18 ms·

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

610 points by givemeethekeys 1y ago

Coffeewine 1y ago
I wonder if this means the US is going to come for Global Foundaires, TI and Micron to extract an equity stake too. Interesting times.
- alephnerd 1y ago
  TI and Micron probably. Not sure about GloFlo - UAE's Mubadala has a very strong controlling stake in it.
lawlessone 1y ago
My first thought, how many Trump people just front ran this?
- nielsbot 1y ago
  You mean did insider trading?
  - lawlessone 1y ago
    yes :) ,i got the terms mixed up.
    - positr0n 1y ago
      No you didn't, front running is a specific form of insider trading and you used the term correctly :)
    - handfuloflight 1y ago
      Probably enough to lead to meaningful indictments and convictions, which will never happen.
- Thrymr 1y ago
  As of last week: https://bsky.app/profile/unusualwhales.bsky.social/post/3lwfkclqpnk2f https://bsky.app/profile/unusualwhales.bsky.social/post/3lwf...
alephnerd 1y ago
Good. It's very much a "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" situation. If Taiwan's NDF has ownership share in TSMC and UMC, China's CICIIF in SMIC, Japan's Master Trust in a majority of enterprises, and Abu Dhabi's Mubadala in GlobalFoundries, then we should as well. The recent (50ish years) aversion to Industrial Policy in America has been pigheaded and ideological to a certain extent. If we wish to build capacity domestically, especially in high capex and low margins industry, some amount of government support is needed. Funds that are overwhelmingly sourced via private capital cannot take the same risks to build an ecosystem that a Soverign Development Fund can. This is what the Master Trust (Japan), NDF (Taiwan), and Temasek (Singapore) did to build their own domestic industries in semiconductors and REE processing - industries with high capex, high IP barriers, and low margins. This now sets the precedent to develop at sovereign development fund. If we did this with GM and Solyndra a decade+ ago we would have been in a better position to protect our automotive and renewable industry, but ofc the GOP of that era along with a portion of the DNC was not ready to take such a risk. The CHIPS and IRA acts were steps in the right direction, but couldn't really take full advantage of the stick. Edit: Surprised that a forum that largely supports single payer healthcare opposes sovereign development funds, even though they themselves could help enforce pricing in a less complex manner than that which the CMS does today. At some point this is just reflexive hatred.
- lazide 1y ago
  I don’t know, it sounds like the US gov’t just stole $11 bln from Intel shareholders - while intel is failing - while promising nothing?
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    It's a similar amount to the stake from the CHIPS act.
    - lazide 1y ago
      And?
russellbeattie 1y ago
> "The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars,” President Trump wrote" This wasn't any sort of investment, it was blackmail. No corporation in the country would voluntarily give up 10% of the company to the federal government - for free - unless overtly threatened. The Trump administration is hoping that by exerting control over Intel, it can begin dictating conditions to Intel's customers, thus the tech community at large. I also assume that one of Trump's cronies will take a spot on the board or some other oversight role, and in the near future, Intel will enrich Trump in one way or another, such as stock, investments, insider information, etc. Nothing about this is good for the U.S. or Intel. It's not a bailout or a sign of support, but a way for Trump to have power over the tech sector.
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  Arguably the alternative was the government just... not giving them the CHIPS Act money. (And there's certainly a point to be made that Trump altering the deal is... problematic.) But I will say, I find the concept that when we invest public dollars in a private company, the public retains a stake appealing. I think about the strategic oil reserve, and how the government actually can make money by buying and selling oil to the open market. The idea that if we inject money into a company to help our domestic industries, that the government can sell it's stake back out at a later time is appealing. (And again, to be clear, not a Republican or a Trumper here, and I assume in Trump fashion he will find some way to screw everyone involved and get paid himself personally... but the concept of the government acquiring a stake rather than just giving them a grant is on it's face... maybe not terrible?)
  - russellbeattie 1y ago
    We haven't invested any public dollars into Intel, we just took 10% of it.
    - BeetleB 1y ago
      The US government is paying about $9B to Intel for this (on top of the $2B already paid).
nielsbot 1y ago
> Intel said that the U.S. government won’t have a board seat or other governance rights. What rights does this refer to? Normal shareholder voting rights or something else?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- eigart 1y ago
  They will vote with the board
themafia 1y ago
[flagged]
- conception 1y ago
  “The government paid nothing for these shares..” The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.
IvyMike 1y ago
Seizing the means of production!
- karakot 1y ago
  Da, Comrade!
  - pixelpoet 1y ago
    The oligarchs resulting from the fall of Soviet Trumpistan are going to be the most obscenely rich people history has ever seen.
    - coliveira 1y ago
      They already are, in a replay of the robber baron era.
- wedn3sday 1y ago
  Well, the current administration and the National Socialists do have some things in common.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
naijaboiler 1y ago
i remember when this happened during an actual crisis, in 2008, republicans all over cried on the radio day after day, arguing that it's socialiasm. But now, crickets!!
- blackguardx 1y ago
  They were still complaining about Solyndra over a decade later.
- threemux 1y ago
  The Republican party of 2008 bears little resemblance to the one of 2025, especially on economic issues. Many in the party have changed their views over the last decade+ on industrial policy and the libertarian wing of the party has very little influence now. It's really a striking shift. What remains of the "old guard" is, in fact, loudly complaining about this move: https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/08/the-government-shouldnt-get-into-the-chip-business/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/08/the-government-should...
- jimt1234 1y ago
  Exactly! I know there's a lot of Trumpers/MAGAs on HN, so I'm sincerely asking them: How is this not the evil thing you guys constantly lecture us about (socialism!)?
  - NickC25 1y ago
    It's not the evil thing because it's "their side" doing it.
  - miltonlost 1y ago
    Because they only lecture about socialism as a red herring. They only care about power and obtaining it. Fascists have no actual principles other than more power and hatred of others.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Here's some emergency reading https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/its-not-hypocrisy-youre-just-powerless https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/its-not-hypocrisy-youre-j...
voxadam 1y ago
Intel press release: https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/intel-and-trump-administration-reach-historic-agreement https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/intel-and-trump-adminis...
- robocat 1y ago
  So no shareholder vote required? It is equivalent to a 10% dilution (shares issued for no extra cash).
  - lugu 1y ago
    How can this be any good for Intel? Why is the stock value bumping 6%?
    - llllm 1y ago
      It means Intel is far worse off than publicly acknowledged, and without this it might be worthless.
      - Nevermark 1y ago
        It doesn't mean that. Sometimes, there are returns on investments beyond what an accountant would calculate, but the investment only costs the same. Making stock priced only for normal returns a buy for beneficiaries of said additional returns. In this case, reducing the risk associated with the imported chip supply.
        llllm 1y ago
        lol, buy buy buy buy BOOYAH JIM
    - parliament32 1y ago
      The CHIPS grants had clawback provisions, which carry risk. This transaction removes that risk, so it's very good news for Intel. > The existing claw-back and profit-sharing provisions associated with the government’s previously dispersed $2.2 billion grant to Intel under the CHIPS Act will be eliminated to create permanency of capital as the company advances its U.S. investment plans.
eunos 1y ago
So Intel is an SOE now?
cuttothechase 1y ago
Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?
- jen20 1y ago
  > How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? By ensuring that the US retains at least the ability to manufacture second tier CPUs vs complete reliance on Asia? This doesn't seem unreasonable.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    The US can't employ poverty-tier labor to enable competitive margins, though. American businesses and global trade partners already largely reject Intel's foundry services.
    - wahnfrieden 1y ago
      Haven’t you read Curtis Yarvin’s vision for America? Our leaders, VCs, and owners have
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        I don't care how nihilist or kafkaesque you want to take the conversation - the math won't check out. You can't sustain a third-sector economy on second-sector jobs while importing first-sector goods. The entire financial system in America won't survive that sort of transition, it would be the Great Leap Forward of the 21st century.
        Avshalom 1y ago
        One of the things about the Great Leap Forward is that it happened. Just because a path of action will obviously lead to mass death and suffering while accomplishing nothing doesn't mean it won't be taken.
reg_dunlop 1y ago
Forgive me...how is this different than taxes? And wouldn't it be better to oh, I don't know, enforce the standard corporate tax rate?
- wmf 1y ago
  This is a bailout; it's the opposite of taxes.
  - mikepurvis 1y ago
    Isn't it the opposite of a bailout, given that the US gov't is seizing an ownership stake retroactively based on past grants/bailouts but giving no new money at this time?
    - wmf 1y ago
      The CHIPS Act was the bailout; this is just replacing the previous profit sharing with equity.
      - tester756 1y ago
        It was very messy bailout then
      - anon291 1y ago
        CHIPS act is a grant similar to a small business grant, not a bailout at all. It was intended to incentivize chip production in the United States and was available to any company manufacturing in the united states. It had no equity strings attached, as authorized by congress.
  - roxolotl 1y ago
    Most of the money has already been given: > The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion. So it kinda is something weird? It's not really a pure bail out, the Chips act already did that, and it's also not really a tax because they aren't going to get money out unless there's dividends. It's more like a power play which makes sense given that Trump is uncomfortable without anyone getting anything for nothing.
shrubble 1y ago
I’m reminded that Chrysler took a big loan from the US government in 1979, $1.5 billion which today is equivalent to about $5.9 billion USD according to the inflation calculator I found.
- est 1y ago
  FIAT is somewhat state-owned anyway.
stevenjgarner 1y ago
[flagged]
- edot 1y ago
  Don’t post LLM junk on HN — it’s not just annoying, it erodes the community trust.
wmf 1y ago
This is worse than I expected. They're apparently putting in no new money and retroactively demanding stock in exchange for grants that were already awarded. If Intel can't afford to build 14A and we're putting in no net new money... then Intel still can't afford 14A? Unless they were lying.
- moolcool 1y ago
  Maybe it’s more about affording 641A
  - abeppu 1y ago
    ... what would a chip version of 641A even look like? If it involves (a) identifying / filtering stuff they want to spy on (b) sending it back to one of the intelligence agencies, it seems like both would be hard to do well and secretly ... right?
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      So the US is getting lower-case intel here, in addition to upper-case Intel.
- moogly 1y ago
  It's just cronyism and bribes. Nothing more to it. From "he must go" to "Intel is so great that we demand a 10% stake” in a week. Mussolini-style.
- lovich 1y ago
  Or they just devalued all of the current stock holders. Intel needed the capital, not Intel stock
- etempleton 1y ago
  There werestrings attached to the CHIPs act money. Not saying this is some great deal. It isn't. It is a deal made from a place of necessity and weakness for Intel, but it gives them the cash infusion they need in the short term. Right now Intel's only goal is to have enough money to get 14a off the ground and attract at least one large external customer to prove their capabilities.
varelse 1y ago
[dead]
notepad0x90 1y ago
I despite/abhor this administration and their politics, but this is a good move. There should be more privatization where national interests are involved. Instead of the ACA for example,the government could have taken a 51% stake in health insurers (forget subsidizing them, own them!) and we the voters would elect politicians to oversee health insurance instead of hoping and trusting CEOs. So many problems are caused by companies chasing short-term shareholder satisfaction. If the government is a significant shareholder, then guess who they'll try to make happy? The sheer threat of the government buying a controlling interest and running your company might make some companies behave in the interests of the public more. Especially, if the government is also engaging in policy to harm the company's revenue before buying stakes in it. I'm not saying the US should be a full-on communist or socialist economy, nothing like that. This is capitalism. We the people get to use or tax dollars to our benefit. Think about it, the US sells bonds right? what if it paid for them by investing in company stocks and derivatives? that's revenue right? The whole pearl-clutching over ideological extremes doesn't serve the public or the economy's interest. Some privatization is good, none is great if everyone was decent and honorable. but in this society, moderate privatization where there is potential benefit to the public and national security makes sense. Companies with government investment should also be prohibited from making political donations, so any company that is trying to sway elections faces the threat of the next administration buying stakes in them to prevent that behavior. This could be the missing 5th estate that can make democracy last.
- wedn3sday 1y ago
  I swear Im not trying to be glib or dismissive, but I honestly think you dont know what "privatization" means, this is the exact opposite.
  - tyg13 1y ago
    Exactly. This amounts to a partial nationalization of Intel.
  - foobarian 1y ago
    Maybe they mean "privately owned by the government". Which I guess is usually called nationalization
sciencesama 1y ago
How an anti communist govt slowly is adapting communistic ideas !!
MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
> the government made an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share, giving it a 10% stake in the company > The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars I don't understand. Can somebody explain to me how the government made an investement, bought shares, but paid nothing?
- heyheyhey 1y ago
  I think a better rephrasing is "government is giving $8.9B from the CHIPS act in exchange for a 10% stake in the company"
  - tyg13 1y ago
    Depends on who you ask. Trump himself seems to think the US is getting 10% for free. I think that's a fair assessment given that these grants were already supposed to be paid out to Intel, without any kind of equity stake promised. Worth noting that Intel is the only company that had these kinds of shenanigans pulled with their grant. Samsung, TSMC, Micron and others were granted similar funds without any kind of withholding or demands for equity from the federal government.
    - rvba 1y ago
      Getting stock in exchange of grants makes more sense than "pure" grants. This stock can later be sold, to benefit the taxpayer.
      - behringer 1y ago
        that's not a grant. That's just buying stocks.
        BeetleB 1y ago
        It's effectively a grant. The US government isn't buying existing shares. Intel is issuing new shares and selling them to the US government - so actual money is being transferred to Intel (and existing shares are being diluted as a result).
miohtama 1y ago
Discussion from yesterday about Intel's and Trump's woes https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44978356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44978356
softwaredoug 1y ago
I’m pretty sure that’s socialism
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  Socialism would be worker ownership. This is simply state ownership of what's seen as a strategic business. It's an abandonment of market dogmatism, but not a step towards any of the many ideologies or positions where markets have a smaller role.
  - lawlessone 1y ago
    I think the phrase i heard before is State Capitalism. But i could be wrong
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Yes. State capitalism is definitely the word. Usually I suppose, when I think state capitalism I would think something like the Soviet Union, where this happens across many businesses with the state owning everything, but I suppose it is state capitalism, or a state capitalist element in a market system. One might even call it a mixed economy, or a sort of hacked-apart Swedish model without labour unions and state ownership of only certain strategic industries, rather than let's say, state ownership of hospitals.
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    So by that logic, state provided healthcare is not socialism. But a labor union providing health insurance is socialism. Can we get some of that state owned health care :-p
    - marcosdumay 1y ago
      > So by that logic, state provided healthcare is not socialism. Well, it's not. It's only socialism if the state decides to provide it for everybody. A state-owned corporation isn't necessarily socialism. (And yeah, you say it like if it's a bad word...)
dmitrygr 1y ago
Why is this a surprise? Who do you expect to design and make chips for national security-level programs in the future wars when Taiwan is a deep crater? Every serious nation state has an arch design house and a fab. It need not be cutting edge (most militry stuff is a few gens old), but it needs to exist. Russia has Elbrus. China has Looonsoon and SMIC. Europe has ARM but is a bit behind here fab-wise. However, STMicro does have fabs in europe. This is just securing access and control of national-security level resources.
- tyg13 1y ago
  The surprise is the federal government acting like an unfair negotiator, substantially altering the deal after it had already been struck. Equity in return for investment grants was never a part of CHIPS, and was only made part of it by Trump who seems to have originally wanted to kill the deal because it wasn't made by him.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  Taiwan. The thing is, even though the US is trying to create an alternative for itself, once Taiwan is in danger, this would for the EU mean a total US microchip monopoly, so radical action becomes necessary. If I were a political leader in the EU I would consider nuclear weapons sharing with Taiwan if that happened.
bilsbie 1y ago
This sounds bad. Can someone steelman this for me so I can understand the good?
- edot 1y ago
  If you’re going to give taxpayer money to a for-profit company, taxpayers should receive a share of the company in return. I generally don’t like 90% of the policies we’ve got going on right now, but I actually feel okay about this one.
  - ecocentrik 1y ago
    In the rare conditions where this has been necessary in the past, US companies have been given clear terms for regaining control of those shares. I'm not seeing any buyback provisions.
  - righthand 1y ago
    This is ignoring the original agreement of profit-sharing with the government as was in Biden’s original plan. Feeling “okay” or not “okay” is irrelevant until we know how well Intel does in the next decade and calculate the cost against the profit sharing agreement.
    - edot 1y ago
      Yeah, I haven’t dug into the numbers to know. Which option makes more money for the government (and therefore the taxpayer, sort of) - a profit sharing agreement, or a share of the company (which, as with all publicly traded companies, is a profit sharing agreement that sometimes happens through dividends, and sometimes happens through stock sales).
      - righthand 1y ago
        Who cares about the money recovery, the actual concern is about getting the production up and running. This doesn’t really address that in any capacity.
pk-protect-ai 1y ago
Atlas Shrugged ...
BSOhealth 1y ago
Intel as a store of value?
thehoagie 1y ago
> Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded Also > "Your CHIPs Act is a horrible, horrible thing...You should get rid of the CHIP act and whatever's left over Mr. Speaker" - Donald Trump Fast forward to today: > "This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL." - Donald Trump
Reason077 1y ago
Comrades, Starting today, under the government’s guidance, Intel shall serve the needs of the needs of the nation - not the whims of oligarchs. Liberated from wasteful and destructive capitalistic competition, Intel’s revolutionary “people’s processors” (soon to be developed) will ensure that the world’s most advanced AI chips are made in America. And priced within the reach of every US worker. Viva la revolution! Viva Intel!
nickhodge 1y ago
Here comes the nationalization phase of fascism. Well done, freedom lovers. You voted in exactly what you fear most.
- webninja 1y ago
  How exactly are countries like Norway doing with their Sovereign Wealth Funds? Does it provide its citizens with benefits?
- moskie 1y ago
  They never feared it, they always wanted it, just with someone like Trump calling the shots. Every accusation is a confession, etc.
sobiolite 1y ago
Ironic, Western politicians thought opening up to trade with China would lead to it adopting a Western model of government. Instead it's lead to the USA adopting the Chinese one.
- slashnode 1y ago
  Ha! Too perfect
- glimshe 1y ago
  The promiscuous relation between government and tech is as old as Silicon Valley. I'm fact, it created Silicon Valley. It started when people in China were still building backyard furnaces.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Who ordered the Chinese people to build furnaces in their backyard?
    - actionfromafar 1y ago
      Some guys who wanted to make China Great Again.
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  We even have no assurance of keeping private property via civil asset forfeiture! Private ownership was the adults main point of pride to distinguish from the Chinese when I was growing up. And now the Chinese private property frameworks are closer to ours and ours are closer to theirs.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - nine_k 1y ago
    Civil forfeiture existed since 1660s, and was used initially to confiscate smugglers' vessels. Then it was dug out during Prohibition, and turned toxic in 1980s when the agencies doing the forfeiture (e.g. police) were allowed to keep the confiscated property. Ideally it should be used for restitution (e.g. to victims of fraud), but... I suspect you were growing up when this was in full swing already.
unit149 1y ago
[dead]
fancyfredbot 1y ago
Did Lip Bu Tan initially try to say no to this? You'd kind of expect him to say no. Is that why Trump tried to oust him? Is Trump trying to oust him the reason Intel are now accepting this?
- BeetleB 1y ago
  > You'd kind of expect him to say no. There was no guarantee Intel would get the rest of the CHIPS money they were granted - even the Biden administration kept holding it back (after officially awarding it to them) - as there were doubts Intel could deliver. I also wonder if some deal was made around 14A. Tan said he would not develop it without commitments from customers, because sales from Intel CPUs wouldn't justify the cost. This may be a way to ease that pressure and give Intel another chance even without serious customer commitment.
  - hangonhn 1y ago
    The investment from Softbank is interesting because ARM is also a portfolio company of theirs. ARM has said they want to make their own chips now so Intel might be a good candidate for that.
belter 1y ago
I give you 3 months before the US government takes 10% of Google, Microsoft, Amazon/AWS, Nvidia, AMD and Apple.
- BeetleB 1y ago
  Those companies are not fighting for survival.
  - coliveira 1y ago
    The gov already took a big part of Nvidia profits in China.
  - belter 1y ago
    Survival is not the issue, it is about control. Today 10% Intel stake (non-voting, bought with already-promised CHIPS funds) puts the state on the cap table, and the 15% skim on Nvidia and AMD China sales swaps export licenses for tribute. The HN usual knee-jerk downvotes on anything about Trump admin criticism, just help normalize it.
- coliveira 1y ago
  For Nvidia this is already happening. They're taking a chunk of the profits of Nvidia operations in China. The Chinese have been prescient when stopped any Intel and Nvidia chips in government and strategic areas of China.
Waterluvian 1y ago
This feels like another signal that the U.S. as an economic superpower is transitioning into something else. I guess this is kind of like an auto or bank bailout, but is there something to bail out, or are they just gaining ownership of a doomed (in the classical sense) corporation?
- EasyMark 1y ago
  hopefully it's only for 3 more years. One aspect of fascism is government politicians taking over businesses for their own power and monetary enrichment. I'm not sure how this makes Trump richer, but I'm sure there is some angle to it, there always is.
fancyfredbot 1y ago
I am expecting shareholders to be very upset. If, as Matt Levine likes to say, everything is securities fraud then this is going to court one way or another.
lbrito 1y ago
Is the US going to sanction Intel for being a SOE now?
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Ahh, yes, conservatives please lecture me about the utopia of the free market and how those evil socialists that take control of the means of production just screw it all up. Number 6934 on my list of "every accusation is just projection".
Buttons840 1y ago
So, this happened just because one man (you know the one) decided it should happen? No vote or anything?
- lysace 1y ago
  That is my understanding. The US king ”made a deal” with Intel.
righthand 1y ago
Trying to ignore the politicking on this so it can be clear on what exactly is “happening”. As far as I understand, all Trump did was alter Biden admin’s original plan. Trump swapped a 10% stake in Intel for Biden’s profit sharing for participating in the grants[0] (anyone who participates in the CHIPS Act gets this deal currently, I guess Intel is renegotiating). Not necessarily better or worse because Intel is a long ways away from any sort of gain that would make a difference. If you feel conflicted to think this is a good or bad move, you’re right where Trump wants you. Sit down and do the napkin math, you may find the deal irrelevant or numbers similar. In the end we won’t know for a decade the result. The move is meaningless financially but generates headlines and doesn’t do anything to advance the actual foundries. It’s almost distracting… [0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits“ >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winning-chipmaking-subsidies-share-excess-profits-2023-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn...
- ejstronge 1y ago
  First, this is different because this was not what was agreed when Intel sought the grant. So I reserve the right to see as ‘bad’ a coercive action. Second, from your article: ‘ Commerce expects "upside sharing will only be material in instances where the project significantly exceeds its projected cash flows or returns, and will not exceed 75% of the recipient’s direct funding award." 'NOT A FREE HANDOUT' Democratic Senator Jack Reed praised the profit sharing plan, saying chips funding is "not a free handout for multi-billion dollar tech companies.... There is no downside for companies that participate because they only have to share a portion of future profits if they do exceedingly well."’ Clearly, there was a cap on repayments, but there is not one on giving away equity
- llllm 1y ago
  I don’t think people are conflicted over the math. The nature of this, the manner in which it went down, and the implications for the future are what people seem to care much more about.
banku_brougham 1y ago
[Ex Post Facto Clause, US Constitution](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11293 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11293). Oops, I thought it was so obviously going to be done away with in the courts, but in 1912 the Supreme Court ruled that it applies only to criminal punishments. They always getcha with the fine print.
- 1980phipsi 1y ago
  The Supreme Court’s standing doctrine is also weird. If the board of directors approves it, then would the shareholders even be able to sue?
chiph 1y ago
Looks like they will get common shares (not preferred). Could Intel create a new share class for this investment (with different voting rights)? Does 10% give the government a controlling interest?
yieldcrv 1y ago
[flagged]
- MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
  That's needlessly rude. I just found the sequence of events confusing. If I promise you a cash gift, then some months later demand you to give me something in return for the promised gift, it would be silly to say that I paid absolutely nothing. I don't consider that pedantic.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - yieldcrv 1y ago
    Okay, you’re right, I’m sorry I ran into someone recently that derailed every conversation for a needless correction and would opt for arguing about that instead of going back to what the initial conversation was about. This reminded me of that and my tolerance is low for it, for now
- tomhow 1y ago
  Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44990485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44990485 and marked it off topic.
stego-tech 1y ago
Capitalism for profits, socialism for losses. I’m sick of seeing this sort of behavior pan out time and time again, though I’m hardly surprised by it at this point. Speaking of things that wouldn’t surprise me, if Intel can’t manage an about-face in the next three to six years I fully expect them to become a Nationalized enterprise if only to preserve fabrication and chip design capabilities domestically. Same with Boeing given their less-than-stellar track record of late. The current conflict is over domestic manufacturing capabilities. That’s where it will continue to rage until and unless full-fledged war breaks out. It doesn’t matter how many chips are designed domestically if all production capacity is in Asia within China’s sphere of influence. Intel is a major outlier for chips, as is Boeing for aerospace.
- parineum 1y ago
  > Capitalism for profits, socialism for losses. I’m sick of seeing this sort of behavior pan out time and time again, though I’m hardly surprised by it at this point I'm not sure how this applies. The US government just gained a 10% stake for nothing (that wasn't already given). Effectively going from the scenario you are painting to now taking a part of the profit as well. I guess you were surprised after all!
  - Nemo_bis 1y ago
    The whole point of equity is that it can go to zero. Profit sharing means that the government had an upside (if Intel became profitable) and no downside. Now, if Intel loses money or goes bankrupt, 10 % of those losses automatically get socialised.
    - parineum 1y ago
      Great explanation of the socialism for losses, which was already happening and is the normal bailout routine. Now explain how "Capitalism for profits" applies.
rvz 1y ago
Yet another bailout from the US government as accurately predicted. [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44676641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44676641
NomDePlum 1y ago
Ironic that Trump looks to be succeeding in killing both Democracy and Capitalism, which rightly or wrongly are seen as it's greatest strengths. If they go what does it leave the US with that's any different from any other country?
esalman 1y ago
For a party who talks constantly about freedom, this administration is sure doing a lot to encroach on said freedom, of both individuals and corporations.
shortrounddev2 1y ago
I've lived long enough to see the Republicans become the socialist party
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  It's also pretty nationalist.
hbarka 1y ago
Shakedown list: Nvidia 15% of revenue AMD 15% of revenue Intel 10% of capital Who else is next?
- sigwinch 1y ago
  Rare earth miner MP Materials back on July 10. Next feels like TikTok or Fox News.
- giobox 1y ago
  A deal for 15 percent of revenues of specific AMD and NVidia part sales in China != 15 percent of all their revenues, not even close.
  - aabhay 1y ago
    Demanding 15% of H20, causing China to retaliate and ban it, causing Nvidia to halt production. In terms of net effect, it’s atrocious regardless.
- colechristensen 1y ago
  I'm not mad about a corporate tax on semiconductors sold to an adversary and agree that a tax is better than a ban on those sales.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- favflam 1y ago
  Just to add: what about the part where a single person is dictating taxes on American companies? That does not seem to phase that many people in the tech space... And what leverage did the administration illegally (without Congressional authorization) apply to get this deal? At least when the Bush admin did the first part of the financial bailout in 2008, they had Congressional authorization (a bill was passed).
- thisisit 1y ago
tombert 1y ago
Any reason to think that Trump didn't just buy a bunch of options before demanding this?
btbuildem 1y ago
The hammer is right here, now where did I put that sickle?
Zigurd 1y ago
Unless the descriptions of the deal I've seen are wrong, this seems random and pointless. No new money. A lot of the support for Intel foundry, and a lot of the people in that are gone now. So what's the national strategic interest in Intel? Pat Gelsinger must be happy he didn't stick around for this shitshow.
jjcm 1y ago
In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is investing BUY INTEL SHARES" media event. These things should follow a strict set of rules and processes so investors and companies know what to expect. These kind of deals should be boring, not a media event.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  But that wouldn't give great ratings.
- sergiomattei 1y ago
  What bothers me is the double standard. When the public asks for fully publicly-owned railways, universal healthcare, or any basic social safety assurances—“socialism”. When a megacorporation struggles, immediately to the rescue.
  - hopelite 1y ago
    It’s not a double standard, you just don’t understand the standard.
    - llllm 1y ago
      It’s a triple standard you just can’t count.
  - foxglacier 1y ago
    Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which won't really matter if there's no money to fund them or the country has been taken over by some hostile enemy.
loeg 1y ago
Well, it's certainly newsworthy. Bizarre.
solardev 1y ago
The U.S owns 10% of Intel now? What does that make us... $20 richer?
- bink 1y ago
  Today we are all nana... against our will.
LightBug1 1y ago
[flagged]
- selimthegrim 1y ago
  Five nodes in four years coming right up.
lysace 1y ago
Good luck, Trumpistan people.
akozak 1y ago
A lot of people are commenting on this without reading the actual content of the deal, which is spelled out in Intel's press release: https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/intel-and-trump-administration-reach-historic-agreement-to https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/...
theptip 1y ago
> the government made an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share, giving it a 10% stake in the company > Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips Interesting accounting there. I guess the government was threatening to void the grants or something? Why would Intel donate shares for grants already approved? I guess this nets out to a stock issuance with no downward price pressure, so still not a bad trade for Intel if they thought those grants were worth nothing.
- mandevil 1y ago
  Because this clears the way to sell Intel Foundry and separate the chip design from the chip-manufacturing businesses completely. The CHiPs act money had claw-backs such that if Intel sold the Foundry off they had to pay the government all the money back. This new deal waives all the clawbacks and says instead the Government gets warrants, good for five years, for 5% of the company at $20/share, good once they control less than 51% of the Foundry. Ergo, the reason for the deal is that the board wants to sell off the Foundry, and didn't want to pay back the CHiPS act money.
  - theptip 1y ago
    Good context, thanks. If it’s likely that the Foundry will be sold off, do you view the extra 5% as a short-term profit and not really a geopolitical/strategic protection? Seems the Foundry is the bit that USG really is trying to backstop.
- mplewis 1y ago
  Just another Trump shakedown. Nothing to see here.
  - rpmisms 1y ago
    It's extremely good business for the US. Trump doesn't get to take this with him.
inerte 1y ago
No board seat or governance rights. What's the government getting out of this? Trump brags of a good deal? Might profit in the future? Or _actually_ although technically there's no governance, government might actually influence how Intel is run? Besides politics and image, are there any benefits?
0xbadcafebee 1y ago
I finally grok the Republican party. It's only socialism if it helps the poor. Government handouts to corporations and trade protectionism? Mainly helps the rich, so it's not socialism. Tax money spent on a special interest program? Again, if it mainly helps the rich (or their party's base), no problemo. They're the Kleptocracy Party.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Klepo-pluto-kakisto-kratocracy with socialism for the rich.
