Truth and Resistance Dove Logo
Know what you should know!

Home     Categories     Search     Subscribe

One of America's Largest Semiconductor Companies Set to be Nationalized as Trump Admin Launches Its Own 'Manhattan Project'

ibtimes.sg -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 6:28:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–China Relations, Economic Policy & Jobs, Classified Documents & National Security
One of America's Largest Semiconductor Companies Set to be Nationalized as Trump Admin Launches Its Own 'Manhattan Project'

The latest move stems from concerns that the U.S. is overly dependent on TSMC, a Taiwan-based chipmaker, even as China continues to issue threats of invading the island.

The Trump administration has kicked off its own version of a "Manhattan Project" following reports that one of the country's biggest companies may be taken over by the government. Intel, the largest semiconductor fabricator in the U.S., has been in discussions with Donald Trump regarding a possible government ownership stake.

Although the exact share being sought by Intel has not yet been disclosed, government takeovers of private companies are generally considered a measure of last resort during times of crisis. During the 2008 financial meltdown, the U.S. government took control of several banks, and in World War II it took control of several major logistics companies across the United States.

Trump's Big New Project

The latest move stems from concerns that the U.S. is overly dependent on TSMC, a Taiwan-based chipmaker, even as China continues to issue threats of invading the island. Such an invasion could cripple America's ability to compete in the rapidly expanding semiconductor market, especially as demand soars due to artificial intelligence.

Although Intel's AI chips lag behind those produced by NVIDIA and AMD, the company holds a strategic advantage because it both designs and manufactures its own products.

Trump's plan is aimed at strengthening national security by bringing chip production back to U.S. soil.

"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's cutting-edge semiconductor manufacturing capabilities could help the U.S. reduce its dependence on overseas chip factories -- particularly those in Taiwan, which controls over 60 percent of the global market -- while supporting artificial intelligence, national defense, and the broader economy.

Negotiations are still underway, with details continuing to take shape. According to a source cited by Bloomberg, the plan would involve the U.S. government purchasing a stake in the company.

However, another insider stressed that these discussions are not guaranteed to result in an agreement and could end without a deal.

Tech and AI specialists speaking on Diamandis' Moonshots podcast compared the initiative to a modern-day "Manhattan Project," describing it as a kind of "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 Grow Over Nationalization

Some have voiced concerns over the move to nationalize the company, with one observer noting: "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."

In a statement to Bloomberg, Intel declined to address its talks with the Trump administration but said it remains "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.

The move comes after two AI firms agreed last week to give 15 percent of their chip sales revenue from China to the U.S. government in return for export permits.

According to three people with knowledge of the matter, NVIDIA and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) struck this first-of-its-kind agreement with the White House to market and distribute their semiconductors in China.

The agreement could generate over $2 billion for the U.S. government, though Trump has not specified how those funds would be allocated, according to the New York Times.

Expand

Sign Our Petition


Opinion:

The recent announcement that the Trump administration may seek to nationalize one of America's largest semiconductor companies, specifically Intel, is indicative of a significant turning point in U.S. industrial policy, especially in regard to technology and national security. This potential government ownership, framed as a response to geopolitical tensions with China and the strategic importance of semiconductor manufacturing, highlights the urgency of re-evaluating the U.S.'s dependency on foreign supply chains. Historically, similar governmental interventions have been employed during times of crisis, such as the 2008 financial crisis and World War II, where the government took control of key industries to stabilize the economy and enhance national security. Yet, the implications of such actions extend beyond mere economic strategy; they tap into broader discussions about the role of government in the economy and the need for a more resilient and equitable industrial framework.

The context of this move cannot be separated from the ongoing geopolitical tensions with China, particularly concerning Taiwan, which is home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), a dominant player in the global semiconductor market. The U.S.'s reliance on TSMC illustrates a precarious position, especially as China issues threats toward Taiwan. This dependency raises critical questions about national security and economic sovereignty. The narrative surrounding the nationalization effort echoes the anxieties of the Cold War, where technological supremacy was seen as vital to national defense. However, this historical lens also invites scrutiny of how such narratives can be used to justify sweeping government powers, often at the expense of workers' rights and community needs. Nationalizing a company like Intel could be a strategic move, yet it must be approached through a lens that prioritizes workers' interests and equitable access to technology, rather than simply reinforcing existing corporate structures.

