US Government Might Use Funds From the CHIPS Act to Buy a Stake in Intel
pcmag.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 12:59:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Social Media & Public Statements, U.S.–China Relations, Trade Policy & Tariffs
August has been a rollercoaster ride for Intel so far. Last Thursday, President Trump told the company's CEO to step down before abruptly reversing course, and now the administration is reportedly considering buying a stake in the struggling American chipmaker.
Citing anonymous sources familiar with the discussions, Bloomberg reports that talks are still in the early stage; it's unclear how much of the company the government would buy or when.
The US might use funds from the CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law by President Biden in 2022. It included $52.7 billion in funding to promote the US manufacture of semiconductor chips and help alleviate the chip shortage. Intel was awarded nearly $8 billion from that fund in the final days of the Biden administration.
Instead, the Trump plan might use CHIPS Act money "to at least partially finance an equity stake in Intel," Bloomberg reports, though details have yet to be ironed out. The White House tells Reuters that, "Discussion about hypothetical deals should be regarded as speculation unless officially announced by the administration."
The news is noteworthy given that Trump has railed against the CHIPS Act. In January, he called it a "ridiculous program" and argued that companies don't need money; they need incentives to build in the US. For Trump, those incentives are tariffs with ever-changing rates.
Speaking before a joint session of Congress two months later, Trump told lawmakers, "Your CHIPS Act is a horrible, horrible thing. We give hundreds of billions of dollars, and it doesn't mean a thing. [Companies] take our money and they don't spend it.
"You should get rid of the CHIPS Act and whatever's left over, Mr. Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt or any other reason you want to," he added.
Following calls for his ouster, Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan met with Trump on Monday. "The meeting was a very interesting one. His success and rise is an amazing story," Trump then wrote in an uncharacteristically muted Truth Social post.
"We appreciate the President's strong leadership to advance these critical priorities and look forward to working closely with him and his Administration as we restore this great American company," Intel said in its own statement.
Intel has struggled in recent years, which is one reason it has a new CEO. It's currently going through mass layoffs that will see the company lose 24,000 roles by the end of 2025. So, Trump's shifting attitudes on federal subsidies aside, this deal may be a lifeline for Intel.
In announcing the layoffs, Tan said Intel is "laser-focused on strengthening our core product portfolio and our AI roadmap to better serve customers."
An extra curveball for all chip manufacturers is Trump's plan to tariff foreign-made chips. They could be 100%, 200%, or even 300%, or they could be nothing, depending on how much a company builds in the US. "If you're building in the United States of America, there's no charge," Trump said earlier this month. Intel recently pushed chip production for its pending Ohio plant to 2030 amid its financial woes.
Reports about the Intel stake, meanwhile, come days after Nvidia and AMD agreed to pay 15% of all revenue made on AI chip sales to China directly to the US government, something Democrats argue might be unconstitutional.
Like what you're reading? Don't miss out on our latest stories. Add PCMag as a preferred source on Google.
Sign Our PetitionThe potential involvement of the U.S. government in buying a stake in Intel, as discussed in the recent news article, raises essential questions about the role of state intervention in the economy and the broader implications for American manufacturing. The CHIPS and Science Act, which was designed to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing, represents a critical initiative in the context of both economic security and global competition, particularly as the world grapples with the ongoing chip shortage that has affected numerous industries. This proposed equity stake could be seen as a necessary step to stabilize a key player in the semiconductor industry, but it also illustrates the complexities of governmental involvement in the private sector—a topic that is often polarized along political lines.
Historically, the semiconductor industry has been a linchpin in America's technological and economic dominance. However, the decline of companies like Intel highlights a broader narrative of deindustrialization that has plagued the U.S. since the late 20th century. This process has been exacerbated by neoliberal policies that prioritize deregulation and free-market principles, often at the expense of long-term strategic planning. The CHIPS Act was a response to these trends, aiming to reverse the outsourcing of semiconductor production and bring manufacturing back to American soil. By potentially using public funds to buy a stake in Intel, the government is not just investing in a company; it is taking a stand against the detrimental effects of globalization that have led to job losses and weakened labor rights.
The debate over government subsidies versus incentives, as voiced by Trump and others, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the necessity of public investment in strategic industries. While some argue that companies should thrive solely on market incentives, history shows that strategic sectors often require public support to ensure national competitiveness. The post-World War II era saw significant government investment in technology and infrastructure, laying the groundwork for American innovation. The current situation with Intel is reminiscent of those days, where state intervention is essential not just for the survival of the company, but also for the preservation of American jobs and technological leadership.
Moreover, the mass layoffs at Intel, which are projected to affect 24,000 employees by 2025, underscore the human cost of corporate restructuring in the face of market pressures. These layoffs are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent real people, families, and communities that are directly impacted by the decisions made at the corporate level. The government's potential stake in Intel could serve as a form of accountability, pushing for better labor practices and job security. It is imperative for advocates of social justice to highlight the importance of protecting workers' rights in discussions about corporate bailouts and government investments.
As the landscape of the semiconductor industry continues to evolve, the implications of these discussions will reverberate beyond just Intel. The proposed tariffs on foreign-made chips, which could reach astronomical levels, represent a broader strategy to encourage domestic production. However, this approach raises questions about the potential for trade wars and the impact they may have on global supply chains. A balanced and equitable approach to trade and industry is necessary, one that aligns corporate interests with the needs of workers and consumers alike. Ultimately, the discussions surrounding Intel and the CHIPS Act should serve as a catalyst for reexamining the role of government in fostering a fair and just economic system that benefits all stakeholders, not just the corporate elite.
