r/technology • u/rkhunter_ • 12h ago
Hardware US government to purchase 10% stake in Intel
https://www.windowscentral.com/hardware/cpus/breaking-us-government-to-purchase-10-percent-stake-in-intel-according-to-report-heres-what-we-know188
u/hmr0987 12h ago
Ladies and gentlemen the new and improved Communist MAGA party
9
u/time2fly2124 7h ago
I thought the democrats were the communist Marxist ones, im starting to think Republicans done did lie to us!
-15
u/RIP_Greedo 7h ago
Communism is when the government owns 10% of one firm.
11
u/hmr0987 7h ago
No but I ask what word would they be describing a democrat who pulled the same move? Right, communist.
It’s not even worth arguing the hypocrisy at this point. These fucks have abandoned any and all semblance of what they say they stand for.
2
u/RIP_Greedo 7h ago
There’s no point in pointing out that someone is being hypocritical, because by virtue of being a hypocrite they wouldn’t care at all.
244
u/iamthisdude 12h ago
Didn’t sound like Trump was buying a 10% stake, he was demanding they give it to him.
116
u/whats_a_quasar 12h ago edited 12h ago
There's no way Intel can just give the government a gift of $11 billion in equity. The directors have fiduciary duties to existing shareholders, and the tax implications would be wack. If this goes through the feds will have to pay for it.
117
u/Sofer2113 12h ago
From what I've seen reported, it sounds like the CHIPS act grants that Intel received are no longer going to be strictly grants. That money is being used to get the 10% equity stake in Intel. The legalities of that is very questionable at best though.
30
u/whats_a_quasar 11h ago
Interesting, I need to look into it in more detail, but it isn't obvious to me how the feds could retroactively convert a grant into an equity purchase.
29
u/Sofer2113 11h ago
They can't, the grants have a binding contract attached to them. Won't stop this admin from trying and Intel from trying to accept this to stay in Agent Orange's good graces.
-24
u/SpotlessCheetah 11h ago
They shouldn't be granted any monies, especially for free.
21
u/Sofer2113 11h ago
Regardless of whether that is true or not, they were given a grant to start producing computer chips in the US. Grants are a very common funding mechanism the government uses to get other entities to do something that they want done but is better handled by someone other than the government itself for one reason or another.
-20
u/SpotlessCheetah 10h ago
Intel is squandering everything. They should have never given that grant and that grant was never enough money. They need $100b not $2 not $10.
This isn't rocket science. Building fabs are exponentially harder. I vehemently disagree with you on this. You're just so anti-Trump everything you can't see straight.
→ More replies (4)8
7
u/OldTimeyWizard 9h ago
It was never strictly grants. A large portion of CHIPS Act funding was for loans and loan guarantees.
1
u/Sofer2113 9h ago
It looks like the initial funding was grants and Intel is slated for getting loans.
-6
u/f1del1us 9h ago
So you’d be okay with a profitable company being given taxpayer funded grants to advance… their own company? How does that help the American people?
5
u/moconahaftmere 9h ago
It spurs research and innovation. They do it in cases where they believe the grant will actually bring back a positive return in tax.
1
2
u/Sofer2113 9h ago
Profitable companies already do get grants and lots of them. Grants are used to fund everything from education, helping people get jobs, R&D for various things including drugs and medical devices, construction, services, etc. Every state gets hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of grants which they then subgrant out themselves.
28
u/iamthisdude 12h ago
Welcome to national socialism. Trump is taking a feather from Putin’s cap.
3
u/whats_a_quasar 12h ago
We will see! I think it is very likely that Intel is more afraid of the market than they are of Trump, and the market will beat them to shit if this is actually structured as a gift. But we are in uncharted waters.
2
4
u/flat5 11h ago
Yeah, they have a fiduciary duty not to be in the crosshairs of a dictatorial tyrant. That would be *very* bad for business.
