5 ms·

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 o

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.
    - re-thc 1y ago
      > They're paying the rest of the CHIPS Act money. Overall, they're putting in over $10B into Intel. So taking a scholarship means you're giving a % of yourself to the school? Was this ever mentioned when Intel signed up? Did you know about it?
      - BeetleB 1y ago
        > So taking a scholarship means you're giving a % of yourself to the school? > Was this ever mentioned when Intel signed up? Did you know about it? See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44993388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44993388 The main point is that even with the prior administration, it wasn't a given Intel would receive all the money. This way, they get the full amount, and fast.
        re-thc 1y ago
        > This way, they get the full amount, and fast. Intel has >20B in the bank. If they really want to they can wait and sell shares for a better deal like with SoftBank. i.e. not the main point.
        BeetleB 1y ago
        They had that money in the bank (and much more) when they lobbied to get the CHIPS act passed. They want the money. So yes, this is all about getting the rest of the money. The administration is deciding they should not get it for free. Which totally makes sense given that Intel is openly signaling a willingness to halt semiconductor research.
  - frollogaston 1y ago
    "purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share" in the article. That was the price a day or so ago
    - webninja 1y ago
      From my understanding, these funds were already approved by the Biden Administration via the Chips act and another. Our president managed to obtain 10% of the shares for this money that was already going to intel in exchange for removing a clawback provision stipulated by the Chip’s act. Norway has an incredible sovereign wealth fund that funds many benefits for its citizens. Perhaps if the Intel dividends are used for social security benefits, there will be bipartisan cheering.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government Is there even a pretence of a law being cited by the White House?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- edge17 1y ago
  ...thats how the US Constitution works. Congress passes laws (CHIPS Act) and the executive branch is empowered to carry them out - in this case the Secretary of Commerce and Commerce Dept. One can argue whether it stretches the intent of the law, nothing wrong with debate. But as of now, I don't think any judge or court has contested in the interpretation of the language.
  - cududa 1y ago
    Which part of the CHIPS act says companies receiving funds have to give the government 10% of the company to continue receiving funds?
    - edge17 1y ago
      Section 9902 of the act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to "covered entities" One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly The money was already granted. Trump threatened the CEO personally and then they came to this agreement ex post facto.
      - re-thc 1y ago
        > One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done You can? So some years later they can change it again? Where's the trust?
rayiner 1y ago
Unfortunately, this ship sailed quite some time ago. For example, after the 2008 financial crisis, the Senate rejected a proposed bailout of GM. But Bush approved it anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9320... > However, it had been argued that the Treasury lacked the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers, since TARP is limited to "financial institutions" under Section 102 of the TARP. It was also argued that providing TARP funds to automaker's financing operations, such as GMAC, runs counter to the intent of Congress for limiting TARP funds to true "financial institutions".[79] On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding. Also, “unitary executive” doesn’t mean overriding other branches. It just means that whatever powers the executive branch does or does not have are exercised by the President, just like the 535 members of Congress exercise all the powers of Congress, and the 9 Justices exercise all of the powers of the Supreme Court. It means that executive branch employees don’t have independent powers, just as House staffers and Supreme Court law clerks don’t have independent powers. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70 (“Federalist No. 70 emphasizes the unitary structure of the executive. The strong executive must be unitary, Hamilton says, because ‘unity is conducive to energy...[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.’”).
- apical_dendrite 1y ago
  What Trump is doing is pure extortion. Intel gives up equity, and in exchange, Trump maybe doesn't use the massive power of the state to claw back billions of dollars that were legally awarded to Intel, and Trump stops pressuring Intel to fire their CEO (note how he now calls the CEO "highly respected"). The comparison to the GM bailout makes no sense. GM got something that it needed from the bailout. Here, all Intel is getting is the withdrawal of threats that Trump himself made. It's mob boss style government, and it's happening to many institutions in this country (law firms, universities, corporations, etc). Why you would want to try to normalize it is utterly beyond me. Maybe you just like being the "well actually" guy because you think it makes you sound smarter than everyone else.
smt88 1y ago
Trump was explicit about the "or else" part. He said publicly that Intel did it because "[the CEO] wanted to keep his job," a reference to Trump's earlier pressure for him to be fired due to his vulnerability to pressure from the CCP.
andsoitis 1y ago
> 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. What do you think about Senator Bernie Sanders backing 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...
- frollogaston 1y ago
  I'm glad Sanders never made it past senator. If only Trump never made it past casino owner.
- verzali 1y ago
  It's odd seeing Republicans endorse state owned companies. Bernie has at least been consistent in his beliefs.
  - andsoitis 1y ago
    > It's odd seeing Republicans endorse state owned companies. What’s even more confusing is that the Republicans voter will rationalize this! > Bernie has at least been consistent in his beliefs. So same outcome. The question is whether the two “sides” see their common point of view.
- sgnelson 1y ago
  I think "fuck your whataboutism."
Sparyjerry 1y ago
The "or else' isn't the problem. The problem is the government trying to get involved in the first place. Intel was not forced to give away 10% of their company for 10 billion dollars, they simply wanted the 10 billion dollars. It's the fault of our government for propping up failing companies. Intel should be dying instead.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  Intel may well have wanted to donate some ownership more than it wanted 10 billion dollars. They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government.
  - re-thc 1y ago
    > They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government What does that even give you? They can argue all they want. Doesn't mean the government will listen.
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      It's a fairly routine practice for business owners to let local politicians invest in their business. Why do you think that is?
      - re-thc 1y ago
        > fairly routine practice for business owners to let local politicians invest in their business Let? Like this 1? Where if you don't we threaten to fire the CEO and take over the company otherwise? Are you sure it is let? > local politicians Is 1 or more individuals. In this instance it is "the government" as an entity. Not the same?
        thaumasiotes 1y ago
        First think about why it happens, and then decide whether you think this is the same.
thisisit 1y ago
“National security” is often used by third world countries to nationalise companies and industries. Often with a bad outcome. Once the money is in, government becomes invested in the success of the company. This leads to preferential policies and government demands for the invested company. I think it is safe to say that US is going full on third world strong man government at this point.
sschueller 1y ago
This will scare off foreign investment. Especially pharma which can be considered national security. Why would I invest billions in the US to risk having my factories taken by the US government when the market in India or China is way bigger and the risk at this time seems a lot less.
e40 1y ago
Straight up blackmail. It was my immediate thought, and nothing I’ve since it was announced has changed my opinion.
tempodox 1y ago
> This is about the breakdown of the rule of law Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.