tdhz77 1y ago
At least in 2008 there was a financial crisis. This feels like somebody has stock in intel.
electriclove 1y ago
Capitalism with Chinese characteristics
rhelz 1y ago
This is one of the saddest days of my life.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bdangubic 1y ago
North Korea in the streets, Venezuela in the sheets... :)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
BurningFrog 1y ago
So did they buy these stocks from Intel itself? Does that dilute the share other intel stock owners have? This stuff always confuses me.
- anon291 1y ago
  The stocks were not bought. Intel's board literally voted to give 1/10 of the company to the American government. Any sort of other take is propaganda. The claim that the shares were in exchange for grant money is false. Grant money is free and requires no payback. Congress authorized grants, not equity investments.
- theurerjohn3 1y ago
  > So did they buy these stocks from Intel itself? in a sense, although buy is not quite the right word. there were grants promised to chip manufacturers under certian conditions. trump decided to wave those conditions just for intel in exchange for 10% of the company. > Does that dilute the share other intel stock owners have? no, the shares were already existing and owned by intel.
Nevermark 1y ago
If the US had bought 10% of TSMC, with no voting rights - just increased dependency - it would have sent a very strong signal. Its an interesting idea, not a serious suggestion.
- shusaku 1y ago
  The US has been slowly but steadily sending the opposite signal over the past year: “just wait a little and you can have Taiwan”
  - rpmisms 1y ago
    If the US can replace the need for Taiwan... Yeah. They no longer matter to us if we can replace the manufacturing capacity.
- gizajob 1y ago
  That would have cost more than $100billion, not the $10billion for the same sized stake in intel.
resters 1y ago
this is a step away from capitalism and it harms any startups destined to compete with Intel and discourages investment in the startup ecosystem that might compete with Intel, and punishes investors/customers in/of any of Intel's competitors.
notherhack 1y ago
A government stake gives confidence in the company’s survival that a one-time cash dump for the CHIPS act couldn’t. It’s not a lot different than what car and financial companies got in 2009. They were about to go under because no one thought they’d be around long enough to get out from under and deliver goods or pay their debts. The government stake enabled them to keep operating and eventually recover and then the government returned the stake to the market (or will soon w/ Fannie & Freddie).
anonu 1y ago
It's a way around the "horrible horrible" CHIPS act.
alfiedotwtf 1y ago
Didn’t the US invade Iran when they did this to their oil industry? (Yes I know 10% is different to 100%, but wow… I thought the US shun commandeering of private companies?)
_zoltan_ 1y ago
if you're the US government, this makes sense. invest into your own chip maker.
whoisthemachine 1y ago
I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time for the old "Tea Party" to rise up again and start protesting this.
- Henchman21 1y ago
  The only way you're going to get people to notice anything at all is if you shut down the internet.
  - ryoshu 1y ago
    Working on it.
steveBK123 1y ago
Comrade Trump seizing the means of production, glory to our leader
nashashmi 1y ago
America sovereign wealth fund.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Trump unitary executive privatized wealth fund using US taxpayer money. And a free 747 that won't be useful or ready during this term, but hundreds of millions of taxpayer money will be poured into for the "library". The VC-25Bs were already under construction.
quantum_state 1y ago
I am surprised there is so much talk about China. Can we just focus on our own business here in the US: fixing the roads, bridges, schools, cities, etc.? Let’s make America greater first!
anigbrowl 1y ago
It's interesting that Trump's announcement of this includes a claim that the government has acquired this 10% stake without paying anything for it. Of course, that's probably just bluster to impress the more impressionable part of his base, but I imagine Intel's CFO isn't going to sleeping well for the next few years.
roody15 1y ago
The question is can a US purchase help Intel turn things around? As a corporation Intel has really struggled for over a decade and has trouble with its foundry back even at the 10nm level. Will the US purchase have any impact on Intel reaching competitive levels with TSMC?
pottertheotter 1y ago
I'm all for the government getting stakes in companies that it invests in (see below), but I find it really odd that we already awarded this money to Intel through the CHIPs Act and, instead of disbursing the funds as a grant, they converted it into a stock purchase. I don't like that they're not going along with the law, although that's par for the course. On getting a stake, I find it odd that the right wing (or at least Trump?) is all for getting stakes in businesses, as that seems so counter-intuitive to what they're about. Personally, I think that if the government is putting billions into strategic industries, taxpayers should get a financial return, not just vague promises of jobs or “competitiveness.”
mancerayder 1y ago
The French government owns stakes in big corporations. And why not, why wouldn't the public own some stake and government (us, in theory) have some control? Airbus being an example. Is it because Trump did it? If Biden had done it, the comments from the right would sound like the sarcasm in this message thread. Trump's temporary, he's not taking his stake home when his term expires.
- apical_dendrite 1y ago
  The issue isn't the US taking a stake in Intel. The issue is Trump running a protection racket where he threatens to use the entire force of the federal government against a corporation or institution unless they pay some very large amount of money. This is the same tactic he's using with universities and law firms.
- Nemo_bis 1y ago
  If Biden had done it, SCOTUS would have struck it down as a violation of the Takings Clause or any made up theory.
adapteva 1y ago
Any strings attached? If not, ironically a big chunk of those US tax payer dollars will likely end up in Taiwan/TSMC.
- colechristensen 1y ago
  There's an option for the US to buy an additional 5% if Intel sells so it doesn't have majority ownership of its fabs. But I think the real strings are a soft, private insistence that Intel won't be allowed to sell itself overseas. The Defense Production Act and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States would be used to prevent the sale. The carrot is the whatever $18B in grants and investment, the stick is legislation that allows the government to prevent a sale. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co...
  - adapteva 1y ago
    No strings common share purchase means cash in hand, which implies Intel can spend it on any operational cost, including buying billions in TSMC wafers (which they already do).
kwar13 1y ago
Not that far from having full-out state-owned enterprises the way things are going.
sgnelson 1y ago
Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds." This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there will be other questionalbe demands placed on Intel in the future from this government, you are largely mistaken. But y'all go ahead and can keep arguing over whether we should "get something back" from this deal. Because that's really going to maker ameraica graet agian.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  Why would the government need to "demand" to buy a piece of a publicly-traded company? Is 10% of Intel more than what is being traded in the public market?
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    As I understand it, the government didn't pay anything for these shares.
    - BeetleB 1y ago
      Why does this keep coming up? They're paying the rest of the CHIPS Act money. Overall, they're putting in over $10B into Intel.
      - cududa 1y ago
        Where in the bill passed by Congress does it say taking funds entitles the government to 10% of the company 3 years after the fact?
        BeetleB 1y ago
        > company 3 years after the fact? Intel hasn't gotten most of the money they were awarded. Even the Biden administration were hesitant in doling it out, because of concerns that Intel could deliver. That's why out of frustration, the previous CEO became vocal in saying "We still haven't gotten any money yet!" and was openly frustrated about it. Lip-Bu Tan, in the last quarterly earnings signaled a decent likelihood of not developing 14A (and thus halting much of the semiconductor infrastructure they implied they would need the CHIPS money for). So it's perfectly fair for the government to say "We're not giving you the rest of the money." What this deal does is release the rest of the money, but with strings attached. There were always strings attached - even with the prior administration. The strings have merely changed, and Intel benefits by actually getting the money now vs a long drawn out process.
phkahler 1y ago
Let Intel fail. Other companies will buy state of the art(ish) EUV fabs at a fraction of the normal cost when they're liquidated in bankruptcy. Then we might have several companies on the leading edge.
dev1ycan 1y ago
A lot of criticism of China is about how the government controls companies... isn't this literally it? I mean it was already the case before, but they tried to pretend it wasn't, now they literally own a stake in intel.
throwil 1y ago
Buying Intel chips means supporting American government from now onwards. Lot of countries hate it
andsoitis 1y ago
US Senator Bernie Sanders backs Trump plan for government stake in Intel — https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/8/20/us-senator-bernie-sanders-backs-trump-plan-for-government-stake-in-intel https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/8/20/us-senator-berni...
qwertytyyuu 1y ago
Oh my god, the us taking ownership of a company, instead of giving them free money? Under the trump administration?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
perryizgr8 1y ago
This is an absolute failure of free market capitalism. The company which was at the forefront of the entire stack for decades (hardware design, chip design, chip fabrication, software design), headquartered in the freest modern country, slowly turned into a husk unable to compete with upstarts on the other side of the world. Why is it that a fab is so much more exorbitantly expensive to run in US than in Taiwan? Wasn't higher labour cost supposed to bring disproportionately higher productivity? Why did Intel not build ultra advanced fully robotic fabs? Where's the innovation? Why did no other competitor crop up in the US when it has been clear for a decade that Intel is lost?
pengaru 1y ago
As a tax paying US citizen, I look forward to receiving my INTC.us dividend checks.
pr337h4m 1y ago
Never take government money. RIP Intel.
hunglee2 1y ago
Incredible how fast Trump is changing political culture - wasn't so long ago that protectionism, economic coercion, military-civilian fusion, state owned enterprise s was denigrated as 'communism' and hence beyond the pail. He's even mooted the possibility of redirecting tariff revenue directly to the people, an act of Chavez-esque socialism which would have been unthinkable a year ago. Anything can happen with this administration, I suspect that is the reason why the American people elected him
foogazi 1y ago
Guess capitalism doesn’t scale to the international level
deafpolygon 1y ago
Knowing Trump.. that 10% stake will be sold to one of his cronies. It's just a matter of when.
AlecSchueler 1y ago
Where is DOGE while this is happening?
- Cornbilly 1y ago
  Exposing a US asset and getting his family kidnapped by the Taliban https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-musk-mohammad-halimi-institute-peace-taliban https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-musk-mohammad-halimi...
93po 1y ago
would be cool if we didn' t reward companies with billions of dollars for offshoring production and labor to maximize profits at the expense of american jobs, and apparently, national security.
atkailash 1y ago
How is this not a regulatory conflict of interest? Or strong arming them to change practices under threat of pulling all the stock out?
- nozzlegear 1y ago
  At the risk of sounding a bit flippant, there's a popular 2018 headline from The Onion that becomes increasingly salient as time passes: Trump Claims He Can Overrule Constitution With Executive Order Because Of Little-Known ‘No One Will Stop Me’ Loophole https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constitution-with-executiv-1830106306/ https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constituti...