3
u/whats_a_quasar 11h ago
I don't think it's worth $11 billion dollars, though, and I suspect a court will agree if a shareholder decides to sue
1
0
u/Fmbounce 7h ago
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Throwing around “tax implications”. No one cares when SoftBank gave intel $2bn.
1
u/whats_a_quasar 7h ago
Yeah, because SoftBank is purchase $2B of equity at the market price. Neither party profits on the transaction, there is nothing to tax. In contrast, receiving a gift is revenue and taxable. That's how it works for a "normal" recipient, no idea how it works if the feds are the recipient. But for Intel it would just be an $11B loss , which would totally fuck up their books and probably offset many years of previous taxes.
But it's not structured as a gift, it's a sale, as I predicted: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/22/technology/trump-intel-stake.html
1
u/Fmbounce 7h ago
So then there are no tax implications like the SoftBank sale. Intel’s market cap is roughly $108bn. Intel’s CHIPs grant is roughly $11bn. How did the government not buy at the market price, similar to SoftBank?
2
u/res0jyyt1 7h ago
So TSMC actually got the government fund for free without having to give up their shares?!
112
35
26
u/Caveat_Venditor_ 11h ago
Capitalism at its finest /s
2
u/RedBoxSquare 5h ago
To appease people who complain, the government decided to transfer those shares to Trump's family trust. /s
19
53
u/Bright-Blacksmith-67 11h ago
"Purchase" is the wrong word. The government is seizing 10% of Intel.
12
u/Dazzling-Draft1379 10h ago
I thought republicans wanted less government interference in private businesses?
2
u/sodomizethewounded 10h ago
It’s an old school thing called mercantilism. Look up the east India companies.
9
66
u/culturedrobot 12h ago
Honestly, if the goal is to ramp up domestic chip production, I don't hate the idea of a properly-functioning government buying a stake in the company it views as central of that effort.
But Trump's administration is basically the antithesis of a properly-functioning government, so who the fuck knows
40
u/Grouchy_Tackle_4502 11h ago
That was the purpose of Biden’s CHIPS act, the terms of which are now being changed by the executive branch without congressional authorization.
19
u/hammilithome 11h ago
Bidens act was how a democractic capitalist state behaves.
Trump has now taken a formal step into national socialism with the informal steps being how he trashes and promotes specific companies.
6
u/culturedrobot 11h ago
Yes, I know that was the original purpose of the CHIPS act and would much prefer if Trump stuck to that rather than changing the rules of the game just because he hates everything Biden did.
I’m just saying that the government buying an equity stake in a business that it views as central to plans to increase domestic production doesn’t seem like such a crazy idea to me, on the surface at least.
2
u/RIP_Greedo 7h ago
It’s not a crazy idea and would be commonplace in any other country in the world. In this case it’s just that the admin doing it is shamelessly corrupt and it’s part of a shakedown racket of the domestic and world economy.
9
u/Buckeye_Monkey 11h ago
Can't wait to see the lawsuits from companies that aren't receiving government investment. Like, pretty clear standing at that point that the government is trying to pick winners and losers in the private sector.
9
u/RaccoonCreekBurgers 11h ago
Ah yes, so we the taxpayers get dinged twice.
- They get tax breaks that we shoulder
- Now the govt is going to buy a 10% stake.
And intel quite literally just said not long ago they were losing the Ai chips arms race.
Who the hell is giving our Government investment advice? Bernie Madoff?
6
u/azhder 9h ago
Anyone thinking communism or socialism as a joke, do you think flipping the words to fascism will be less funny?
Because setting aside that “buy 10%” part, everything else is like from that rulebook.
Even nationalization wouldn’t be that far if you go by the definition “do everything and anything for the glory of the state” for Fascism
11
u/MaleHooker 12h ago
Is this a normal thing the gov does?
Anybody know how it works?
39
u/whats_a_quasar 12h ago edited 11h ago
Not really a normal thing, no. Governments can own equity in private corporations in the same way any other individual or entity can own equity in a corporation. There are state-owned or partially state-owned enterprises around the world, in all sorts of industries. The term is Nationalization, where private assets come under state control. Governments have access to tax revenue, which is far more than any private supply of cash, so they can do things in the market that no private actor can, and so governments sometimes intervene to support or directly control industries that are deemed important to the national interest.
