...
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Back in March 2023, Donald Trump dramatically claimed then-President Joe Biden was "leading us toward a Great Depression." But on the notion of financial rescues, Trump was clear: "There should be no bailouts."
Doomsday never came. But now-President Trump seems to have had a change of heart on bailouts, long a dirty word associated with the bank rescues of the 2008 crash.
On Tuesday, Trump told CNBC: "Spirit’s in trouble and I’d love somebody to buy Spirit. It’s 14,000 jobs," adding that "maybe the federal government should help that one out."
Read More on Analysis
The following day, multiple reports emerged that the Trump administration and Spirit Airlines were in advanced discussions over a rescue package that could include a loan of up to $500 million and government warrants.
We know Trump’s MAGA philosophy can tolerate state intervention, even if it’s broadly pro-market and pro-business. It has done so before.
But can it explain, in a way that sounds like more than improvisation, why Spirit deserves federal help when so many other shocks are treated as market tests of private resilience?
The Case for Saving Spirit
There’s a substantial practical argument for saving Spirit.
The airline filed for bankruptcy protection in August for the second time in less than a year, and Spirit itself said on March 13 that it expected to emerge from Chapter 11 by early summer 2026, having made real progress.
It was almost there and, as Trump pointed out, thousands of American jobs are on the line. To those not beholden to free market ideologies, it's a no-brainer: save the jobs.
Moreover, there’s a consumer case for keeping the carrier alive.
In its 2023 lawsuit, the Justice Department argued that Spirit's presence forced other airlines to lower fares through the "Spirit Effect," and after JetBlue abandoned an acquisition deal in 2024, the department said the court had protected consumers from anticompetitive harm.
And the immediate need for rescue was not created by Spirit alone: the airline’s already fragile bankruptcy exit was blown off course when U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran sent oil above $100 a barrel and doubled jet-fuel costs in some markets.
It may be messy, but this is an attempt to preserve low-end airline competition that Washington itself spent years defending, and to save an airline that Trump policy just helped push into a sudden crisis. It has shades of: you broke it, you pay for it.
But some Republicans remain unconvinced.
Trump's Farm Template
Trump, during his first term, had already built a template for cushioning politically important losers in the U.S. from his hard-line policies.
In August 2018, USDA said Trump had directed Secretary Sonny Perdue to craft "a short-term relief strategy" for farmers hit by retaliatory tariffs imposed by China and other nations, and authorized up to $12 billion in programs.
Then, in 2019, Trump authorized USDA to provide up to $14.5 billion more through the Market Facilitation Program.
A later USDA study estimated that retaliatory tariffs reduced U.S. agricultural exports by more than $27 billion from mid-2018 through the end of 2019.
The relief for farmers wasn't a minor exception to Trumpism, or a detour from its philosophy. It was a governing formula. The state would impose pain through "America First" policies like tariffs, but would then compensate the domestic constituencies most exposed to the blowback.
There's a key difference with Spirit, however.
Selective Mercy
What makes Spirit curious is not intervention per se, but why intervene for just one company while others must absorb the same macro shock?
Congress has authorized broad airline support before, most notably after 9/11 and during the recent pandemic. But a one-company rescue of this sort would be unusual.
During the COVID crisis, Trump actually showed an aversion to such favoritism.
He pushed back against the notion of picking specific "winners and losers" with corporate bailouts, though he acknowledged that support may have to be routed through companies in order to benefit workers.
"We don’t want to pick winners and losers," Trump said in March 2020. "We want everybody to benefit. We want, I think more than anything else, the workers to benefit."
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Trump had directed his department to review options for Spirit, but did not describe any settled policy framework for when federal help is justified.
That's the MAGA contradiction right there. The movement drew much of its force from the promise that weak firms would no longer be insulated from consequences while ordinary Americans were told to live with inflation, disruption, and strategic sacrifice.
Too many America Firsters lived through the economic hardships of the financial crisis while crumbling banks were bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars. Trump told them time and time again: I'm all about Main Street, not Wall Street.
Yet a bespoke rescue for Spirit would revive exactly the suspicion Trumpism claimed to reject.
Namely, losses are socialized when the loser has payrolls, lobbyists, and symbolic value, but individualized when the loser is a household paying the pass-through costs of the same crisis.
Where's the gas bailout for American drivers during the Iran war?
Doctrines Need Rules
The Spirit package reportedly under discussion could combine a government loan with warrants that would give Washington a potential ownership stake, and Trump is personally engaged in the question.
It all points toward a coherent, if underdefined, model of "America First" economics.
Skeptical of markets when they threaten domestic capacity, comfortable with state action when it preserves politically or strategically important sectors, and vague about the standards that separate strategic rescue from favoritism.
There is a serious case for that worldview. Airlines are infrastructure. Ultra-low-cost carriers can restrain fares. Fuel shocks tied to war can justify temporary support.
But serious doctrines need rules.
Why Spirit and not another fragile company? Why a one-firm intervention instead of sector-wide relief from the pressures on aviation, including from Iran? Why a rescue for airline balance sheets but not a comparable cushion for households eating the costs of the same geopolitical strategy?
Until the Trump administration can answer those questions clearly and convincingly, Spirit will look less like practical statecraft than it does exception-making with nationalist branding.
MAGA's Market
The talks remain fluid and the terms could still change. But if a rescue happens, it will clarify something important about Trump-era populism.
It is not choosing between markets and the state. It is choosing who specifically deserves the state's protection after political strategy has made them vulnerable.
Spirit may be a small airline story on its face. But it could become the clearest evidence yet of what MAGA’s economics is really all about.
When push comes to shove, MAGA picks the market's winners and losers.
Hey gang, Carlo Versano here. I hope you enjoyed this article. As Newsweek's Director of Politics and Culture and editor of the 1600 newsletter, I'm keen to hear what you think. Now, Newsweek is offering a new service to allow you to communicate directly with me in the form of a text message chat. You can sign up and get a direct line to me, as well as the reporters who work for me. You can shape our coverage.
As a Newsweek member, we're offering this service to you for free. You can sign up below, or read more about how it works here. Let's talk!
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines