Trump launches 'Manhattan Project' as one of America's largest companies set to be nationalized
expressdigest.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 5:56:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–China Relations, Economic Policy & Jobs, Trade Policy & Tariffs
The Trump administration has launched their own 'Manhattan Project' amid reports one of America's largest companies is set to be nationalized.
Intel, the largest chip fabricator in the US, has been in talks with Donald Trump over a potential government stake in the company.
While the percentage stake the government is asking for has not been made public, nationalizing a company is typically reserved for emergencies.
The government nationalized a number of banks after the 2008 financial crisis and key logistics companies during World War II.
It comes amid concerns that America relies too heavily on TSCM, a chip manufacturer in Taiwan. China has repeatedly threatened to invade the island nation.
If China were to invade, it would throttle America's ability to compete in the booming chipmaking industry that is being driven by artificial intelligence.
While Intel's AI chips are considered inferior to those designed by Nvidia and AMD, the company is unique in that it not only designs its chips but it manufactures them. Trump wants to protect America by onshoring chip manufacturing.
'This feels like the Manhattan Project - or the run-up to World War II,' MIT AI computer scientist Dave Blundin said. 'It's every bit as important as the space race was, as the nuclear arms race was. Actually, it's more important.'
Intel. Corp, one of the most capable semiconductor manufacturers in the US, has been in talks with the Trump administration as the US government is seeking a stake in the company. Pictured: Intel's CEO Lip-Bu Tan at the company's Annual Manufacturing Technology Conference earlier this year
Intel's advanced abilities to manufacture semiconductors would allow the US to give up its reliance on foreign fabs in order to power artificial intelligence, defense and the economy
The consideration to nationalize the company, a move typically done in times of national urgency, comes as the US is looking to get ahead of China in the AI and tech arms race
Intel's advanced abilities to manufacture semiconductors would allow the US to give up its reliance on foreign fabrication plants (fabs), especially in Taiwan which controls more than 60 percent of the market, in order to power artificial intelligence, defense and the economy.
The talks remain ongoing and finer details continue to be made clear, but the idea would be that the US government would pay for the stake in the company, one person close to the matter told Bloomberg.
Another stressed that the talks do not ensure that the deal is definitive, and the discussion could end without a deal being made.
The move, according to AI and tech experts on Diamandis' podcast Moonshots, echoes the 'Manhattan Project' as a sort of a 'national survival strategy.'
'The reason the US needs to protect Taiwan fundamentally... is because the fabs are there. If the fabs all move to the US, then why would the US defend Taiwan?' Blundin said.
Concerns have been raised about the decision to nationalize the company, as he added: 'They're putting the whole industry on a kind of war footing, like mobilization for conflict, except the battleground is supply chains and chip fabs.'
Intel told Bloomberg, while declining to comment on the discussion with the Trump administration, that the company is 'deeply committed to supporting President Trump's efforts to strengthen US technology and manufacturing leadership.'
'We look forward to continuing our work with the Trump administration to advance these shared priorities, but we are not going to comment on rumors or speculation,' the company added.
White House spokesman Kush Desai told the outlet: 'Discussion about hypothetical deals should be regarded as speculation unless officially announced by the administration.'
The move comes after two AI companies agreed last week to hand over 15 percent of their chip sales revenue in China to the US government in exchange for export licenses.
Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) entered an unprecedented arrangement with the White House to promote and sell their semiconductors in China last week, three people familiar with the situation told the Financial Times.
'This feels like the Manhattan Project -- or the run-up to World War II,' MIT AI computer scientist Dave Blundin (pictured) said on a podcast with MIT engineer Peter Diamandis
The CEO of Nvidia, Jensen Huang (right), met with Donald Trump (left) last week to review the bizarre deal, according to sources, including a US government official
US security experts said Nvidia's H20 in particular will aid the Chinese military efforts and boast China in its AI development race against the US
'In the short term, this is fantastic. In the long term, wow, could this turn bad in a hurry,' Blundin said. 'It's good for the US economy, but we're going to use that to fund [the] US catching up in the chip wars.'
'Very, very good business deal and incredibly slippery slope precedent.'
The deal could pour more than $2 billion into the US government, the New York Times reported, although Trump did not reveal what the money may be used for.
Just as sources say Trump and the AI companies entered the agreement, the president declared he would impose a 100 percent tariff on the imports of semiconductors and chips unless the company is 'building in the United States.'
News of Trump's discreetly entered agreement with Nvidia and AMD has been slammed by experts who say the move could have detrimental repercussions when it comes to US-China relations.
'This is an own goal and will incentivize the Chinese to up their game and pressure the administration for more concessions,' Liza Tobin, who previously served as China director at the National Security Council, told The New York Times.
The move to sell microchips to China has been heavily criticized, as many see it as a threat to national security and a move against America's best interests.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent discussions surrounding the potential nationalization of Intel, one of the United States' largest semiconductor manufacturers, represent a significant moment in the intersection of technology, national security, and economic policy. In light of the geopolitical tensions with China and the growing importance of artificial intelligence, this initiative echoes historical precedents of government intervention in private industry, reminiscent of the New Deal era and the wartime mobilization in the 1940s. The implications of such a move extend beyond mere market mechanics; they reach into the realm of social equity, workforce development, and the need for a more resilient domestic economy.
Nationalization, while often viewed with skepticism in capitalist contexts, can serve as a tool for broader societal good, especially during pressing crises. The discussions around Intel come at a time when the U.S. is increasingly aware of its vulnerabilities in critical technology sectors. The 2008 financial crisis, for example, forced the government to intervene in the banking sector to stave off economic collapse, demonstrating that state action can sometimes be necessary to protect the public interest. This moment may parallel that historical intervention, suggesting that when the stakes are high—whether they be economic stability or national security—the government has a duty to prioritize the welfare of its citizens over the profit margins of private corporations.
This situation brings to light ongoing social struggles surrounding economic inequality and job security in the tech sector. The semiconductor industry is pivotal not only for technological innovation but also for the creation of high-quality jobs. Investing in domestic chip manufacturing could help revitalize American manufacturing, which has faced decades of decline due to outsourcing and globalization. By shifting focus to domestic production, the government can foster job creation, ensure fair wages, and promote equitable access to technology. This could ultimately empower working-class communities that have often been left behind in the wake of corporate decisions driven by profit rather than people.
Moreover, the call for nationalization amid fears of Chinese aggression highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of global interdependence in the technology sector. While it is crucial to secure supply chains and ensure national security, it is equally important to approach these issues from a standpoint that does not incite xenophobia or isolationism. The narrative of "us versus them" can be detrimental, leading to policies that stifle collaboration and innovation. Instead, fostering partnerships with allies and investing in equitable technology development can yield a more sustainable and secure future.
The historical lens through which we view nationalization also raises questions about the ownership of technology and its benefits. As discussions around AI and emerging technologies continue, it is vital to advocate for a framework that ensures these advancements serve the public good rather than exacerbate existing inequalities. The tech arms race, as it is being framed, should not solely focus on outpacing adversaries but also on ensuring that the resulting innovations are accessible and beneficial to all citizens. If the government does indeed take a stake in a company like Intel, it should do so with a commitment to transparency, accountability, and a focus on social justice.
In conclusion, the potential nationalization of Intel is not merely a reaction to geopolitical pressures but a reflection of the broader societal need for a responsible and equitable approach to technology and national security. It serves as an opportunity to engage in deeper conversations about the role of government in the economy, the value of domestic manufacturing, and the imperative of ensuring that technological advancements benefit all members of society. As this situation unfolds, it will be essential to advocate for policies that prioritize the public interest, foster economic equity, and pave the way for a more just and inclusive technological future.
The recent news regarding the Trump administration's plan to potentially nationalize Intel, one of the leading semiconductor manufacturers in the United States, raises significant questions about the intersection of national security, economic policy, and the future of technology in America. While the motivations for this bold move are framed as a response to geopolitical threats, particularly from China, it is essential to understand the historical context of nationalization in the U.S. and the implications of such a policy shift for the broader economy and society.
Historically, nationalization has been employed by governments during periods of crisis to stabilize key industries and ensure strategic assets are protected from foreign control. For instance, during World War II, the U.S. nationalized various logistics companies to facilitate military operations. Similarly, during the 2008 financial crisis, the government intervened in the banking sector to prevent economic collapse. The current landscape, characterized by rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and potential conflicts over trade and technology with China, has again prompted calls for such intervention. However, it is crucial to question whether nationalization is the most effective approach to safeguard American interests or if it merely serves as a temporary fix that could lead to long-term ramifications.