I wonder if this means the US is going to come for Global Foundaires, TI and Micron to extract an equity stake too. Interesting times.

alephnerd 1y ago
TI and Micron probably. Not sure about GloFlo - UAE's Mubadala has a very strong controlling stake in it.

lawlessone 1y ago

My first thought, how many Trump people just front ran this?

nielsbot 1y ago
You mean did insider trading?
- lawlessone 1y ago
  yes :) ,i got the terms mixed up.
  - positr0n 1y ago
    No you didn't, front running is a specific form of insider trading and you used the term correctly :)
  - handfuloflight 1y ago
    Probably enough to lead to meaningful indictments and convictions, which will never happen.
Thrymr 1y ago
As of last week: https://bsky.app/profile/unusualwhales.bsky.social/post/3lwfkclqpnk2f https://bsky.app/profile/unusualwhales.bsky.social/post/3lwf...

alephnerd 1y ago

Good. It's very much a "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" situation. If Taiwan's NDF has ownership share in TSMC and UMC, China's CICIIF in SMIC, Japan's Master Trust in a majority of enterprises, and Abu Dhabi's Mubadala in GlobalFoundries, then we should as well. The recent (50ish years) aversion to Industrial Policy in America has been pigheaded and ideological to a certain extent. If we wish to build capacity domestically, especially in high capex and low margins industry, some amount of government support is needed. Funds that are overwhelmingly sourced via private capital cannot take the same risks to build an ecosystem that a Soverign Development Fund can. This is what the Master Trust (Japan), NDF (Taiwan), and Temasek (Singapore) did to build their own domestic industries in semiconductors and REE processing - industries with high capex, high IP barriers, and low margins. This now sets the precedent to develop at sovereign development fund. If we did this with GM and Solyndra a decade+ ago we would have been in a better position to protect our automotive and renewable industry, but ofc the GOP of that era along with a portion of the DNC was not ready to take such a risk. The CHIPS and IRA acts were steps in the right direction, but couldn't really take full advantage of the stick. Edit: Surprised that a forum that largely supports single payer healthcare opposes sovereign development funds, even though they themselves could help enforce pricing in a less complex manner than that which the CMS does today. At some point this is just reflexive hatred.

lazide 1y ago
I don’t know, it sounds like the US gov’t just stole $11 bln from Intel shareholders - while intel is failing - while promising nothing?
- alephnerd 1y ago
  It's a similar amount to the stake from the CHIPS act.
  - lazide 1y ago
    And?

russellbeattie 1y ago

> "The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars,” President Trump wrote" This wasn't any sort of investment, it was blackmail. No corporation in the country would voluntarily give up 10% of the company to the federal government - for free - unless overtly threatened. The Trump administration is hoping that by exerting control over Intel, it can begin dictating conditions to Intel's customers, thus the tech community at large. I also assume that one of Trump's cronies will take a spot on the board or some other oversight role, and in the near future, Intel will enrich Trump in one way or another, such as stock, investments, insider information, etc. Nothing about this is good for the U.S. or Intel. It's not a bailout or a sign of support, but a way for Trump to have power over the tech sector.

ocdtrekkie 1y ago
Arguably the alternative was the government just... not giving them the CHIPS Act money. (And there's certainly a point to be made that Trump altering the deal is... problematic.) But I will say, I find the concept that when we invest public dollars in a private company, the public retains a stake appealing. I think about the strategic oil reserve, and how the government actually can make money by buying and selling oil to the open market. The idea that if we inject money into a company to help our domestic industries, that the government can sell it's stake back out at a later time is appealing. (And again, to be clear, not a Republican or a Trumper here, and I assume in Trump fashion he will find some way to screw everyone involved and get paid himself personally... but the concept of the government acquiring a stake rather than just giving them a grant is on it's face... maybe not terrible?)
- russellbeattie 1y ago
  We haven't invested any public dollars into Intel, we just took 10% of it.
  - BeetleB 1y ago
    The US government is paying about $9B to Intel for this (on top of the $2B already paid).

nielsbot 1y ago

> Intel said that the U.S. government won’t have a board seat or other governance rights. What rights does this refer to? Normal shareholder voting rights or something else?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
eigart 1y ago
They will vote with the board

themafia 1y ago

[flagged]

conception 1y ago
“The government paid nothing for these shares..” The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.

IvyMike 1y ago

Seizing the means of production!

karakot 1y ago
Da, Comrade!
- pixelpoet 1y ago
  The oligarchs resulting from the fall of Soviet Trumpistan are going to be the most obscenely rich people history has ever seen.
  - coliveira 1y ago
    They already are, in a replay of the robber baron era.
wedn3sday 1y ago
Well, the current administration and the National Socialists do have some things in common.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

naijaboiler 1y ago

i remember when this happened during an actual crisis, in 2008, republicans all over cried on the radio day after day, arguing that it's socialiasm. But now, crickets!!

blackguardx 1y ago
They were still complaining about Solyndra over a decade later.
threemux 1y ago
The Republican party of 2008 bears little resemblance to the one of 2025, especially on economic issues. Many in the party have changed their views over the last decade+ on industrial policy and the libertarian wing of the party has very little influence now. It's really a striking shift. What remains of the "old guard" is, in fact, loudly complaining about this move: https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/08/the-government-shouldnt-get-into-the-chip-business/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/08/the-government-should...
jimt1234 1y ago
Exactly! I know there's a lot of Trumpers/MAGAs on HN, so I'm sincerely asking them: How is this not the evil thing you guys constantly lecture us about (socialism!)?
- NickC25 1y ago
  It's not the evil thing because it's "their side" doing it.
- miltonlost 1y ago
  Because they only lecture about socialism as a red herring. They only care about power and obtaining it. Fascists have no actual principles other than more power and hatred of others.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Here's some emergency reading https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/its-not-hypocrisy-youre-just-powerless https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/its-not-hypocrisy-youre-j...

voxadam 1y ago

Intel press release: https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/intel-and-trump-administration-reach-historic-agreement https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/intel-and-trump-adminis...

robocat 1y ago
So no shareholder vote required? It is equivalent to a 10% dilution (shares issued for no extra cash).
- lugu 1y ago
  How can this be any good for Intel? Why is the stock value bumping 6%?
  - llllm 1y ago
    It means Intel is far worse off than publicly acknowledged, and without this it might be worthless.
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      It doesn't mean that. Sometimes, there are returns on investments beyond what an accountant would calculate, but the investment only costs the same. Making stock priced only for normal returns a buy for beneficiaries of said additional returns. In this case, reducing the risk associated with the imported chip supply.
      - llllm 1y ago
        lol, buy buy buy buy BOOYAH JIM
  - parliament32 1y ago
    The CHIPS grants had clawback provisions, which carry risk. This transaction removes that risk, so it's very good news for Intel. > The existing claw-back and profit-sharing provisions associated with the government’s previously dispersed $2.2 billion grant to Intel under the CHIPS Act will be eliminated to create permanency of capital as the company advances its U.S. investment plans.

eunos 1y ago

So Intel is an SOE now?

cuttothechase 1y ago

Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?

jen20 1y ago
> How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? By ensuring that the US retains at least the ability to manufacture second tier CPUs vs complete reliance on Asia? This doesn't seem unreasonable.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  The US can't employ poverty-tier labor to enable competitive margins, though. American businesses and global trade partners already largely reject Intel's foundry services.
  - wahnfrieden 1y ago
    Haven’t you read Curtis Yarvin’s vision for America? Our leaders, VCs, and owners have
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      I don't care how nihilist or kafkaesque you want to take the conversation - the math won't check out. You can't sustain a third-sector economy on second-sector jobs while importing first-sector goods. The entire financial system in America won't survive that sort of transition, it would be the Great Leap Forward of the 21st century.
      - Avshalom 1y ago
        One of the things about the Great Leap Forward is that it happened. Just because a path of action will obviously lead to mass death and suffering while accomplishing nothing doesn't mean it won't be taken.

reg_dunlop 1y ago

Forgive me...how is this different than taxes? And wouldn't it be better to oh, I don't know, enforce the standard corporate tax rate?

wmf 1y ago
This is a bailout; it's the opposite of taxes.
- mikepurvis 1y ago
  Isn't it the opposite of a bailout, given that the US gov't is seizing an ownership stake retroactively based on past grants/bailouts but giving no new money at this time?
  - wmf 1y ago
    The CHIPS Act was the bailout; this is just replacing the previous profit sharing with equity.
    - tester756 1y ago
      It was very messy bailout then
    - anon291 1y ago
      CHIPS act is a grant similar to a small business grant, not a bailout at all. It was intended to incentivize chip production in the United States and was available to any company manufacturing in the united states. It had no equity strings attached, as authorized by congress.
- roxolotl 1y ago
  Most of the money has already been given: > The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion. So it kinda is something weird? It's not really a pure bail out, the Chips act already did that, and it's also not really a tax because they aren't going to get money out unless there's dividends. It's more like a power play which makes sense given that Trump is uncomfortable without anyone getting anything for nothing.

shrubble 1y ago

I’m reminded that Chrysler took a big loan from the US government in 1979, $1.5 billion which today is equivalent to about $5.9 billion USD according to the inflation calculator I found.

est 1y ago
FIAT is somewhat state-owned anyway.

stevenjgarner 1y ago

[flagged]

edot 1y ago
Don’t post LLM junk on HN — it’s not just annoying, it erodes the community trust.

wmf 1y ago

This is worse than I expected. They're apparently putting in no new money and retroactively demanding stock in exchange for grants that were already awarded. If Intel can't afford to build 14A and we're putting in no net new money... then Intel still can't afford 14A? Unless they were lying.

moolcool 1y ago
Maybe it’s more about affording 641A
- abeppu 1y ago
  ... what would a chip version of 641A even look like? If it involves (a) identifying / filtering stuff they want to spy on (b) sending it back to one of the intelligence agencies, it seems like both would be hard to do well and secretly ... right?
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    So the US is getting lower-case intel here, in addition to upper-case Intel.
moogly 1y ago
It's just cronyism and bribes. Nothing more to it. From "he must go" to "Intel is so great that we demand a 10% stake” in a week. Mussolini-style.
lovich 1y ago
Or they just devalued all of the current stock holders. Intel needed the capital, not Intel stock
etempleton 1y ago
There werestrings attached to the CHIPs act money. Not saying this is some great deal. It isn't. It is a deal made from a place of necessity and weakness for Intel, but it gives them the cash infusion they need in the short term. Right now Intel's only goal is to have enough money to get 14a off the ground and attract at least one large external customer to prove their capabilities.

