4 ms·

> The unfortunate message to investors is clear: the U.S. is no longer a reliable place for long-term energy investments. Absolutely this, there’s no longer an

> The unfortunate message to investors is clear: the U.S. is no longer a reliable place for long-term energy investments. Absolutely this, there’s no longer any confidence to begin a project anymore. Would like to see the legal action go ahead against the government and set a standard that contracts can’t be treated just as “suggestions”.

black_13 1y ago
[dead]
sschueller 1y ago
The US getting 10% of Intel without any payment is very bad. Was there no shareholder vote? If I was pharma I would think twice before investing In a factory that can be taken by the state just like that. EDIT: I was not aware that something was paid. Every time I saw trump on TV he said he got it for nothing. Yeah I know he lies a lot and I should have checked more into it. This is dangerous however as internationally you don't always get the details right away and generally one believes what a head of state says.
- mort96 1y ago
  > The US getting 10% of Intel without any payment is very bad. Was there no shareholder vote? I know that this is how it was reported everywhere including here, but I recently learned that it's apparently false. The US just bought shares. From https://www.reuters.com/business/us-take-10-equity-stake-intel-trumps-latest-corporate-move-2025-08-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/us-take-10-equity-stake-int...: > Under the agreement, the U.S. will purchase a 9.9% stake in Intel for $8.9 billion, or $20.47 per share, which represents a discount of about $4 from Intel's closing share price of $24.80 on Friday. So they bought a 9.9% stake at a slight discount. (And just have to go back a couple of weeks to find Intel's stock price at under $20.47 per share, so I'm not sure you can really call it a real "discount").
  - op00to 1y ago
    How is $4 off the closing price not a discount?
    - mort96 1y ago
      I don't know when the deal was agreed. Two weeks ago, on august 8th, the share price was $19.95, so if the price was set then, the US over-paid a bit. I don't know how long it takes between when the price is set and when the deal becomes public. If the final price was set on friday, then yeah, there was a slight discount (though even then, the discount was within Intel's normal random short term share price fluctuations). Maybe it's completely fair to call this a proper discount, I'm genuinely not familiar enough with the finance world to say. Regardless, I feel that this is important context; it's not like Intel's share price has been stable at between $24 and $25 per share for years and then the US comes in and buys at $20.
      - op00to 1y ago
        I suppose it’s a difference of viewpoint, but I understand what you’re getting at. Thanks for explaining it. I wouldn’t consider locking a mortgage at 6% and then having rates rise in the interim as a discount, maybe a lucky break!
  - jackstraw42 1y ago
    ah, so the government missed a dip and made their own. nice.
  - hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
    Much of that money is money that was granted by Congress already.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Much of that money is money that was granted by Congress already Not to buy shares.
- andyjohnson0 1y ago
  > The US getting 10% of Intel without any payment is very bad. Was there no shareholder vote? I assumed they were buying shares like any other investor. How are they getting it for free?
  - mort96 1y ago
    They are buying the shares like any other investor, but the white house lied about that. Plenty of people just repeated Trump's Truth Social post which claimed: "The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars". In reality, the US bought a 10% stake for roughly $8.9 billion, paying market price for the shares.
    - andyjohnson0 1y ago
      Thanks for clarifying
    - b112 1y ago
      Best as I can tell, the weird, broken logic is "these funds were already allocated via the chips act and another act, but we axed that, so buying the shares instead is free". So sure, no new funds, of which "free" is a nutty, insane interpretation, but whatever. Weird ways to convey it aside, I do like shares as a guarantee for grants, which is not a new thing, but I'd still like to enforce funds allocation for those funds. Not sure if that's happening still.
  - ysofunny 1y ago
    they were bailing out Intel. they have bailed out Intel
    - unsnap_biceps 1y ago
      If they bought market shares, the funds didn't go to intel, but to the share holders.
  - hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
- bilekas 1y ago
  Where did you read there was no payment? That's not true, the US is not Russia. Not yet at least.
  - rnrn 1y ago
    This was in the “truth” posted by Trump on his social media announcing the deal: > It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future. I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter. “The United States paid nothing for these Shares” https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115074444617901812 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1150744446179...
    - bilekas 1y ago
      > The United States paid nothing for these Shares The president has been known to not know all the facts or exaggerate about what is known. Personally, and sadly, his tweets are worthless than my fortune cookies. > https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-everybody-eggs-now-154300576.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAL7xJSQr_ZFKo2fvehhnIyclFIQV0AqXvjjv1A67yOPNgFARQO7kw6kyf1QM_qA7jVD3OBKQNEd6gWcip46IE_ZrCp866IBC7iBJETGWQNUaQQ2KNT0Lk7SYUhQENDkkNv_xqy17AVrbTcoZHVo2iezaFK1Vm3l7ZUMvvUwhZZK6 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-everybody-eggs-now...
      - _heimdall 1y ago
        In general its a good rule to avoid using any politician's quote as fact. Especially at the federal level, they've all made a career of exaggerating and telling partial truths to earn media coverage and votes.
- BLKNSLVR 1y ago
  It was essentially bribery. Under Biden there was money to be granted (as in: via a grant, Congressionally approved) to Intel. Trump then held the grant hostage in return for government ownership of Intel shares. There's also a threat that this deali supposedly eases around the Intel CEO that Trump said was 'too connected' to China. It's either borderline or blatantly illegal, but there are likely no parties eligible to contest, or interested in contesting, it in court. (Based on my memory of someone's breakdown of a few examples like this - there's a chance I'm conflating a couple of different but related things, the deal with Nvidia to allow selling of some more advanced chips to China being another)
koolba 1y ago
This is nothing new here ands it’s no different than Biden stopping border wall construction after he was elected. It’s not special just because Trump is doing it to a wind farm.
- vannevar 1y ago
  The difference is that the border wall was an expensive publicity stunt and this is a working wind farm that will actually accomplish its intended purpose if completed. it's worth noting that border wall construction in fact resumed under Biden because the money was legally appropriated for that purpose and the President lacked the power to redirect the funding on his own (https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/bidens-border-wall-explained/ https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/bidens-border-wall-explain...).
- tzs 1y ago
  That's completely different. • The border wall was a government project, and a large chunk of the money for it came Trump declaring a national emergency and using that to redirect around $7 billion of funding meant for other things to it after Congress refused to provide the level of funding he wanted. Biden cancelled those parts that Trump had added. He did not cancel those parts that Congress had voted to fund. He wanted those stopped too but went about it through normal channels: he asked Congress to cancel them. Congress did not, and so his administration continued constructing those parts. • The wind farm is a private project.
thisisit 1y ago
The government has made a lot of noise about injunctions and courts interfering with executive power and SCOTUS is agreeing with them. So, expect that legal action will be taken and then these things might happen. Government will argue that executive power can decide if the contracts are "suggestions" or not. If that doesn't work, try to reduce the scope of the injunction such that it applies to specific set of contracts. And then stonewall those contracts. If the case is still lost, government will quickly appeal and file for temporary relief. If temporary relief is not coming in the short term, chose to ignore the court because executive power is above everything else. Repeat this till it gets to SCOTUS and get a specific carve out and go to step 1 - stonewall these contracts. I'd say given the on again, off again tariffs, courts acting like this and government retroactive actions like against Intel (CHIPS grant money was withheld to take 10% stake) it can be safely said it is no longer place for many long-term investment.

