(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a

correspondent for Reuters. This column is part of the weekly

Reuters Sustainable Finance newsletter, which you can sign up

for here https://www.reuters.com/newsletters/reuters-sustainable-finance/.)

By Ross Kerber

Sept 3 (Reuters) - Has businessman Donald Trump gone

socialist? Analysts across the political spectrum have raised

that concern after a string of unprecedented corporate and

economic interventions by the U.S. president.

These include a series of deals giving the government stakes in

companies like Intel ( INTC ); squeezing the Federal Reserve to

lower interest rates; and pressuring media companies and law

firms.

A number of investors and academics fear the steps undermine

businesses' independence. Several fault major trade groups for

not banding together and pushing back harder on Trump. Doing so

would "help protect individual businesses and their leadership

from potential retribution from the regime for their

outspokenness," Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Vanessa

Williamson told me via email.

While individual CEOs may be reluctant to defend their

companies and the rule of law, "that is exactly why business

federations and trade associations exist," said Richard

Morrison, senior fellow of the free-market Competitive

Enterprise Institute think tank.

I put their views to Neil Bradley, executive vice president

and chief policy officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the

largest U.S. business lobby, who offered an interview just

before Labor Day. What follows is a transcript of our

conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Q: What do you make of the deal with Intel ( INTC ) and similar

agreements?

A: There's a lot of issues at play here. The biggest thing we

hear and the biggest question we have is, what are the rules?

It's highly unusual for the government to take an equity stake.

Q: That kind of thing did happen during the financial crisis,

such as with banks.

A: That's my point. Those programs, from their inception,

included what the rules were. People who are defending what's

occurred here, they point to those cases. They're not wrong but

in the past it's been very limited, with very clear upfront

rules. That's why it (the Intel ( INTC ) agreement) was surprising and

caught a lot of people off-guard, because it's not clear at all

what the rules are.

Q: How about Trump's pressure on the Fed?

A: The Chamber has a long history of defending Fed independence

when it comes to monetary policy. (Bradley wrote this blog post

in July.) That was very much in the (United States') founders'

minds, a strain of thought of trying to insulate questions of

the valuation of money.

Q: Are you concerned Trump is impinging on Fed independence with

his (attempted) firing of Fed governor Lisa Cook?

A: We're paying close attention. Essentially this will come down

to a question of what constitutes "cause."

Q: Surely you disagree with his overall view of the Fed?

A: Is a president within their rights to suggest what they think

monetary policy should be? Of course. But the real question is

if the Fed has room to operate its monetary policy independent

of any political actor. I'm not sure we've crossed that line

yet, that's the line that has to be preserved.

Q: Are there other fundamental issues you are concerned about?

A: With any administration, whether we're talking about equity

stakes in a company or regulatory matters, there's both a policy

discussion and the process is really important. It's really

important we have clear rules of the road.

Q: Are the administration's tariffs an example of something

where the process was not followed?

A: Yes. The Chamber filed an amicus brief in pending litigation

over the ability to use IEEPA (the International Emergency

Economic Powers Act) for tariffs. As a general matter the

Chamber doesn't like high tariffs. The question is, where does

the tariff authority lie? It's absolutely the case that Congress

has delegated tariff authority to the president over the last 70

years. Our view is that IEEPA is not one of those places. (On

Friday a divided U.S. appeals court ruled most of Trump's

tariffs are illegal.)

Q: There is a critique I've heard that business groups like

yours can and should push back harder on Trump, that you can

speak with a voice that's unrealistic for individual CEOs.

A: It's absolutely the role of the Chamber and other

organizations to shape the relationship between the government

and the private sector in a way that preserves our free-market

economy. It's also the case that we're operating in a highly

politicized environment. To make things clear in nonpartisan

ways is really crucial.

The thing that we don't want to see is for our free-market

economy to just become another partisan issue. We've preserved

our free-market systems because there has been a broad

bipartisan consensus. So as we do our advocacy it's really

important that we buttress this consensus in a way that

preserves the free market. If the arguments just become just

another "Republicans are for this, Democrats are for that," then

it's just noise. It's really critical that people understand

what lines are expected to be preserved regardless of who's in

office.

Q: Are we in a constitutional crisis moment?

A: What we try to do is speak within the areas where we have

expertise and a remit to comment on those particular things.

Rounding it all up is when arguments tend to become

unpersuasive.