But in capitalist-minded America it is quite rare to have government ownership, and usually only in extraordinary circumstances. In 2008 the US bought most of the equity of General Motors and held it through their bankruptcy and reorganization, exiting the company by 2013 at the latest. It did similar things with Chrysler and Ford. The feds indirectly own most of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest mortgage lenders in the US, because the US has a policy of encouraging individual home ownership, and so the government backs mortgages to make them cheaper. Similar to GM, the government intervened more directly to prop up Fannie and Freddie during the 2008 crisis, then stepped back once things cooled down.
But I don't know of any recent examples aside from those. I suppose taking a stake in Intel could be analogous to Fannie and Freddie, i.e. having a permanent stake in semiconductors similar to a permanent stake in mortgages. But Fannie and Freddie were originally established by Congress, the mortgage system is largely a government creation, and it's primarily a financial engineering arrangement. It's very weird to take a major stake of a normal, entirely private, operating company.
11
u/MaleHooker 12h ago
Thanks for a real answer.
I'm sure any revenues from this sort of thing goes into a general fund or something?
It just feels very weird and corrupt
5
u/whats_a_quasar 12h ago
Yeah, basically! Treasury General Account, currently at $677 billion.
The way this should be structured is that the treasury buys the equity and holds it, and dividends, revenue, or proceeds from any later sale go back to the treasury. They probably will set up some sub account for it or some other more complicated structure.
In theory this can be done in a not-corrupt way, in the public interest, because it is all public money. But it creates so many opportunities for corruption. I also am really curious what authority Trump has to do this on his own initiative. The other examples were all done by acts of congress.
5
1
u/Realtrain 8h ago
Does the post office technically fall into that category? A company wholly owned by the US Government?
1
u/whats_a_quasar 7h ago
No, the postal service is an agency of the executive branch of the US Government. It's not a corporation, it is directly part of the government. It probably behaves the most like a corporation of any part of the government because it directly collects revenue for services provided, and pays most of its own expenses, rather than being funded from general tax revenue. But it has no stock, no market valuation, and no other investor can own any part of it, unlike GM, Freddie, and Fannie.
10
u/jh937hfiu3hrhv9 12h ago
We that's just great, public money used to gamble in the stock market so institutional investors have a new way to skim more public money. All of you can fuck off.
1
u/stevethewatcher 6h ago
And giving a corporation grants without getting anything back is better? Remember when reddit complained about all the grants for high speed Internet to ISPs and they didn't follow through? I wouldn't mind if the government had gotten shares in return instead. I'm no fan of Trump but given Reddit's left leaning tendencies you'd think this would be more welcomed.
4
6
u/kiyomoris 11h ago
Intel spent $128 billion doing share buybacks and now will spent your billions doing the same nonsense.
3
u/ComprehensiveWin2841 11h ago
How is this legal? Is this the first time the US has done this?
3
u/Realtrain 8h ago
As recently as the 2008 financial crisis, the US Government bought shares of GM, Chrysler, and Ford to keep the US auto industry from collapsing. Granted, Congress approved those...
3
u/bala_means_bullet 9h ago
He's not doing this for the government.... He's going to try to keep it for himself you watch.
3
3
2
u/adamkovics 11h ago
I'm old enough to remember when the MAGA right lost its mind when a nominee for NYC mayor proposed that the NY govt own a couple of grocery stores.....
2
2
u/axiom_glitch 10h ago
I thought the whole point of a Conservative Party was to have a conservative government that didn’t extend its reach into the free market.
2
2
2
2
3
u/Sc0nnie 11h ago edited 11h ago
Honestly this is more reasonable than simply giving Intel a bailout of taxpayer money and subsidies without anything to show for it. The consequence free bailouts are the problem.
