industries or companies isn't inherently problematic, and there are international precedents - for instance, the French government heavily subsidizes the nuclear power industry. But Harvard Business School professor Rebecca Henderson points out that successful national investments depend on clear objectives and careful planning. "But I think these investments are unlikely to bring substantial benefits to the U.S. economy or people because these decisions are too random."

Trump's deals with corporate CEOs are often completed hastily, with support for companies seemingly depending more on who he's angry with or reconciling with that particular week. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers stated in an email that Trump has "made many good deals on behalf of American workers" and "welcomes private and foreign investment into America."

Some CEOs have turned the misfortune of "angering Trump" into opportunities for private conversations with the President, ultimately resulting in Trump declaring victory and toning down his attacks. In August, this happened to Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger.

Gelsinger, a U.S. citizen born in Malaysia, took over Intel in March with the goal of revitalizing this chip giant that once led the industry but has been left behind by competitors in recent years. Reviving Intel was also central to the previous administration's 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. The U.S. government originally planned to provide Intel with over $8 billion to help the company build factories in America. But Trump wasn't as enthusiastic about Intel as the previous president, especially after Gelsinger planned cost cuts and slowed domestic manufacturing expansion.

When Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote to Intel's board of directors, Trump began targeting Gelsinger. In a public letter to employees, Gelsinger stated he "always adheres to the highest legal and ethical standards." While these investments weren't illegal, they still drew Trump's displeasure. He posted on Truth Social: "Intel's CEO has serious conflicts of interest and must resign immediately - this is the only solution."

Obviously, there were other solutions... Gelsinger didn't resign but instead rushed to the White House to present the President with a "grand gift": Intel would transfer 10% of its $8.9 billion worth of shares to the U.S. government. This was exactly the type of unconventional deal Trump has always loved and talked about enthusiastically. "I think it's a good deal for them," he later told reporters. "He came to save his job and ended up giving us $10 billion." (Trump has a habit of "rounding up.")

Whether this money will actually deliver returns for taxpayers remains unknown. Industry research chief semiconductor analyst Kunjan Sobhani believes this deal is quite advantageous for Intel in the short term. The government won't join the board, so it won't directly participate in company decisions, and "having government participation means gaining implicit endorsement: even if the company fails, the government might still bail it out." He also pointed out another "hidden dividend" - Trump's public support for Intel might stimulate or even "force" other companies to shift chip manufacturing business from overseas suppliers like TSMC back to Intel's U.S. factories.

This deal was undoubtedly successful for Gelsinger personally. Within just a few days, he transformed the U.S. President from demanding his resignation to praising him effusively. After Trump's meeting with Gelsinger, he wrote on social media: "His success and rise is a remarkable story."

Of course, "paying tribute" to Trump doesn't guarantee eternal peace. South Korea's Hyundai once promised to invest billions in U.S. factory construction and received Trump's high praise, but U.S. immigration enforcement still raided an electric vehicle battery factory jointly built by Hyundai and LG Energy Solution, arresting hundreds of foreign engineers and contractors involved in the facility's construction and operation.

Intel's deal gave Trump a taste of the "sweetness" of using taxpayer funds to hold stakes in tech or defense companies. Not long ago, Republicans had unanimously opposed the 2008-2009 government bailout of the American auto industry, claiming the government shouldn't interfere with free markets. Such voices are now very rare within the Republican Party. Only a few far-right podcasters expressed concerns about government stakes in Intel, with four Republican congressmen voicing reservations. The harshest criticism came from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who called it "a step toward socialism." The other 268 Republicans on Capitol Hill, even if they truly felt uncomfortable with Trump's "visible hand" reaching into the market, mostly remained silent.