The ongoing discussions about the U.S. government's potential investment in Intel, as revealed in the recent article, highlight a significant crossroads in American economic policy regarding technology and manufacturing. With the semiconductor industry at the heart of contemporary economic and geopolitical competition, the stakes are high. The CHIPS and Science Act, a legislative measure aimed at enhancing domestic chip production, signifies a contemporary recognition of the need for strategic federal intervention in critical industries. This is not merely about corporate welfare; it reflects a broader understanding of how national interests—ranging from economic stability to technological innovation—can align with robust governmental action.
Historically, the U.S. semiconductor industry has been a cornerstone of innovation and economic growth. From the invention of the microprocessor in the 1970s to the technological explosion of the 21st century, companies like Intel have been pivotal. However, in recent years, the U.S. has seen a disturbing trend: the offshoring of manufacturing capabilities, particularly in the semiconductor sector. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated this issue, leading to severe supply chain disruptions that underscored the vulnerability of relying on foreign production. The CHIPS Act aims to reverse this trend by allocating substantial funds to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing, thereby ensuring that the U.S. remains competitive and secure in a rapidly evolving global landscape.
However, this situation is complicated by the inconsistent views of political figures like Donald Trump. His past criticisms of the CHIPS Act, labeling it a "ridiculous program" and suggesting that companies need incentives rather than subsidies, reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the role that government can play in shaping industries critical to national interest. Trump's recent proposal to use CHIPS Act funds to acquire a stake in Intel signifies a shift in his stance, albeit perhaps opportunistically. This inconsistency raises questions about the sincerity of political support for the semiconductor industry and whether such initiatives are truly aimed at fostering a robust American economy or are merely politically motivated.
As Americans and advocates for a progressive economic vision, there are several actionable steps we can take to engage with this issue. First, we can push for greater transparency and accountability regarding the use of federal funds in supporting industries like semiconductors. It is crucial that any investments made through the CHIPS Act are tied to concrete job creation, environmental sustainability, and long-term strategic goals rather than short-term corporate bailouts. Engaging with local representatives and urging them to support legislation that mandates these ties will ensure that government intervention translates into tangible benefits for communities across the nation.
Moreover, we must advocate for a comprehensive strategy that includes not only financial incentives but also education and workforce development. The semiconductor industry requires a highly skilled workforce, and as such, public investment in education—particularly in STEM fields—should be prioritized. This can involve partnerships between educational institutions and technology companies to ensure that curricula are aligned with industry needs, fostering a pipeline of talent that can fill the gaps in the labor market. By promoting policies that emphasize education and training, we can empower American workers and communities to thrive in an increasingly technology-driven economy.
In conclusion, the discussions around the U.S. government's potential stake in Intel represent more than just a corporate investment; they reflect the intersection of national policy, economic security, and technological innovation. This moment offers an opportunity to reassess our approach to industry support, moving beyond outdated paradigms of government intervention that favor corporate interests without accountability. By advocating for strategic investment that prioritizes transparency, workforce development, and long-term sustainability, we can help shape a future where American innovation flourishes and benefits all citizens. Engaging in these discussions provides not just ammunition for political debate but also a framework for meaningful change that prioritizes the needs of the many over the interests of the few.
Based on the article regarding the potential use of funds from the CHIPS Act to buy a stake in Intel, there are several actionable steps that individuals can take to engage with this situation and advocate for responsible and equitable use of government funding in the semiconductor industry.
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Raise Awareness:** - Share information about the implications of government investment in private companies on social media platforms, community boards, and at local events. - Educate friends and family about the importance of the semiconductor industry and how it impacts various sectors, including technology, automotive, healthcare, and more.
2. **Engage with Local Representatives:** - Contact your local elected officials to express your views on the use of public funds for corporate bailouts and the need for accountability in government spending.
3. **Support Grassroots Organizations:** - Get involved with organizations that advocate for fair labor practices, responsible corporate governance, and transparency in government spending.
### Exact Actions You Can Take
1. **Start or Sign Petitions:** - **Petition to Demand Transparency in Government Funding:** - Example: Visit Change.org and search for existing petitions related to the CHIPS Act or semiconductor funding. If none exist, consider starting one that calls for transparency and accountability regarding the use of funds. - **What to Say**: “We call upon our government to ensure that any investments in private companies, such as Intel, are made with full transparency and accountability to the American public. Public funds should prioritize job security and ethical labor practices.”
2. **Contact Elected Officials:** - **Write to Your Senators and Representatives:** - Find your representatives using [House.gov](https://www.house.gov/) or [Senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov/). - Example contacts: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren** (D-MA) - Email: https://www.warren.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 Sudbury St., Boston, MA 02203 - **Representative Ro Khanna** (CA-17) - Email: https://khanna.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2230 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
- **What to Say**: - “I urge you to advocate for transparency and accountability regarding the use of funds from the CHIPS and Science Act. Any government investment in Intel or similar companies should prioritize job retention, ethical labor practices, and support for American workers.”
3. **Participate in Local Meetings or Forums:** - Attend town hall meetings or public forums where local policies and investments are discussed. Use these platforms to voice concerns about corporate welfare and the need for sustainable job creation.
4. **Educate Yourself and Others:** - Host or attend community workshops focused on understanding the semiconductor industry, economic policy, and the implications of government investment in private enterprises.
5. **Engage in Economic Advocacy:** - Support policies that promote the establishment of worker cooperatives or community-owned enterprises in the tech sector, which can lead to more equitable economic outcomes.
6. **Social Media Campaigns:** - Use platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook to create a campaign around the importance of responsible spending of public funds. Create hashtags to unify voices and increase visibility, such as #TransparentCHIPS or #AccountableInvestments.
By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a larger dialogue about the proper use of public funds and the importance of supporting American workers while holding corporations accountable for their practices.