black_13 1y ago

[dead]

sschueller 1y ago

The US getting 10% of Intel without any payment is very bad. Was there no shareholder vote? If I was pharma I would think twice before investing In a factory that can be taken by the state just like that. EDIT: I was not aware that something was paid. Every time I saw trump on TV he said he got it for nothing. Yeah I know he lies a lot and I should have checked more into it. This is dangerous however as internationally you don't always get the details right away and generally one believes what a head of state says.

mort96 1y ago
> The US getting 10% of Intel without any payment is very bad. Was there no shareholder vote? I know that this is how it was reported everywhere including here, but I recently learned that it's apparently false. The US just bought shares. From https://www.reuters.com/business/us-take-10-equity-stake-intel-trumps-latest-corporate-move-2025-08-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/us-take-10-equity-stake-int...: > Under the agreement, the U.S. will purchase a 9.9% stake in Intel for $8.9 billion, or $20.47 per share, which represents a discount of about $4 from Intel's closing share price of $24.80 on Friday. So they bought a 9.9% stake at a slight discount. (And just have to go back a couple of weeks to find Intel's stock price at under $20.47 per share, so I'm not sure you can really call it a real "discount").
- op00to 1y ago
  How is $4 off the closing price not a discount?
  - mort96 1y ago
    I don't know when the deal was agreed. Two weeks ago, on august 8th, the share price was $19.95, so if the price was set then, the US over-paid a bit. I don't know how long it takes between when the price is set and when the deal becomes public. If the final price was set on friday, then yeah, there was a slight discount (though even then, the discount was within Intel's normal random short term share price fluctuations). Maybe it's completely fair to call this a proper discount, I'm genuinely not familiar enough with the finance world to say. Regardless, I feel that this is important context; it's not like Intel's share price has been stable at between $24 and $25 per share for years and then the US comes in and buys at $20.
    - op00to 1y ago
      I suppose it’s a difference of viewpoint, but I understand what you’re getting at. Thanks for explaining it. I wouldn’t consider locking a mortgage at 6% and then having rates rise in the interim as a discount, maybe a lucky break!
- jackstraw42 1y ago
  ah, so the government missed a dip and made their own. nice.
- hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
  Much of that money is money that was granted by Congress already.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Much of that money is money that was granted by Congress already Not to buy shares.
andyjohnson0 1y ago
> The US getting 10% of Intel without any payment is very bad. Was there no shareholder vote? I assumed they were buying shares like any other investor. How are they getting it for free?
- mort96 1y ago
  They are buying the shares like any other investor, but the white house lied about that. Plenty of people just repeated Trump's Truth Social post which claimed: "The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars". In reality, the US bought a 10% stake for roughly $8.9 billion, paying market price for the shares.
  - andyjohnson0 1y ago
    Thanks for clarifying
  - b112 1y ago
    Best as I can tell, the weird, broken logic is "these funds were already allocated via the chips act and another act, but we axed that, so buying the shares instead is free". So sure, no new funds, of which "free" is a nutty, insane interpretation, but whatever. Weird ways to convey it aside, I do like shares as a guarantee for grants, which is not a new thing, but I'd still like to enforce funds allocation for those funds. Not sure if that's happening still.
- ysofunny 1y ago
  they were bailing out Intel. they have bailed out Intel
  - unsnap_biceps 1y ago
    If they bought market shares, the funds didn't go to intel, but to the share holders.
- hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
bilekas 1y ago
Where did you read there was no payment? That's not true, the US is not Russia. Not yet at least.
- rnrn 1y ago
  This was in the “truth” posted by Trump on his social media announcing the deal: > It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future. I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter. “The United States paid nothing for these Shares” https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115074444617901812 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1150744446179...
  - bilekas 1y ago
    > The United States paid nothing for these Shares The president has been known to not know all the facts or exaggerate about what is known. Personally, and sadly, his tweets are worthless than my fortune cookies. > https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-everybody-eggs-now-154300576.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAL7xJSQr_ZFKo2fvehhnIyclFIQV0AqXvjjv1A67yOPNgFARQO7kw6kyf1QM_qA7jVD3OBKQNEd6gWcip46IE_ZrCp866IBC7iBJETGWQNUaQQ2KNT0Lk7SYUhQENDkkNv_xqy17AVrbTcoZHVo2iezaFK1Vm3l7ZUMvvUwhZZK6 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-everybody-eggs-now...
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      In general its a good rule to avoid using any politician's quote as fact. Especially at the federal level, they've all made a career of exaggerating and telling partial truths to earn media coverage and votes.
BLKNSLVR 1y ago
It was essentially bribery. Under Biden there was money to be granted (as in: via a grant, Congressionally approved) to Intel. Trump then held the grant hostage in return for government ownership of Intel shares. There's also a threat that this deali supposedly eases around the Intel CEO that Trump said was 'too connected' to China. It's either borderline or blatantly illegal, but there are likely no parties eligible to contest, or interested in contesting, it in court. (Based on my memory of someone's breakdown of a few examples like this - there's a chance I'm conflating a couple of different but related things, the deal with Nvidia to allow selling of some more advanced chips to China being another)

koolba 1y ago

This is nothing new here ands it’s no different than Biden stopping border wall construction after he was elected. It’s not special just because Trump is doing it to a wind farm.

vannevar 1y ago
The difference is that the border wall was an expensive publicity stunt and this is a working wind farm that will actually accomplish its intended purpose if completed. it's worth noting that border wall construction in fact resumed under Biden because the money was legally appropriated for that purpose and the President lacked the power to redirect the funding on his own (https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/bidens-border-wall-explained/ https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/bidens-border-wall-explain...).
tzs 1y ago
That's completely different. • The border wall was a government project, and a large chunk of the money for it came Trump declaring a national emergency and using that to redirect around $7 billion of funding meant for other things to it after Congress refused to provide the level of funding he wanted. Biden cancelled those parts that Trump had added. He did not cancel those parts that Congress had voted to fund. He wanted those stopped too but went about it through normal channels: he asked Congress to cancel them. Congress did not, and so his administration continued constructing those parts. • The wind farm is a private project.

thisisit 1y ago

The government has made a lot of noise about injunctions and courts interfering with executive power and SCOTUS is agreeing with them. So, expect that legal action will be taken and then these things might happen. Government will argue that executive power can decide if the contracts are "suggestions" or not. If that doesn't work, try to reduce the scope of the injunction such that it applies to specific set of contracts. And then stonewall those contracts. If the case is still lost, government will quickly appeal and file for temporary relief. If temporary relief is not coming in the short term, chose to ignore the court because executive power is above everything else. Repeat this till it gets to SCOTUS and get a specific carve out and go to step 1 - stonewall these contracts. I'd say given the on again, off again tariffs, courts acting like this and government retroactive actions like against Intel (CHIPS grant money was withheld to take 10% stake) it can be safely said it is no longer place for many long-term investment.