varelse 1y ago

[dead]

notepad0x90 1y ago

I despite/abhor this administration and their politics, but this is a good move. There should be more privatization where national interests are involved. Instead of the ACA for example,the government could have taken a 51% stake in health insurers (forget subsidizing them, own them!) and we the voters would elect politicians to oversee health insurance instead of hoping and trusting CEOs. So many problems are caused by companies chasing short-term shareholder satisfaction. If the government is a significant shareholder, then guess who they'll try to make happy? The sheer threat of the government buying a controlling interest and running your company might make some companies behave in the interests of the public more. Especially, if the government is also engaging in policy to harm the company's revenue before buying stakes in it. I'm not saying the US should be a full-on communist or socialist economy, nothing like that. This is capitalism. We the people get to use or tax dollars to our benefit. Think about it, the US sells bonds right? what if it paid for them by investing in company stocks and derivatives? that's revenue right? The whole pearl-clutching over ideological extremes doesn't serve the public or the economy's interest. Some privatization is good, none is great if everyone was decent and honorable. but in this society, moderate privatization where there is potential benefit to the public and national security makes sense. Companies with government investment should also be prohibited from making political donations, so any company that is trying to sway elections faces the threat of the next administration buying stakes in them to prevent that behavior. This could be the missing 5th estate that can make democracy last.

wedn3sday 1y ago
I swear Im not trying to be glib or dismissive, but I honestly think you dont know what "privatization" means, this is the exact opposite.
- tyg13 1y ago
  Exactly. This amounts to a partial nationalization of Intel.
- foobarian 1y ago
  Maybe they mean "privately owned by the government". Which I guess is usually called nationalization

sciencesama 1y ago

How an anti communist govt slowly is adapting communistic ideas !!

MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago

> the government made an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share, giving it a 10% stake in the company > The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars I don't understand. Can somebody explain to me how the government made an investement, bought shares, but paid nothing?

heyheyhey 1y ago
I think a better rephrasing is "government is giving $8.9B from the CHIPS act in exchange for a 10% stake in the company"
- tyg13 1y ago
  Depends on who you ask. Trump himself seems to think the US is getting 10% for free. I think that's a fair assessment given that these grants were already supposed to be paid out to Intel, without any kind of equity stake promised. Worth noting that Intel is the only company that had these kinds of shenanigans pulled with their grant. Samsung, TSMC, Micron and others were granted similar funds without any kind of withholding or demands for equity from the federal government.
  - rvba 1y ago
    Getting stock in exchange of grants makes more sense than "pure" grants. This stock can later be sold, to benefit the taxpayer.
    - behringer 1y ago
      that's not a grant. That's just buying stocks.
      - BeetleB 1y ago
        It's effectively a grant. The US government isn't buying existing shares. Intel is issuing new shares and selling them to the US government - so actual money is being transferred to Intel (and existing shares are being diluted as a result).

miohtama 1y ago

Discussion from yesterday about Intel's and Trump's woes https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44978356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44978356

softwaredoug 1y ago

I’m pretty sure that’s socialism

impossiblefork 1y ago
Socialism would be worker ownership. This is simply state ownership of what's seen as a strategic business. It's an abandonment of market dogmatism, but not a step towards any of the many ideologies or positions where markets have a smaller role.
- lawlessone 1y ago
  I think the phrase i heard before is State Capitalism. But i could be wrong
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    Yes. State capitalism is definitely the word. Usually I suppose, when I think state capitalism I would think something like the Soviet Union, where this happens across many businesses with the state owning everything, but I suppose it is state capitalism, or a state capitalist element in a market system. One might even call it a mixed economy, or a sort of hacked-apart Swedish model without labour unions and state ownership of only certain strategic industries, rather than let's say, state ownership of hospitals.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  So by that logic, state provided healthcare is not socialism. But a labor union providing health insurance is socialism. Can we get some of that state owned health care :-p
  - marcosdumay 1y ago
    > So by that logic, state provided healthcare is not socialism. Well, it's not. It's only socialism if the state decides to provide it for everybody. A state-owned corporation isn't necessarily socialism. (And yeah, you say it like if it's a bad word...)

dmitrygr 1y ago

Why is this a surprise? Who do you expect to design and make chips for national security-level programs in the future wars when Taiwan is a deep crater? Every serious nation state has an arch design house and a fab. It need not be cutting edge (most militry stuff is a few gens old), but it needs to exist. Russia has Elbrus. China has Looonsoon and SMIC. Europe has ARM but is a bit behind here fab-wise. However, STMicro does have fabs in europe. This is just securing access and control of national-security level resources.

tyg13 1y ago
The surprise is the federal government acting like an unfair negotiator, substantially altering the deal after it had already been struck. Equity in return for investment grants was never a part of CHIPS, and was only made part of it by Trump who seems to have originally wanted to kill the deal because it wasn't made by him.
impossiblefork 1y ago
Taiwan. The thing is, even though the US is trying to create an alternative for itself, once Taiwan is in danger, this would for the EU mean a total US microchip monopoly, so radical action becomes necessary. If I were a political leader in the EU I would consider nuclear weapons sharing with Taiwan if that happened.

bilsbie 1y ago

This sounds bad. Can someone steelman this for me so I can understand the good?

edot 1y ago
If you’re going to give taxpayer money to a for-profit company, taxpayers should receive a share of the company in return. I generally don’t like 90% of the policies we’ve got going on right now, but I actually feel okay about this one.
- ecocentrik 1y ago
  In the rare conditions where this has been necessary in the past, US companies have been given clear terms for regaining control of those shares. I'm not seeing any buyback provisions.
- righthand 1y ago
  This is ignoring the original agreement of profit-sharing with the government as was in Biden’s original plan. Feeling “okay” or not “okay” is irrelevant until we know how well Intel does in the next decade and calculate the cost against the profit sharing agreement.
  - edot 1y ago
    Yeah, I haven’t dug into the numbers to know. Which option makes more money for the government (and therefore the taxpayer, sort of) - a profit sharing agreement, or a share of the company (which, as with all publicly traded companies, is a profit sharing agreement that sometimes happens through dividends, and sometimes happens through stock sales).
    - righthand 1y ago
      Who cares about the money recovery, the actual concern is about getting the production up and running. This doesn’t really address that in any capacity.

pk-protect-ai 1y ago

Atlas Shrugged ...

BSOhealth 1y ago

Intel as a store of value?

thehoagie 1y ago

> Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded Also > "Your CHIPs Act is a horrible, horrible thing...You should get rid of the CHIP act and whatever's left over Mr. Speaker" - Donald Trump Fast forward to today: > "This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL." - Donald Trump

Reason077 1y ago

Comrades, Starting today, under the government’s guidance, Intel shall serve the needs of the needs of the nation - not the whims of oligarchs. Liberated from wasteful and destructive capitalistic competition, Intel’s revolutionary “people’s processors” (soon to be developed) will ensure that the world’s most advanced AI chips are made in America. And priced within the reach of every US worker. Viva la revolution! Viva Intel!

nickhodge 1y ago

Here comes the nationalization phase of fascism. Well done, freedom lovers. You voted in exactly what you fear most.

webninja 1y ago
How exactly are countries like Norway doing with their Sovereign Wealth Funds? Does it provide its citizens with benefits?
moskie 1y ago
They never feared it, they always wanted it, just with someone like Trump calling the shots. Every accusation is a confession, etc.

sobiolite 1y ago

Ironic, Western politicians thought opening up to trade with China would lead to it adopting a Western model of government. Instead it's lead to the USA adopting the Chinese one.

slashnode 1y ago
Ha! Too perfect
glimshe 1y ago
The promiscuous relation between government and tech is as old as Silicon Valley. I'm fact, it created Silicon Valley. It started when people in China were still building backyard furnaces.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Who ordered the Chinese people to build furnaces in their backyard?
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    Some guys who wanted to make China Great Again.
yieldcrv 1y ago
We even have no assurance of keeping private property via civil asset forfeiture! Private ownership was the adults main point of pride to distinguish from the Chinese when I was growing up. And now the Chinese private property frameworks are closer to ours and ours are closer to theirs.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- nine_k 1y ago
  Civil forfeiture existed since 1660s, and was used initially to confiscate smugglers' vessels. Then it was dug out during Prohibition, and turned toxic in 1980s when the agencies doing the forfeiture (e.g. police) were allowed to keep the confiscated property. Ideally it should be used for restitution (e.g. to victims of fraud), but... I suspect you were growing up when this was in full swing already.

unit149 1y ago

[dead]

fancyfredbot 1y ago

Did Lip Bu Tan initially try to say no to this? You'd kind of expect him to say no. Is that why Trump tried to oust him? Is Trump trying to oust him the reason Intel are now accepting this?

BeetleB 1y ago
> You'd kind of expect him to say no. There was no guarantee Intel would get the rest of the CHIPS money they were granted - even the Biden administration kept holding it back (after officially awarding it to them) - as there were doubts Intel could deliver. I also wonder if some deal was made around 14A. Tan said he would not develop it without commitments from customers, because sales from Intel CPUs wouldn't justify the cost. This may be a way to ease that pressure and give Intel another chance even without serious customer commitment.
- hangonhn 1y ago
  The investment from Softbank is interesting because ARM is also a portfolio company of theirs. ARM has said they want to make their own chips now so Intel might be a good candidate for that.

belter 1y ago

I give you 3 months before the US government takes 10% of Google, Microsoft, Amazon/AWS, Nvidia, AMD and Apple.

BeetleB 1y ago
Those companies are not fighting for survival.
- coliveira 1y ago
  The gov already took a big part of Nvidia profits in China.
- belter 1y ago
  Survival is not the issue, it is about control. Today 10% Intel stake (non-voting, bought with already-promised CHIPS funds) puts the state on the cap table, and the 15% skim on Nvidia and AMD China sales swaps export licenses for tribute. The HN usual knee-jerk downvotes on anything about Trump admin criticism, just help normalize it.
coliveira 1y ago
For Nvidia this is already happening. They're taking a chunk of the profits of Nvidia operations in China. The Chinese have been prescient when stopped any Intel and Nvidia chips in government and strategic areas of China.

