Trump Confirms US Is Seeking 10% Stake In Intel (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0178793526
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/08/20/2051231/trump-confirms-us-is-seeking-10-stake-in-intel
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/bernie-sanders-backs-trumps-plan-to-buy-stake-in-intel/
> After the Trump administration confirmed a rumor that the US is [1]planning to buy a 10 percent stake in Intel , US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) came forward Wednesday to voice support for the highly unusual plan, finding rare common ground with Donald Trump. According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the plan would see the US disbursing approved CHIPS Act grants only after acquiring non-voting shares of Intel and likely other chipmakers. That would allow the US to profit off its investment in chipmakers, Lutnick suggested, and Sanders [2]told Reuters that he agreed American taxpayers could benefit from the potential deals.
>
> "If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment," Sanders said. While Lutnick gave Trump credit for coming up with what White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described as a "creative idea that has never been done before" to protect US national and economic security, it appears that Lutnick is driving the initiative. "Lutnick has been pushing the equity idea," insiders granted anonymity previously [3]told Reuters , "adding that Trump likes the idea."
>
> So far, Intel has engaged in talks, while the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and other major CHIPS grant recipients like Samsung and Micron have yet to comment on the potential arrangement the Trump administration seems likely to pursue. They may possibly risk clawbacks of grants if such deals aren't made. On Wednesday, Taiwan Economy Minister Kuo Jyh-huei said his ministry would be consulting with TSMC soon, while noting that as yet, it's hard to "thoroughly understand the underlying meaning" of Lutnick's public comments. So far, Lutnick has only specified that "any potential arrangement wouldn't provide the government with voting or governance rights in Intel," dispelling fears that the US would use its ownership stake to try to control the world's most important chipmakers.
Further reading: [4]Intel is Getting a $2 Billion Investment From SoftBank
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/bernie-sanders-backs-trumps-plan-to-buy-stake-in-intel/
[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senator-sanders-favors-trump-plan-take-stake-intel-others-2025-08-20/
[3] https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-examines-equity-stake-chip-makers-chips-act-cash-grants-sources-say-2025-08-20/
[4] https://slashdot.org/story/25/08/18/2337225/intel-is-getting-a-2-billion-investment-from-softbank
Small ... (Score:2)
I thought republicans were the party of small government .. Obviously i was mistaken he wants to be everywhere and anywhere he finds a hole. I blame Melania for not giving him " any " :D
Re: (Score:2)
I thought republicans were the party of small government
I, too, was dropped on my head several times as an infant.
Re: (Score:3)
> I thought republicans were the party of small government
They still are, it's just that the current generation want to shrink the government until it's just one man.
Re: (Score:3)
> They still are, it's just that the current generation want to shrink the government until it's just one man.
One very damaged, confused, selfish, angry felon of a man.
Mixed feelings. (Score:4, Funny)
I am not against the US Government taking a stake in corporations in return for investments. I am against altering the deal after the fact. Pray I do not alter it further...
The CHIPS Act did not contain a provision for taking a stake in the companies benefiting from the investment. The idea was that the United States would benefit from the increased economic activity and domestic production facilities being funded. The Act required that companies meet milestones of development and employment targets in order to claim funds -no payouts in advance. Applications were tendered. Deals were signed. Work begun.
This should be done as an additional agreement in exchange for additional funding under a new Congressional Appropriations Act, not as an alteration of the existing deals authorized under the CHIPS Act.
Understanding Graft, and why it's bad (Score:2)
Graft, at least in the US parlance, is when a government official provides government funding to enhance the viability of a private enterprise, while simultaneously investing in that enterprise themselves, and making a killing on the return from that investment, through leveraging the stability and exclusivity of the government's financial contributions to the success of that enterprise.
Why it is bad:
Investing in companies in this manner creates necessary exclusivities which gives unfair market advantages t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We elected a convicted felon, what was he convicted of? cooking the books. Should we be surprised that he continues to do what he has always done? It is what it is, we are in this moment. It seems to me that we have to wait another year and a half to take the House away from MAGA's and Trump will be impotent once again. It is just a year and a half away... hoping!!
Re: (Score:2)
Red Herring.
Graft is a problem whether or not the government takes a stake in companies getting funding under the CHIPS Act.
Re: (Score:2)
> I am not against the US Government taking a stake in corporations in return for investments. I am against altering the deal after the fact. Pray I do not alter it further...
"So far, Intel has engaged in talks, while the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and other major CHIPS grant recipients like Samsung and Micron have yet to comment on the potential arrangement the Trump administration seems likely to pursue. They may possibly risk clawbacks of grants if such deals aren't made."