As citizens, we must recognize the potential ramifications of nationalizing a prominent company like Intel. While the intention behind this move may be to bolster national security and reduce dependence on foreign technology, it could also pave the way for increased government control over critical sectors of the economy. This could lead to a reduction in competition, stifling innovation, and ultimately harming consumers. There is a delicate balance to strike between ensuring national security and fostering a vibrant, competitive tech industry. Advocacy for policies that promote innovation and investment in domestic companies, without resorting to nationalization, is essential to ensure that the U.S. remains at the forefront of technology development.
Moreover, the focus on nationalizing Intel reflects a broader trend of viewing technology as a matter of national security. As the U.S. government contemplates its role in the tech industry, it is essential for Americans to engage in discussions about the ethics and implications of such a position. We must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to foster: one in which the government plays a significant role in shaping industry or one in which private enterprise drives innovation? Engaging in these conversations can help shape a future where technology serves the public good, rather than merely acting as a tool for governmental power.
In light of these developments, Americans can take proactive steps to influence the policy debate surrounding nationalization and the tech industry. Grassroots movements advocating for transparency and accountability in government dealings with major corporations can help ensure that any nationalization efforts prioritize public interests and prevent potential abuses of power. Additionally, supporting local businesses and initiatives aimed at increasing domestic production of technology can create a more resilient economy that does not rely solely on government intervention.
Finally, it is essential to educate ourselves and others about the broader implications of nationalizing companies in the tech sector. By discussing the historical precedents, potential consequences, and alternatives to nationalization, we empower ourselves to engage in informed debates with those who hold opposing views. This discourse is vital for shaping policies that prioritize innovation, economic stability, and social equity. In the end, advocating for a balanced approach that fosters both national security and vibrant economic growth will serve to strengthen the foundation of our democracy and ensure that technological advancements benefit all Americans.
The recent developments regarding the potential nationalization of Intel and the government's interest in securing a stake in a major chip manufacturer represent a pivotal moment in the landscape of American technology and economic policy. As concerned individuals looking to influence policy and ensure that any actions taken are aligned with democratic principles and the public good, there are several concrete steps we can take to engage with this issue.
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others**: Stay informed about the implications of nationalizing companies, particularly in technology and manufacturing sectors. Use social media and community forums to share insights and foster discussions.
2. **Engage with Local Representatives**: Reach out to your elected officials to express your views on the implications of nationalizing large companies and the importance of maintaining a balance between government intervention and private enterprise.
3. **Support Transparency and Accountability**: Advocate for policies that ensure any nationalization efforts are transparent and accountable to the public.
4. **Promote Ethical Manufacturing**: Encourage local and national initiatives that prioritize ethical manufacturing practices, sustainability, and worker rights.
### Exact Actions We Can Take
1. **Petitions**: - **Sign and Share Petitions**: Look for petitions on platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org that address corporate transparency, government accountability in nationalization efforts, and the ethical implications of technology manufacturing. For instance, start or sign a petition that calls for public hearings on the implications of government stakes in private companies.
2. **Writing to Representatives**: - **Contact Your Elected Officials**: Express your views on the nationalization of Intel and the broader implications for technology and labor. - **Sample Contact**: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren**: - Email: senator_warren@warren.senate.gov - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203 - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez**: - Email: ocasiocortez@house.gov - Mailing Address: 1238 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
3. **What to Say**: - **Subject**: Concern Regarding Nationalization of Major Companies - **Message Body**: "Dear [Senator/Representative Name], I am writing to express my concerns regarding the potential nationalization of Intel and the implications it may have on our economy and democracy. While I understand the need for national security and technological independence, I urge you to ensure that any such actions are transparent, accountable, and prioritize the welfare of workers and the public interest. It is crucial that we maintain a balance between government intervention and private enterprise. I advocate for policies that support ethical manufacturing and local job creation. Thank you for considering my views on this vital issue." 4. **Community Action**: - Organize or join local community meetings to discuss the implications of government interventions in the private sector, focusing on tech and manufacturing. This could be in the form of town halls, discussion groups, or panels featuring local experts.
5. **Support Local Tech Initiatives**: - Engage with local or national organizations that promote ethical tech and manufacturing practices. For example, support groups like **Tech for America**, which advocates for equitable technology policies.
By taking these steps, we can collectively work towards ensuring that any significant policy changes surrounding nationalization are conducted in a way that benefits society as a whole, prioritizing transparency, accountability, and the welfare of all citizens.