Waterluvian 1y ago

This feels like another signal that the U.S. as an economic superpower is transitioning into something else. I guess this is kind of like an auto or bank bailout, but is there something to bail out, or are they just gaining ownership of a doomed (in the classical sense) corporation?

EasyMark 1y ago
hopefully it's only for 3 more years. One aspect of fascism is government politicians taking over businesses for their own power and monetary enrichment. I'm not sure how this makes Trump richer, but I'm sure there is some angle to it, there always is.

fancyfredbot 1y ago

I am expecting shareholders to be very upset. If, as Matt Levine likes to say, everything is securities fraud then this is going to court one way or another.

lbrito 1y ago

Is the US going to sanction Intel for being a SOE now?

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

Ahh, yes, conservatives please lecture me about the utopia of the free market and how those evil socialists that take control of the means of production just screw it all up. Number 6934 on my list of "every accusation is just projection".

Buttons840 1y ago

So, this happened just because one man (you know the one) decided it should happen? No vote or anything?

lysace 1y ago
That is my understanding. The US king ”made a deal” with Intel.

righthand 1y ago

Trying to ignore the politicking on this so it can be clear on what exactly is “happening”. As far as I understand, all Trump did was alter Biden admin’s original plan. Trump swapped a 10% stake in Intel for Biden’s profit sharing for participating in the grants[0] (anyone who participates in the CHIPS Act gets this deal currently, I guess Intel is renegotiating). Not necessarily better or worse because Intel is a long ways away from any sort of gain that would make a difference. If you feel conflicted to think this is a good or bad move, you’re right where Trump wants you. Sit down and do the napkin math, you may find the deal irrelevant or numbers similar. In the end we won’t know for a decade the result. The move is meaningless financially but generates headlines and doesn’t do anything to advance the actual foundries. It’s almost distracting… [0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits“ >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winning-chipmaking-subsidies-share-excess-profits-2023-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn...

ejstronge 1y ago
First, this is different because this was not what was agreed when Intel sought the grant. So I reserve the right to see as ‘bad’ a coercive action. Second, from your article: ‘ Commerce expects "upside sharing will only be material in instances where the project significantly exceeds its projected cash flows or returns, and will not exceed 75% of the recipient’s direct funding award." 'NOT A FREE HANDOUT' Democratic Senator Jack Reed praised the profit sharing plan, saying chips funding is "not a free handout for multi-billion dollar tech companies.... There is no downside for companies that participate because they only have to share a portion of future profits if they do exceedingly well."’ Clearly, there was a cap on repayments, but there is not one on giving away equity
llllm 1y ago
I don’t think people are conflicted over the math. The nature of this, the manner in which it went down, and the implications for the future are what people seem to care much more about.

banku_brougham 1y ago

[Ex Post Facto Clause, US Constitution](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11293 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11293). Oops, I thought it was so obviously going to be done away with in the courts, but in 1912 the Supreme Court ruled that it applies only to criminal punishments. They always getcha with the fine print.

1980phipsi 1y ago
The Supreme Court’s standing doctrine is also weird. If the board of directors approves it, then would the shareholders even be able to sue?

chiph 1y ago

Looks like they will get common shares (not preferred). Could Intel create a new share class for this investment (with different voting rights)? Does 10% give the government a controlling interest?

yieldcrv 1y ago

[flagged]

MyOutfitIsVague 1y ago
That's needlessly rude. I just found the sequence of events confusing. If I promise you a cash gift, then some months later demand you to give me something in return for the promised gift, it would be silly to say that I paid absolutely nothing. I don't consider that pedantic.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  Okay, you’re right, I’m sorry I ran into someone recently that derailed every conversation for a needless correction and would opt for arguing about that instead of going back to what the initial conversation was about. This reminded me of that and my tolerance is low for it, for now
tomhow 1y ago
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44990485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44990485 and marked it off topic.

stego-tech 1y ago

Capitalism for profits, socialism for losses. I’m sick of seeing this sort of behavior pan out time and time again, though I’m hardly surprised by it at this point. Speaking of things that wouldn’t surprise me, if Intel can’t manage an about-face in the next three to six years I fully expect them to become a Nationalized enterprise if only to preserve fabrication and chip design capabilities domestically. Same with Boeing given their less-than-stellar track record of late. The current conflict is over domestic manufacturing capabilities. That’s where it will continue to rage until and unless full-fledged war breaks out. It doesn’t matter how many chips are designed domestically if all production capacity is in Asia within China’s sphere of influence. Intel is a major outlier for chips, as is Boeing for aerospace.

parineum 1y ago
> Capitalism for profits, socialism for losses. I’m sick of seeing this sort of behavior pan out time and time again, though I’m hardly surprised by it at this point I'm not sure how this applies. The US government just gained a 10% stake for nothing (that wasn't already given). Effectively going from the scenario you are painting to now taking a part of the profit as well. I guess you were surprised after all!
- Nemo_bis 1y ago
  The whole point of equity is that it can go to zero. Profit sharing means that the government had an upside (if Intel became profitable) and no downside. Now, if Intel loses money or goes bankrupt, 10 % of those losses automatically get socialised.
  - parineum 1y ago
    Great explanation of the socialism for losses, which was already happening and is the normal bailout routine. Now explain how "Capitalism for profits" applies.

rvz 1y ago

Yet another bailout from the US government as accurately predicted. [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44676641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44676641

NomDePlum 1y ago

Ironic that Trump looks to be succeeding in killing both Democracy and Capitalism, which rightly or wrongly are seen as it's greatest strengths. If they go what does it leave the US with that's any different from any other country?

esalman 1y ago

For a party who talks constantly about freedom, this administration is sure doing a lot to encroach on said freedom, of both individuals and corporations.

shortrounddev2 1y ago

I've lived long enough to see the Republicans become the socialist party

actionfromafar 1y ago
It's also pretty nationalist.

hbarka 1y ago

Shakedown list: Nvidia 15% of revenue AMD 15% of revenue Intel 10% of capital Who else is next?

sigwinch 1y ago
Rare earth miner MP Materials back on July 10. Next feels like TikTok or Fox News.
giobox 1y ago
A deal for 15 percent of revenues of specific AMD and NVidia part sales in China != 15 percent of all their revenues, not even close.
- aabhay 1y ago
  Demanding 15% of H20, causing China to retaliate and ban it, causing Nvidia to halt production. In terms of net effect, it’s atrocious regardless.
colechristensen 1y ago
I'm not mad about a corporate tax on semiconductors sold to an adversary and agree that a tax is better than a ban on those sales.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
favflam 1y ago
Just to add: what about the part where a single person is dictating taxes on American companies? That does not seem to phase that many people in the tech space... And what leverage did the administration illegally (without Congressional authorization) apply to get this deal? At least when the Bush admin did the first part of the financial bailout in 2008, they had Congressional authorization (a bill was passed).
thisisit 1y ago

tombert 1y ago

Any reason to think that Trump didn't just buy a bunch of options before demanding this?

btbuildem 1y ago

The hammer is right here, now where did I put that sickle?

Zigurd 1y ago

Unless the descriptions of the deal I've seen are wrong, this seems random and pointless. No new money. A lot of the support for Intel foundry, and a lot of the people in that are gone now. So what's the national strategic interest in Intel? Pat Gelsinger must be happy he didn't stick around for this shitshow.

jjcm 1y ago

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is investing BUY INTEL SHARES" media event. These things should follow a strict set of rules and processes so investors and companies know what to expect. These kind of deals should be boring, not a media event.

actionfromafar 1y ago
But that wouldn't give great ratings.
sergiomattei 1y ago
What bothers me is the double standard. When the public asks for fully publicly-owned railways, universal healthcare, or any basic social safety assurances—“socialism”. When a megacorporation struggles, immediately to the rescue.
- hopelite 1y ago
  It’s not a double standard, you just don’t understand the standard.
  - llllm 1y ago
    It’s a triple standard you just can’t count.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which won't really matter if there's no money to fund them or the country has been taken over by some hostile enemy.

loeg 1y ago

Well, it's certainly newsworthy. Bizarre.

solardev 1y ago

The U.S owns 10% of Intel now? What does that make us... $20 richer?

bink 1y ago
Today we are all nana... against our will.

LightBug1 1y ago

[flagged]

selimthegrim 1y ago
Five nodes in four years coming right up.

lysace 1y ago

Good luck, Trumpistan people.

akozak 1y ago

A lot of people are commenting on this without reading the actual content of the deal, which is spelled out in Intel's press release: https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/intel-and-trump-administration-reach-historic-agreement-to https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/...

theptip 1y ago

> the government made an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share, giving it a 10% stake in the company > Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips Interesting accounting there. I guess the government was threatening to void the grants or something? Why would Intel donate shares for grants already approved? I guess this nets out to a stock issuance with no downward price pressure, so still not a bad trade for Intel if they thought those grants were worth nothing.

mandevil 1y ago
Because this clears the way to sell Intel Foundry and separate the chip design from the chip-manufacturing businesses completely. The CHiPs act money had claw-backs such that if Intel sold the Foundry off they had to pay the government all the money back. This new deal waives all the clawbacks and says instead the Government gets warrants, good for five years, for 5% of the company at $20/share, good once they control less than 51% of the Foundry. Ergo, the reason for the deal is that the board wants to sell off the Foundry, and didn't want to pay back the CHiPS act money.
- theptip 1y ago
  Good context, thanks. If it’s likely that the Foundry will be sold off, do you view the extra 5% as a short-term profit and not really a geopolitical/strategic protection? Seems the Foundry is the bit that USG really is trying to backstop.
mplewis 1y ago
Just another Trump shakedown. Nothing to see here.
- rpmisms 1y ago
  It's extremely good business for the US. Trump doesn't get to take this with him.

inerte 1y ago

No board seat or governance rights. What's the government getting out of this? Trump brags of a good deal? Might profit in the future? Or _actually_ although technically there's no governance, government might actually influence how Intel is run? Besides politics and image, are there any benefits?