This is quite disturbing. Americans rightfully blame Foxconn for not fulfilling their end of the deal in Wisconsin. Now, Trump is threatening to not fulfill the government's end of t
Instant Communism (Score:4, Informative)
Look, there is a good idea for the US to invest in US stocks. Specifically by buying the S&P 500. That has 99% of the benefits Trump claims to want, without any of the problems buying one particular company has
Here are the list of problems with buying 1 company I thought of in 5 minutes of thought
1) Definitive conflict of interest with other American companies competing with Intel. Will the US army use only Intel chips? Trump is the kind of shmuck that claims he has no conflict of interest when they clearly do exist.
2) Intel has been losing money and losing value for a decade. Why would we possibly buy a piece of crap that is losing money? Unless he intends to cheat and boost it with US tax pay money.
3) Will other countries trust the intel chips? The US does not trust Chinese technology because we know they put in back doors. Suddenly Intel could be forbidden for government use in all other countries.
4) This is outright communism. The government owning a business, forcing other American companies to compete with the US? Yeah, that is communism.
Re:Instant Communism (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, forgot the information backing up my opinion.
The largest current intuitional owner of Intel is Rafferty Asset Management it owns 0.443% of Intel. Less than one half of one percent.
Buying 10% of Intel is not an investment, it is an ownership position. As in they would get a man on the board, probably being able to pick the chairman. And there is no way I would trust the US government to forgo this control - not even if we had a President that did not think he was King.
Re: (Score:2)
> The government owning a business, forcing other American companies to compete with the US? Yeah, that is communism.
No, that's fascism. In communism there jhst wouldnt be any competition allowed.
That's just a nit pick though, you're on point with the rest of your post. The US going into business like this is not a good idea.
Seems likely to hit major questions doctrine (Score:3)
The SCOTUS has been increasingly using the [1]major questions doctrine [congress.gov] to limit executive action. The major questions doctrine, for those just joining, says that if the President wants to make a substantial and nationally significant decision about how to interpret a law, that interpretation must be supported by clear language in the bill indicating that was Congress' intent.
In this case, the CIHPS act was passed to give money away. It does not say anything about buying a stake in the company. That seems like a pretty large change to me. If Congress wanted to buy companies, they could have clearly said so in the bill.
That said, I haven't read the CHIPS act to maybe there's some ambiguous language.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12077
Supreme Court has been using (Score:3)
The majorquestions doctrine increasingly for Democrat presidents.
It does not apply to Republican presidents.
I don't think people realize that every single institution meant to protect you has failed. The final line of defense was the voters and they failed spectacularly.
Bad things are about to come. Barring a miracle where the courts stop him, which is mentioned above is extremely unlikely, prices are going to skyrocket in October because businesses have burned through the stocks they built up w
I repeat, um ... (Score:5, Informative)
From my post when Trump was just *considering* this, [1]Um... [slashdot.org]
> Didn't Republicans basically lose their collective minds when Obama approved a loan for Solyndra, claiming the government shouldn't, "pick winners and losers," and in 2024, didn't Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) blast the Biden SBA saying, "“The levers of government should never be used to pick winners and losers based on political priorities." for expanding the Green Lending Initiative?
> [2]Ernst to Biden-Harris SBA: Stop Playing Politics, Picking Winners and Losers [senate.gov]
Guess it's okay now though, for some reason? /s
[1] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23769746&cid=65590890
[2] https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2024/9/ernst-to-biden-harris-sba-stop-playing-politics-picking-winners-and-losers
Re: (Score:1)
They're already spending the money, it's just giving the public something back for it. I'm sure these companies have paid some Congress critters well for this giveaway, but this is a good step at ending corporate welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
> but this is a good step at ending corporate welfare.
No, it's not. It is corporate welfare with a kickback. Don't pretend it's anything else and don't try to justify it.
Intel has been making terrible corporate decisions for several decades now. In an actual free market it should either solve its problems, sell its assets to others, or be relegated to the scrap heap of corporate history as an object lesson to others of what not to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed, Intel should never have gotten this money. They are getting it, so at least the public can have some benefit from it.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the stock market doesn't seem to be okay with it yet, anyway. I guess time will tell on that...
Re: (Score:1)
Like I've said before there is nothing on Earth more pointless and useless and calling out right wing hypocrisy.
Right wingers are simply biologically and physically incapable of experiencing the mix of shame and self-awareness that comes with hypocrisy. They are utterly immune to the emotion.
No this is not creative (Score:2)
In the slightest. Its called nationalization, its an incredibly old thing, and its partway down the slippery slope to socialism. Also, its practically guaranteed to suck the life out of any company it touches. Hey, republicans, youre unironically suggesting something thats all the rage in North Korea, China and Venezuela. What exactly do you stand for?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't so much as stand for things as they stand against certain classes of people...
The Tea Party won and consumed the GOP.
How the mighty have fallen (Score:3)
Yes, this is an epitaph. Intel did so much to advance the microprocessor and PC world, yet also did so much to hold it back. Never respectful of the law, only leery of it, Intel's recidivist collusion with Microsoft built the greatest cartel in human history, making multi-billionaires of numerous retainers. Intel was successful that they came to believe the fiction that any stratagem concocted in their exalted executive suite must be correct, because industry dominance proves it. And so Intel came to believe their tick tock engineering cycle was the key to their perennial dominance, whereas in fact the cornerstone had always been their illegal monopoly.