Moreover, the discussion surrounding this initiative should also consider the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on the labor market. The ongoing tech revolution, driven by advancements in AI, presents both opportunities and challenges. While the production of cutting-edge chips is crucial for maintaining a competitive edge, it also raises questions about the future of work and the potential displacement of workers. As the U.S. government considers taking an ownership stake in Intel, it must simultaneously address how to ensure that the benefits of this technology are shared equitably. This involves not only protecting jobs in semiconductor manufacturing but also investing in education and training programs that equip workers for the new economy. The need for a comprehensive strategy that combines national security, economic growth, and social equity is paramount.

Critics of the nationalization plan have voiced concerns that such a move could result in government overreach and stifle innovation within the tech sector. However, this perspective often overlooks the realities of the current economic landscape, where large corporations wield significant power and influence over policy decisions. Nationalization, in this context, can be framed as a necessary corrective to the unchecked power of private enterprise over public goods. The historical precedents of government interventions during crises not only demonstrate the potential effectiveness of such measures but also highlight the necessity of aligning corporate interests with broader societal goals. The challenge lies in ensuring that any government stake in a critical industry like semiconductors is managed transparently and in the interest of the public good.

As this situation unfolds, it is essential for advocates and activists to maintain a critical dialogue about the implications of nationalizing key industries. This discourse should extend beyond simplistic notions of left versus right, instead focusing on the role of government in safeguarding public interests in an increasingly complex and interconnected global economy. The semiconductor industry serves as a microcosm for larger issues of economic justice, technological equity, and national resilience. By engaging in thoughtful discussions around these themes, individuals can better articulate the necessity of a balanced approach that prioritizes both economic stability and social responsibility in the face of growing global challenges. The potential nationalization of Intel could serve as a pivotal moment to reshape the U.S. industrial landscape in a way that aligns with the aspirations for a just and equitable society.

Action:

The recent developments surrounding the potential nationalization of one of America’s largest semiconductor companies underscore the complexities of national security, technological independence, and economic resilience in an increasingly globalized world. As the United States grapples with its reliance on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) amid rising tensions with China, the Trump administration’s proposed initiative resembles a modern-day version of the Manhattan Project—an ambitious strategy aimed at fortifying America’s technological prowess. This situation presents a unique opportunity for discourse about the role of government intervention in the economy, the historical precedents for such actions, and the broader implications for American society.

Historically, nationalization has often been viewed as a last resort, typically invoked during crises when the very fabric of a nation’s economy or security is threatened. The 2008 financial crisis serves as a recent example, where the government intervened to stabilize failing banks to prevent further economic collapse. Furthermore, during World War II, government control of logistics companies was essential in mobilizing resources for the war effort. These historical instances illustrate that, while the idea of government ownership can evoke fears of overreach and inefficiency, it can also be a vital tool for safeguarding national interests. As the semiconductor industry becomes increasingly critical to both national defense and economic competitiveness, advocating for strategic government involvement in this sector could be framed as a necessary step toward ensuring long-term resilience.

It’s important to recognize that the semiconductor industry is not only vital to the tech sector but also integral to the broader economy. As demand for artificial intelligence surges, the ability to produce cutting-edge chips domestically is paramount. The U.S. must not only mitigate its dependence on foreign manufacturers but also cultivate a robust domestic supply chain that can support innovation and job creation. The notion of nationalizing this industry, or at least securing a significant governmental stake, poses a compelling argument to engage in discussions about how America can prioritize investment in its own technological infrastructure. By framing this narrative in terms of sovereignty and self-sufficiency, advocates can effectively counter concerns about governmental inefficiency and highlight the broader economic benefits of a revitalized domestic semiconductor industry.

For individuals and communities concerned about this issue, there are tangible actions that can be taken. Engaging in local and national dialogues about the importance of technological independence, advocating for policies that bolster domestic manufacturing, and supporting initiatives that encourage investment in STEM education and workforce development are crucial steps. Grassroots movements can play a pivotal role in putting pressure on policymakers to prioritize funding and support for semiconductor research and development. By emphasizing the societal benefits of a strong semiconductor industry—such as job creation, economic growth, and national security—advocates can create a compelling narrative that resonates with a broader audience, including those who may initially be skeptical of government intervention.