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.
  - re-thc 1y ago
    > They're paying the rest of the CHIPS Act money. Overall, they're putting in over $10B into Intel. So taking a scholarship means you're giving a % of yourself to the school? Was this ever mentioned when Intel signed up? Did you know about it?
    - BeetleB 1y ago
      > So taking a scholarship means you're giving a % of yourself to the school? > Was this ever mentioned when Intel signed up? Did you know about it? See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44993388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44993388 The main point is that even with the prior administration, it wasn't a given Intel would receive all the money. This way, they get the full amount, and fast.
      - re-thc 1y ago
        > This way, they get the full amount, and fast. Intel has >20B in the bank. If they really want to they can wait and sell shares for a better deal like with SoftBank. i.e. not the main point.
        BeetleB 1y ago
        They had that money in the bank (and much more) when they lobbied to get the CHIPS act passed. They want the money. So yes, this is all about getting the rest of the money. The administration is deciding they should not get it for free. Which totally makes sense given that Intel is openly signaling a willingness to halt semiconductor research.
- frollogaston 1y ago
  "purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share" in the article. That was the price a day or so ago
  - webninja 1y ago
    From my understanding, these funds were already approved by the Biden Administration via the Chips act and another. Our president managed to obtain 10% of the shares for this money that was already going to intel in exchange for removing a clawback provision stipulated by the Chip’s act. Norway has an incredible sovereign wealth fund that funds many benefits for its citizens. Perhaps if the Intel dividends are used for social security benefits, there will be bipartisan cheering.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government Is there even a pretence of a law being cited by the White House?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
edge17 1y ago
...thats how the US Constitution works. Congress passes laws (CHIPS Act) and the executive branch is empowered to carry them out - in this case the Secretary of Commerce and Commerce Dept. One can argue whether it stretches the intent of the law, nothing wrong with debate. But as of now, I don't think any judge or court has contested in the interpretation of the language.
- cududa 1y ago
  Which part of the CHIPS act says companies receiving funds have to give the government 10% of the company to continue receiving funds?
  - edge17 1y ago
    Section 9902 of the act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to "covered entities" One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly The money was already granted. Trump threatened the CEO personally and then they came to this agreement ex post facto.
    - re-thc 1y ago
      > One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done You can? So some years later they can change it again? Where's the trust?

