Welcome to Saturday Hashtag, a weekly place for broader context.
|
Listen To This Story
 |
The long-standing trend of under-regulated foreign acquisitions of iconic American brands has gained new significance with the recent imposition of Trump tariffs combined with the loss of over $11 trillion in stock market value since Trump took office.
These established symbols of American consumer culture, now in foreign hands, will struggle under the extreme economic pressures and ultimately hurt the people who built them.
Covert Ownership
Here is a list of some well-known American brands controlled by foreign investors that are now confronting the impact of US tariffs on their non-US based businesses:
- 7-Eleven: Sold to Japan’s Seven & I Holdings in 2005. Japan now has 21,500 stores, while the US has just 9,000. The shift is driven by global expansion and the search for more profitable markets.
- Popeyes, Burger King, American Apparel: All now owned by Canadian companies. The rise of private equity firms and international mergers continues to make US brands attractive assets for foreign investors seeking to capitalize on American consumer culture.
- Citgo: Texas-based oil company sold to Venezuela’s state-run enterprise PDVSA. As oil prices fluctuated and geopolitical tensions increased, foreign governments saw opportunities to seize valuable American assets.
- Budweiser: Once the face of American beer, now owned by Belgium’s Anheuser-Busch controlled by the trans-controversy laden InBev. Global beer consolidation, where massive international players dominate the market, led to this acquisition.
- Dr Pepper, Trader Joe’s, Panera, Krispy Kreme: All controlled by German companies, two with Nazi pasts. As European companies expand and the global market grows, US brands are often seen as ripe for acquisition by foreign firms with more resources.
- Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge: Now under Dutch ownership (Stellantis). The need for global scale in the automotive industry, as well as the financial struggles of traditional American car companies, led to foreign buyouts. Even the Chrysler Building is somewhat Austrian-owned, reflecting a broader trend of foreign investment in US real estate.
- Ben & Jerry’s, Vaseline, Popsicle, Breyers, Good Humor, Klondike, and Hellmann’s Mayo: These Americana brands are part of the historically unscrupulous Unilever group, a British-Dutch conglomerate. Consolidation in the consumer goods sector has made large multinationals the primary players, absorbing iconic American brands to increase their market reach.
- IBM, Hoover, Milwaukee Tools, GE: These iconic American companies have been sold to Chinese firms like Lenovo, Haier, and Hong Kong-based Techtronic Industries (TTI), raising security concerns and contributing to the erosion of America’s industrial legacy.
- Tiffany: Acquired by questionable French luxury group LVMH in 2021. This marked a significant shift, as the iconic American jewelry brand became part of a global luxury group, signaling further foreign consolidation of US heritage brands.
- Smithfield Foods: Acquired by the WH Group, a company with ties to the Chinese state. The purchase made Smithfield the world’s largest pork processor. This acquisition raises serious concerns about the scope of foreign control over critical food production and the potential risks it poses.
- Seagram: Now owned by Pernod Ricard (France) and Diageo (UK), both companies with controversial and questionable histories. This acquisition highlights the increasing trend of foreign control over prominent US alcohol brands, diminishing American influence within the industry.
- Reebok: Acquired by Adidas (Germany) in 2006, a company with its own share of scandals. This acquisition has diminished the presence of independent US sportswear brands, further consolidating foreign influence in the sector.
- Forbes magazine: Illustrates the volatility of the brand ownership situation. In 2014 it was acquired by the China-backed Integrated Whale Media (IWM), and in 2023, it was nearly bought by the US-based Luminar Technologies Inc. However, the deal ultimately collapsed.
Economic Sovereignty
Foreign takeovers have long been driven by excessive deregulation and market openness, which have allowed foreign entities to gain control of key US assets with minimal scrutiny. The erosion of regulatory safeguards has undermined the nation’s economic sovereignty and national security.
US Impacts
The cultural and political ramifications are significant, contributing to a structural vulnerability in the US economy. As a result, iconic American brands have become prime targets — not only for profit driven foreign investors but also for state sponsored predation — due to the lack of effective safeguards. This undermines US workers, consumers, and sovereignty in crucial industries.
Regulatory Deficiencies
The following protections were designed to prevent foreign takeovers of US commercial assets but have proven ineffective, allowing non-US entities to acquire valuable American company brands, influencing important economic sectors and resources:
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States: (CFIUS) Reviews foreign investments in US companies for national security risks.
- Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007: Expands CFIUS’s authority to review foreign investments.
- Outbound Investment Security Program: (Biden) The order specifically regulates US investments in critical technologies to protect national security and prevent foreign takeovers of strategic industries.
- Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act: (HSR Act) Requires filing with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) for large mergers and acquisitions.
- Export Control Laws: (EAR and ITAR) Restrict foreign ownership/control in sensitive industries like defense and technology.
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: (FCPA) Prohibits foreign companies from engaging in corrupt practices while operating in the US.
A Hidden Tariff Dilemma
President Donald Trump’s tariffs, originally framed as a way to “level the playing field,” have now been openly acknowledged by him as a tactic to crash the stock market and trigger interest rate cuts.