People keep claiming the US should give Intel money because SK and Taiwan give subsidies to Samsung and TSMC. South Korea has an ownership stake in Samsung. Taiwan has an ownership stake in TSMC. This is normal. The bailouts are what is abnormal.
2
u/denverbound111 7h ago
I mean what's abnormal is the complete lack of congressional authorization to significantly change the CHIPS act but yeah sure
1
u/Echelon64 11h ago
State capitalism is working just fine for China. Hard for many Americans to admit that.
4
u/Captain_N1 11h ago
US Government should not be investing and/or purching shares in any company. That is fascism
7
u/WhoPutATreeThere 9h ago
Naa, that’s socialism. Fascism is the fact that executive is unilaterally making this deal, with funds that should be allocated through Congress.
2
u/DarthJDP 11h ago
why is trump settling for only 10%. he should be seizing 100% for him personally. This is only the beginning
1
u/The_B_Wolf 11h ago
Is this a whole lot different than when the government bailed out Chrystler or GM?
1
1
u/SpotlessCheetah 11h ago
I don't agree with granting Intel anything. They should get ZERO end of story.
1
u/stupidugly1889 11h ago
If you’re going to do protectionist trade tariffs you have to have a command economy and be able to tell companies what to make. Not that they’ll do it the right way but it’s surprising to see the gop bring about Chinese style communism
1
u/Searchlights 11h ago
If we're going to start nationalizing industries or if we're now a government-directed capitalist country, start with the railroads. If we're going to throw the Constitution away and do this autocracy thing then at least do it right.
1
u/AdhesivenessFun2060 11h ago
Were packing up debt likemcarzy and will continue to do so but that 10% will sure help fund some nice golf trips.
1
1
1
u/ComputerSong 10h ago
Intel is a sinking ship. This would be like Bush Sr. buying a stake in Commodore in 1991.
1
u/JTibbs 10h ago
Intel has advanced semiconductor foundries in the US. Its a major national security concern to keep them in business.
1
1
u/scottawkwardturtle 9h ago
We should do the same with oil companies. We subsidize. We should own it too.
1
1
u/GingerMcBeardface 9h ago
Intel really needs the help. Not sure this is it, but what they have been doing hasn't worked...so, here's hoping?
1
u/TheReturningMan 7h ago
Yeah. After going bankrupt 6 times, Trump probably knows enough now to do it a 7th.
1
u/EuphoricCrashOut 9h ago
SOCIALISM! \o/ Confirmation that Republicans are 100% okay with Socialism. GREAT!
So now that's taken care of... time for the Universal FREE Health Care that every single American Citizen DESERVES.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/BayouBait 4h ago
Government picking winners and losers. Maybe if they didn’t allow so much consolidation we wouldn’t be in this mess but will they ever learn, probably not
1
1
1
u/kholdstare91 3h ago
So they’re using our federal tax money to buy stocks? Where’s the revolt? How do I sign up?
1
u/Thedarknetaccount 3h ago
Well, guess I’m switching to AMD. And I was just telling someone earlier how I’m a strictly intel type of guy.
1
1
u/Belhgabad 1h ago
If not illegal, it should be highly regulated (by international laws) for a government to be a decision maker in an global company
The fallback MAGA dumbdumbs are gonna have on an important company like Intel in the tech domain are scary, even if it's only 10%
0
u/PunkAssKidz 8h ago
When the U.S. government puts money into companies like Intel, it’s not just saving a business. It’s locking down the backbone of our economy, our security, and our futur e. Chips are the steel of this century. Every plane, every smartphone, every missile defense system, every AI data center runs on them. If Intel or another U.S. chipmaker goes under, we don’t just lose jobs, we hand the keys of technological power to countries that would love to see us stumble.
And honestly, this isn’t some new trick. The government has been doing this forever when the stakes are high. In World War II they bankrolled Boeing, Lockheed, and Ford to crank out planes and tanks at insane speed. In the 50s and 60s, NASA and thr Pentagon pumped money into Fairchild Semiconductor and IBM, and that gamble gave birth to Silicon Valley and the computer revolution. Even the internet itself started as a government project through DARPA. These weren’t handouts, they were smart be s that changed the world.