0xbadcafebee 1y ago

I finally grok the Republican party. It's only socialism if it helps the poor. Government handouts to corporations and trade protectionism? Mainly helps the rich, so it's not socialism. Tax money spent on a special interest program? Again, if it mainly helps the rich (or their party's base), no problemo. They're the Kleptocracy Party.

burnt-resistor 1y ago
Klepo-pluto-kakisto-kratocracy with socialism for the rich.

tdhz77 1y ago

At least in 2008 there was a financial crisis. This feels like somebody has stock in intel.

electriclove 1y ago

Capitalism with Chinese characteristics

rhelz 1y ago

This is one of the saddest days of my life.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bdangubic 1y ago

North Korea in the streets, Venezuela in the sheets... :)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

BurningFrog 1y ago

So did they buy these stocks from Intel itself? Does that dilute the share other intel stock owners have? This stuff always confuses me.

anon291 1y ago
The stocks were not bought. Intel's board literally voted to give 1/10 of the company to the American government. Any sort of other take is propaganda. The claim that the shares were in exchange for grant money is false. Grant money is free and requires no payback. Congress authorized grants, not equity investments.
theurerjohn3 1y ago
> So did they buy these stocks from Intel itself? in a sense, although buy is not quite the right word. there were grants promised to chip manufacturers under certian conditions. trump decided to wave those conditions just for intel in exchange for 10% of the company. > Does that dilute the share other intel stock owners have? no, the shares were already existing and owned by intel.

Nevermark 1y ago

If the US had bought 10% of TSMC, with no voting rights - just increased dependency - it would have sent a very strong signal. Its an interesting idea, not a serious suggestion.

shusaku 1y ago
The US has been slowly but steadily sending the opposite signal over the past year: “just wait a little and you can have Taiwan”
- rpmisms 1y ago
  If the US can replace the need for Taiwan... Yeah. They no longer matter to us if we can replace the manufacturing capacity.
gizajob 1y ago
That would have cost more than $100billion, not the $10billion for the same sized stake in intel.

resters 1y ago

this is a step away from capitalism and it harms any startups destined to compete with Intel and discourages investment in the startup ecosystem that might compete with Intel, and punishes investors/customers in/of any of Intel's competitors.

notherhack 1y ago

A government stake gives confidence in the company’s survival that a one-time cash dump for the CHIPS act couldn’t. It’s not a lot different than what car and financial companies got in 2009. They were about to go under because no one thought they’d be around long enough to get out from under and deliver goods or pay their debts. The government stake enabled them to keep operating and eventually recover and then the government returned the stake to the market (or will soon w/ Fannie & Freddie).

anonu 1y ago

It's a way around the "horrible horrible" CHIPS act.

alfiedotwtf 1y ago

Didn’t the US invade Iran when they did this to their oil industry? (Yes I know 10% is different to 100%, but wow… I thought the US shun commandeering of private companies?)

_zoltan_ 1y ago

if you're the US government, this makes sense. invest into your own chip maker.

whoisthemachine 1y ago

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time for the old "Tea Party" to rise up again and start protesting this.

Henchman21 1y ago
The only way you're going to get people to notice anything at all is if you shut down the internet.
- ryoshu 1y ago
  Working on it.

steveBK123 1y ago

Comrade Trump seizing the means of production, glory to our leader

nashashmi 1y ago

America sovereign wealth fund.

burnt-resistor 1y ago
Trump unitary executive privatized wealth fund using US taxpayer money. And a free 747 that won't be useful or ready during this term, but hundreds of millions of taxpayer money will be poured into for the "library". The VC-25Bs were already under construction.

quantum_state 1y ago

I am surprised there is so much talk about China. Can we just focus on our own business here in the US: fixing the roads, bridges, schools, cities, etc.? Let’s make America greater first!

anigbrowl 1y ago

It's interesting that Trump's announcement of this includes a claim that the government has acquired this 10% stake without paying anything for it. Of course, that's probably just bluster to impress the more impressionable part of his base, but I imagine Intel's CFO isn't going to sleeping well for the next few years.

roody15 1y ago

The question is can a US purchase help Intel turn things around? As a corporation Intel has really struggled for over a decade and has trouble with its foundry back even at the 10nm level. Will the US purchase have any impact on Intel reaching competitive levels with TSMC?

pottertheotter 1y ago

I'm all for the government getting stakes in companies that it invests in (see below), but I find it really odd that we already awarded this money to Intel through the CHIPs Act and, instead of disbursing the funds as a grant, they converted it into a stock purchase. I don't like that they're not going along with the law, although that's par for the course. On getting a stake, I find it odd that the right wing (or at least Trump?) is all for getting stakes in businesses, as that seems so counter-intuitive to what they're about. Personally, I think that if the government is putting billions into strategic industries, taxpayers should get a financial return, not just vague promises of jobs or “competitiveness.”

mancerayder 1y ago

The French government owns stakes in big corporations. And why not, why wouldn't the public own some stake and government (us, in theory) have some control? Airbus being an example. Is it because Trump did it? If Biden had done it, the comments from the right would sound like the sarcasm in this message thread. Trump's temporary, he's not taking his stake home when his term expires.

apical_dendrite 1y ago
The issue isn't the US taking a stake in Intel. The issue is Trump running a protection racket where he threatens to use the entire force of the federal government against a corporation or institution unless they pay some very large amount of money. This is the same tactic he's using with universities and law firms.
Nemo_bis 1y ago
If Biden had done it, SCOTUS would have struck it down as a violation of the Takings Clause or any made up theory.

adapteva 1y ago

Any strings attached? If not, ironically a big chunk of those US tax payer dollars will likely end up in Taiwan/TSMC.

colechristensen 1y ago
There's an option for the US to buy an additional 5% if Intel sells so it doesn't have majority ownership of its fabs. But I think the real strings are a soft, private insistence that Intel won't be allowed to sell itself overseas. The Defense Production Act and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States would be used to prevent the sale. The carrot is the whatever $18B in grants and investment, the stick is legislation that allows the government to prevent a sale. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-committee-on-foreign-investment-in-the-united-states-cfius https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co...
- adapteva 1y ago
  No strings common share purchase means cash in hand, which implies Intel can spend it on any operational cost, including buying billions in TSMC wafers (which they already do).

kwar13 1y ago

Not that far from having full-out state-owned enterprises the way things are going.

sgnelson 1y ago

Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds." This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there will be other questionalbe demands placed on Intel in the future from this government, you are largely mistaken. But y'all go ahead and can keep arguing over whether we should "get something back" from this deal. Because that's really going to maker ameraica graet agian.

fluoridation 1y ago
Why would the government need to "demand" to buy a piece of a publicly-traded company? Is 10% of Intel more than what is being traded in the public market?
- BurningFrog 1y ago
  As I understand it, the government didn't pay anything for these shares.
  - BeetleB 1y ago
    Why does this keep coming up? They're paying the rest of the CHIPS Act money. Overall, they're putting in over $10B into Intel.
    - cududa 1y ago
      Where in the bill passed by Congress does it say taking funds entitles the government to 10% of the company 3 years after the fact?
      - BeetleB 1y ago
        > company 3 years after the fact? Intel hasn't gotten most of the money they were awarded. Even the Biden administration were hesitant in doling it out, because of concerns that Intel could deliver. That's why out of frustration, the previous CEO became vocal in saying "We still haven't gotten any money yet!" and was openly frustrated about it. Lip-Bu Tan, in the last quarterly earnings signaled a decent likelihood of not developing 14A (and thus halting much of the semiconductor infrastructure they implied they would need the CHIPS money for). So it's perfectly fair for the government to say "We're not giving you the rest of the money." What this deal does is release the rest of the money, but with strings attached. There were always strings attached - even with the prior administration. The strings have merely changed, and Intel benefits by actually getting the money now vs a long drawn out process.

phkahler 1y ago

Let Intel fail. Other companies will buy state of the art(ish) EUV fabs at a fraction of the normal cost when they're liquidated in bankruptcy. Then we might have several companies on the leading edge.

dev1ycan 1y ago

A lot of criticism of China is about how the government controls companies... isn't this literally it? I mean it was already the case before, but they tried to pretend it wasn't, now they literally own a stake in intel.

throwil 1y ago

Buying Intel chips means supporting American government from now onwards. Lot of countries hate it

andsoitis 1y ago

US Senator Bernie Sanders backs Trump plan for government stake in Intel — https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/8/20/us-senator-bernie-sanders-backs-trump-plan-for-government-stake-in-intel https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/8/20/us-senator-berni...

qwertytyyuu 1y ago

Oh my god, the us taking ownership of a company, instead of giving them free money? Under the trump administration?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

perryizgr8 1y ago

This is an absolute failure of free market capitalism. The company which was at the forefront of the entire stack for decades (hardware design, chip design, chip fabrication, software design), headquartered in the freest modern country, slowly turned into a husk unable to compete with upstarts on the other side of the world. Why is it that a fab is so much more exorbitantly expensive to run in US than in Taiwan? Wasn't higher labour cost supposed to bring disproportionately higher productivity? Why did Intel not build ultra advanced fully robotic fabs? Where's the innovation? Why did no other competitor crop up in the US when it has been clear for a decade that Intel is lost?

pengaru 1y ago

As a tax paying US citizen, I look forward to receiving my INTC.us dividend checks.

pr337h4m 1y ago

Never take government money. RIP Intel.

hunglee2 1y ago

Incredible how fast Trump is changing political culture - wasn't so long ago that protectionism, economic coercion, military-civilian fusion, state owned enterprise s was denigrated as 'communism' and hence beyond the pail. He's even mooted the possibility of redirecting tariff revenue directly to the people, an act of Chavez-esque socialism which would have been unthinkable a year ago. Anything can happen with this administration, I suspect that is the reason why the American people elected him

foogazi 1y ago

Guess capitalism doesn’t scale to the international level

deafpolygon 1y ago

Knowing Trump.. that 10% stake will be sold to one of his cronies. It's just a matter of when.

AlecSchueler 1y ago

Where is DOGE while this is happening?

Cornbilly 1y ago
Exposing a US asset and getting his family kidnapped by the Taliban https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-musk-mohammad-halimi-institute-peace-taliban https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-musk-mohammad-halimi...

93po 1y ago

would be cool if we didn' t reward companies with billions of dollars for offshoring production and labor to maximize profits at the expense of american jobs, and apparently, national security.

atkailash 1y ago

How is this not a regulatory conflict of interest? Or strong arming them to change practices under threat of pulling all the stock out?

nozzlegear 1y ago
At the risk of sounding a bit flippant, there's a popular 2018 headline from The Onion that becomes increasingly salient as time passes: Trump Claims He Can Overrule Constitution With Executive Order Because Of Little-Known ‘No One Will Stop Me’ Loophole https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constitution-with-executiv-1830106306/ https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constituti...