However, this will force foreign-owned US brands to raise domestic prices to safeguard their profits across all holdings, burdening American consumers and further destabilizing the nation’s economy — all while his initial claims and the economy continue to unravel.
The Clawback: Reclaiming Strategic Assets from China
The authors write, “The United States is on an unspoken mission to claw back strategic assets from China. This is not a policy that began with the current US administration, nor has it been articulated in a speech or policy document. Instead, this is a pattern of observed behavior driven by growing US anxiety over growing dependencies on China in critical industries and infrastructure.”
White House Increases Scrutiny on Foreign Investors: Why FOCI Is a Concern for International Businesses
The author writes, “On February 21, 2025, the White House issued an ‘America First Investment Policy’ Memorandum to the heads of 16 different federal agencies involved in law enforcement, national security, securities regulation and economic policy. The Memorandum states that ‘economic security is national security’ and describes the potential ramifications of investment from ‘foreign adversaries,’ in particular the People’s Republic of China (PRC), in sectors such as emerging technology, food supplies, pharmaceuticals, natural resources and critical infrastructure.”
US-China Relations for the 2030s: Toward a Realistic Scenario for Coexistence
From the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “It has become difficult to imagine how Washington and Beijing might turn their relationship, which is so crucial to the future of world order, toward calmer waters. If there is to be any hope of doing so, however, policy experts need some realistic vision of what those calmer waters might look like.”
The US Trade Deficit: How Much Does It Matter?
From the Council on Foreign Relations: “President Trump has made reducing the U.S. trade deficit a priority, blaming trade deals like NAFTA, but economists disagree over how policymakers should respond.”
What Happens When Foreign Investment Becomes a Security Risk?
The author writes, “The United States and other Western countries are reevaluating their foreign investment regulations amid an uptick in Chinese interest in strategic sectors.”
US-China Rivalry Exacerbates US Corporate Risk
The author writes, “Strategic competition between the United States and China is not just geopolitical, but directly impacts US-based corporations and the global economy. While US firms may not be interested in the strategic rivalry between the United States and China, they are nonetheless on the frontlines.”
US National Security in a New Era of Intense Global Competition
From the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies: “The United States and China are in a great power competition that will have profound impact on the national security and economic security of both countries for decades. This competition aligns across interdependent economic, military, and political vectors. At the core, this is a competition of ideals and governance. But unlike the 20th century Cold War competition with the Soviet Union, the competition with China involves new challenges. The resulting tension between the US and China has opened a new era requiring a new national security framework.”
Transnational Organized Crime: A Growing Threat to National and International Security
The author writes, “Transnational organized crime (TOC) poses a significant and growing threat to national and international security, with dire implications for public safety, public health, democratic institutions, and economic stability across the globe. Not only are criminal networks expanding, but they also are diversifying their activities, resulting in the convergence of threats that were once distinct and today have explosive and destabilizing effects.”
What Happens if All American Brands Are Foreign-Owned?
From RetailWire: “Many brands started by early American pioneers now wave international flags. This revolution is a direct result of globalization, and to better understand what companies have been affected, here are some notable examples of foreign-owned American brands.”
Corporate Transparency Act: Reporting Challenges for Foreign-Owned Companies
The author writes, “On January 1, 2024, the beneficial ownership information reporting rule (BOI Rule) issued under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) came into effect, ushering in new reporting requirements for companies formed in the U.S. or registered to do business in the U.S. (collectively, reporting companies).”
Senators Baldwin, Grassley Roll Out Bipartisan Bill to Crack Down on Foreign Investment in Farmland, Protect Rural Communities
The author writes, “U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced the Farmland Security Act of 2025 to build on their work to safeguard rural communities and protect American farmland from being secretly bought up by foreign investors. The bipartisan legislation will build on a Baldwin-Grassley law to ensure that all foreign investors, including ‘shell companies,’ who buy American agriculture land report their holdings, strengthen penalties for those who evade filing, and invest in research to better understand the impact foreign ownership of American farmland has on agricultural production capacity.”
The illustration above was created with the following images: Popeyes / Wikimedia, Burger King / Wikimedia, American Apparel / Wikimedia, Citgo / Wikimedia, Anheuser-Busch / Wikimedia, CF496233 / Wikimedia (CC BY 4.0), Trader Joe’s / Wikimedia, Panera Bread / Wikimedia, Krispy Kreme / Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 4.0), Stellantis / Wikimedia, Unilever / Wikimedia, Unilever / Wikimedia, Various / Wikimedia, Illegitimate Barrister / Wikimedia, Various / Wikimedia, Dbenbenn / Wikimedia, CIA World Factbook / Wikimedia, Bundesministerium für Landesverteidigung / Wikimedia, Zscout370 / Wikimedia, Zscout370 / Wikimedia, SKopp / Wikimedia, SKopp / Wikimedia, Unilever / Wikimedia, Unilever / Wikimedia, Unilever / Wikimedia, and IBM / Wikimedia.
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