rayiner 1y ago

Unfortunately, this ship sailed quite some time ago. For example, after the 2008 financial crisis, the Senate rejected a proposed bailout of GM. But Bush approved it anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%932010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9320... > However, it had been argued that the Treasury lacked the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers, since TARP is limited to "financial institutions" under Section 102 of the TARP. It was also argued that providing TARP funds to automaker's financing operations, such as GMAC, runs counter to the intent of Congress for limiting TARP funds to true "financial institutions".[79] On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding. Also, “unitary executive” doesn’t mean overriding other branches. It just means that whatever powers the executive branch does or does not have are exercised by the President, just like the 535 members of Congress exercise all the powers of Congress, and the 9 Justices exercise all of the powers of the Supreme Court. It means that executive branch employees don’t have independent powers, just as House staffers and Supreme Court law clerks don’t have independent powers. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70 (“Federalist No. 70 emphasizes the unitary structure of the executive. The strong executive must be unitary, Hamilton says, because ‘unity is conducive to energy...[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.’”).

apical_dendrite 1y ago
What Trump is doing is pure extortion. Intel gives up equity, and in exchange, Trump maybe doesn't use the massive power of the state to claw back billions of dollars that were legally awarded to Intel, and Trump stops pressuring Intel to fire their CEO (note how he now calls the CEO "highly respected"). The comparison to the GM bailout makes no sense. GM got something that it needed from the bailout. Here, all Intel is getting is the withdrawal of threats that Trump himself made. It's mob boss style government, and it's happening to many institutions in this country (law firms, universities, corporations, etc). Why you would want to try to normalize it is utterly beyond me. Maybe you just like being the "well actually" guy because you think it makes you sound smarter than everyone else.

smt88 1y ago

Trump was explicit about the "or else" part. He said publicly that Intel did it because "[the CEO] wanted to keep his job," a reference to Trump's earlier pressure for him to be fired due to his vulnerability to pressure from the CCP.

andsoitis 1y ago

> 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. What do you think about Senator Bernie Sanders backing 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...

frollogaston 1y ago
I'm glad Sanders never made it past senator. If only Trump never made it past casino owner.
verzali 1y ago
It's odd seeing Republicans endorse state owned companies. Bernie has at least been consistent in his beliefs.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > It's odd seeing Republicans endorse state owned companies. What’s even more confusing is that the Republicans voter will rationalize this! > Bernie has at least been consistent in his beliefs. So same outcome. The question is whether the two “sides” see their common point of view.
sgnelson 1y ago
I think "fuck your whataboutism."

Sparyjerry 1y ago

The "or else' isn't the problem. The problem is the government trying to get involved in the first place. Intel was not forced to give away 10% of their company for 10 billion dollars, they simply wanted the 10 billion dollars. It's the fault of our government for propping up failing companies. Intel should be dying instead.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
Intel may well have wanted to donate some ownership more than it wanted 10 billion dollars. They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government.
- re-thc 1y ago
  > They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government What does that even give you? They can argue all they want. Doesn't mean the government will listen.
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    It's a fairly routine practice for business owners to let local politicians invest in their business. Why do you think that is?
    - re-thc 1y ago
      > fairly routine practice for business owners to let local politicians invest in their business Let? Like this 1? Where if you don't we threaten to fire the CEO and take over the company otherwise? Are you sure it is let? > local politicians Is 1 or more individuals. In this instance it is "the government" as an entity. Not the same?
      - thaumasiotes 1y ago
        First think about why it happens, and then decide whether you think this is the same.

thisisit 1y ago

“National security” is often used by third world countries to nationalise companies and industries. Often with a bad outcome. Once the money is in, government becomes invested in the success of the company. This leads to preferential policies and government demands for the invested company. I think it is safe to say that US is going full on third world strong man government at this point.

sschueller 1y ago

This will scare off foreign investment. Especially pharma which can be considered national security. Why would I invest billions in the US to risk having my factories taken by the US government when the market in India or China is way bigger and the risk at this time seems a lot less.

e40 1y ago

Straight up blackmail. It was my immediate thought, and nothing I’ve since it was announced has changed my opinion.

tempodox 1y ago

> This is about the breakdown of the rule of law Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.