In discussions with those who may oppose nationalization efforts, it is important to highlight the economic reality of the global semiconductor market. As TSMC controls a staggering percentage of the global market, the implications of a potential disruption—be it through geopolitical tensions or otherwise—are profound. Framing the conversation around national security needs, such as safeguarding critical infrastructure and ensuring the country’s technological edge, can create common ground with those who prioritize national defense. This can lead to a deeper understanding of the necessity for a proactive approach to secure America’s competitive position in the global landscape.

In conclusion, the potential nationalization of a major semiconductor company reflects broader themes of economic resilience and national security. As the U.S. confronts its dependence on foreign entities, particularly in critical sectors, the call for a strategic governmental role in the semiconductor industry becomes increasingly pertinent. By drawing on historical precedents, advocating for a robust domestic industry, and engaging in constructive dialogue with individuals across the political spectrum, advocates can work toward a future where America is not only technologically self-sufficient but also positioned to lead in innovation and security in an unpredictable global environment.

To Do:

In light of the developments surrounding the potential nationalization of a major semiconductor company, there are multiple actions individuals can take to engage with this issue and advocate for a balanced approach to the challenges posed by semiconductor dependency.

### What Can We Personally Do About This?

1. **Educate Yourself and Others**: - Stay informed about semiconductor technology and its implications for national security, the economy, and global trade. - Share this knowledge with friends, family, and community members to foster a wider understanding of these issues.

2. **Engage with Elected Officials**: - Contact your local and state representatives to express your views on the nationalization plan and its implications. - Advocate for a balanced approach that prioritizes both national security and the promotion of fair labor practices and innovation within the semiconductor industry.

3. **Support Local and National Initiatives**: - Look for and support initiatives aimed at boosting U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and reducing reliance on overseas production, while ensuring they include provisions for worker rights and environmental sustainability.

4. **Participate in Online Campaigns and Petitions**: - Join or initiate online petitions that call for transparency in negotiations regarding the nationalization of semiconductor companies and advocate for public accountability.

5. **Engage with Advocacy Groups**: - Align yourself with organizations that focus on technology policy, economic justice, and labor rights to amplify your voice.

### Exact Actions You Can Take

1. **Contact Elected Officials**: - Write to your congressional representatives to express your opinions. Use the following format: - **Subject Line**: Support for Transparent Semiconductor Nationalization Discussion - **Message**: Politely share your perspective on the importance of ensuring that any nationalization efforts protect workers' rights and promote equitable economic growth.

Example: - **Senator Elizabeth Warren** (MA) - Email: warren.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2400 JFK Federal Building, 15 New Sudbury Street, Boston, MA 02203

- **Representative Ro Khanna** (CA-17) - Email: khanna.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 700 El Camino Real, Suite 300, Santa Clara, CA 95050

2. **Support Petitions**: - **Change.org Petition**: Start or sign a petition urging the government to ensure that any nationalization includes robust provisions for worker rights and environmental standards. - Example title: "Demand Accountability in the Nationalization of Semiconductor Companies." - Share on social media to gather support.

3. **Join Advocacy Groups**: - Consider joining organizations such as the **Electronic Frontier Foundation** or **Public Citizen** that advocate for responsible technology policies. They often have ongoing campaigns that you can support or participate in.

4. **Attend Public Meetings or Town Halls**: - Look for local town hall meetings or public forums discussing semiconductor policies. Engage with local leaders and raise your concerns or support for specific actions.

5. **Write Opinion Pieces or Blog Posts**: - Share your thoughts through local newspapers or online platforms about the implications of nationalizing semiconductor companies and emphasize the need for a fair approach that benefits all stakeholders.

### What To Say

When contacting officials or engaging in discussions, consider the following points:

- **Express Concerns**: Highlight the importance of balancing national security needs with economic justice and worker protections. - **Advocate for Transparency**: Call for clear communication and public input regarding any proposed nationalization plans. - **Promote Innovation and Sustainability**: Stress the need for policies that not only bring manufacturing back to the U.S. but also prioritize sustainable practices and equitable labor conditions.

By taking these actions, individuals can contribute to a more informed and engaged public discourse surrounding this critical issue.


Sign Our Petition



1 Related Article(s):

Trump cedes to China the global energy future


Updated very often
All Opinions and Actions are (C)opyright 2025 - TruthAndResistance.com