Intel traveled merrily down the road to ruin, steadfastly clinging to the fanciful idea that proprietary process technology would ensure the longevity of their empire. It didn't. Intel had to learn the hard way that Wintel PC monopoly alone could not sustain the technological pace necessary to hold back even AMD, let alone the entire mobile phone market.
Reasonable rate of return (Score:2)
> ....the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment,"
Really? Then how about investing Social Security Trust Funds in private equity, instead of giving the federal govt a sweetheart deal and requiring the funds to be "loaned" to the Federal Government, via the required purchase of non-negotiatable government bonds which earn an absolutely miserable rate of return?
Re: (Score:2)
Congress wants to rip off Social Security. Or rather they did decades ago. There's nothing left now but low yield debt.
isn't the involvement of Chinese gov in the chip m (Score:3)
isn't the involvement of Chinese gov in the chip manufacturing what makes them a national security risk to source chips from those manufacturers... if the US government has financial ties like this, not sure about the message being sent to the world about the security of the stuff coming out of Intel. They could have done this in many other ways... low interest loans and assistance in developing manufacturing in the US... guarantee of amount of purchases to ensure the manufacturing hits the scales needed to be financially viable.
Instead, the idea is to invest billions in the company to maybe build facilities, employ a few hundred workers, and hopefully operate plants for decades... while now also buying stock to help prop it up.... Intel has lost money and is dropping in value... why are they now putting more bad money after bad money...
lots of other manufacturers exist... fund domestic start ups... create an environment for them to develop and grow...
this just seems like flushing a huge pile of cash down the drain with minimal chance of any benefit.
I would normally be in favor of this (Score:3)
I don't like the idea of us handing out subsidies and getting nothing in return except for the business doing something that is necessary for some national interest.
Like how we have to give in till tens of billions of dollars because we need domestic chip making facilities in the event of a war or the inevitable second pandemic.
But I wouldn't trust this administration any further and I can chunk the head of its fat ass. And I'm an old guy with a bad back.
There is no way this doesn't just turn into a bribe for Trump and we all know it.
America, this is why we can't have nice things.
Either way it's a bailout (Score:2)
Either the Feds give away money to Intel or they get some shares in the company. Not much difference. If it works, it'll be like the GM bailout.
creative idea that has never been done before (Score:2)
FTA: "While Lutnick gave Trump credit for coming up with what White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described as a "creative idea that has never been done before" to protect US national and economic security, it appears that Lutnick is driving the initiative."
Leavitt is wrong, it has been done before. Via the CIP program of 2008 the US Treasury bought billions of dollars in dividend-paying perpetual preferred shares of Wall Street banks, and received stock warrants as well. The US taxpayers profited
Neckbeard summary (Score:2)
s/free market/flea market/g
For an "anti-socialist" he sure (Score:5, Insightful)
...likes socialism: tariffs, partial co. ownership by gov't, a co. loyalty list, telling CEO's to step down, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> dispelling fears that the US would use its ownership stake to try to control the world's most important chipmakers.
The US government is literally already telling them what to do and how to do it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hm. Socialism's titular quality is social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. There's another name for a system that specifically advocates state control, through ownership or otherwise, especially of security-related industries.
Re: For an "anti-socialist" he sure (Score:2)
Disenfranchisement of votes takes the democracy part out of the equation. A neat and tidy centralization of industry under the Executive. The voters wanted to have a CEO running America "like a business". And fortunately for Trump, most of us aren't well read and don't recall how Italy worked in the early 20th century.
Re: (Score:2)
> Hm. Socialism's titular quality is social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. There's another name for a system that specifically advocates state control, through ownership or otherwise, especially of security-related industries.
I'm not an expert, but I think you're confusing socialism with communism. The way I think of it: a socialist system runs everything, whereas a communist system owns everything. I welcome comments and corrections on this.
Re: (Score:2)
My take on this is that Trump wants to supercharge the super rich....kind of like how Russia did it. I am shocked at how most of the Country can not see what is happening right in front of them, or if they do, their voices are not being heard. This is my two cents, and.. I appreciated all of the comments to the original poster. I should be outraged, but what about? I am not the only one who sees right from wrong. I am thankful for the other posters here who have clarity, and who can express that we
Re:Will you still admit this when Trump fails? (Score:4, Informative)
It is a cult. There is no other explanation for it. Maybe one, Racism. He calls DC an "out of control crime ridden city", and does a military takeover. Meanwhile, the cities with White mayors have 4x the crime. The MAGA Govs of those states are good with sending their National Guard to DC, as long as the Mayors of their crime ridden cities are White.
Re: (Score:2)
He's trying to put Socialism back into NASI