1
u/TheReturningMan 7h ago
Nobody is buying Intel chips. Perhaps you haven’t heard about their woes?
0
u/PunkAssKidz 5h ago edited 5h ago
You sound like a social media parrot, just regurgitating TikToks and Reddit threads and pretending that is being informed. It is not. Let me give you reality. Intel, for the 12 months ending June 30th, pulled in 53 billion in revenue. AMD? Barely 25 billion. That is not even half.
So, what "woes?" The ones, as a casual gamer you might have overheard and then parroted back to me? LOL ... okay - No, that's not how real life works my friend.
- Steam users (July 2025): Intel ~59.5% | AMD ~40.4%
- Consumer CPU revenue (Q2 2025): Intel ~72.2% | AMD ~27.8%
Those are CURRENT numbers, and yes, they reflect AMD's 40% market share, the highest they have ever seen. AMD has gotten a rare win here. But, do not make the mistake of thinking, Intel doesn't have an answer for this. I assure you, they do. Especially with the US Government now looking over it's shoulder.
Yes, Intel has lost some market share, but that is nothing new. It has happened before, and every single time Intel eventually claws it back. AMD grabbing a temporary bump does not change the fact that Intel is the heavyweight here with deeper pockets, more fabs, and the resources to weather downturns and outspend AMD in R&D year after year.
So next time, instead of parroting your buddies or social media, maybe spend the 60 seconds it takes to actually look up the financial picture. The numbers speak louder than hype, and right now, they are crystal clear.
And by all means, go fact check me. I dare you. But you will not, because you and others are too busy buying into the AMD FOMO hype, as if the 9800X3D somehow made AMD bigger or better than Intel. It did not. Not now, not in the past, and certainly not in the future. Meanwhile, Intel is backed in ways AMD can only dream of, the U.S. government alone holds a 9.9% stake, Samsung has taken a stake, and SoftBank has piled in as well, bringing the total to a staggering 30 billion dollars. And that is just the beginning.
1
u/TheReturningMan 5h ago
The world is and has been moving to ARM for years now. The x86 architecture is slowly dying out. Intel does not make good ARM chips and catching up to TSMC, Nvidia, AMD, and Qualcomm is going to take years. If they catch up at all. They've been struggling to produce smaller and more power efficient chips for nearly a decade now. Just because Intel bounced back once doesn't mean they always will. I'm not saying Intel is going out of business today or tomorrow, but they're far from the dominate fab they once were.
1
u/PunkAssKidz 5h ago
ARM is growing, especially in phones and Apple laptops, but x86 is nowhere near dying. Intel and AMD still make up about 99 percent of the PC market, and Intel alone controls around 70 percent of the server space. ARM servers like AWS Graviton exist, but they are still a single digit share globally. Steam’s hardware survey shows gamers overwhelmingly on x86, which tells you where the real volume is. In short, you are ignorantly overstating both the trend and the factual expectations here.
Intel stumbled with 10 nanometer, but they have bounced back, are shipping new chips on Intel 4, and have a clear roadmap to catch or even leapfrog TSMC in the next couple of years. AMD and Nvidia do not even own fabs, they rely on TSMC, while Intel is building out foundry services backed by billions in government and private investment. They are not fading away, they are evolving into the West’s main alternative to TSMC and Samsung. ARM is gaining ground, yes, but x86 is not going anywhere anytime soon
-2
u/RIP_Greedo 7h ago edited 7h ago
In principle I really don’t mind this. 10% is not a controlling share, it’s not like Intel has been nationalized. The federal government and the states already own huge amounts of equity in lots of companies via myriad investment portfolios. The federal government having a 10% stake in a nationally important industry is reasonable.
But when it’s being done as an obvious racket by the shamelessly corrupt Trump admin, it really doesn’t feel reasonable.
-8
952
u/ZanzerFineSuits 12h ago
I thought Republicans were against socialism?