By Paul Wallis
EDITOR AT LARGE
DIGITAL JOURNAL
August 23, 2025
Silicon Valley chip maker Intel says it cut about 15 percent of its 'core workforce' in the recently ended quarter - Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP JUSTIN SULLIVAN
For those fortunate souls who don’t understand the basics of modern markets and politics, this is an object lesson. Intel has “agreed to” the US government taking a 10% stake in the company.
This rather bland bit of almost-information contains a lot to extremely warily unpack. As a writer who is extremely tired of hardly literate “TLDR” overviews, I’ll try to be tactful. I just won’t try very hard. This situation is extremely tricky.
Let’s start with the Intel side:
Intel has been staggering along with its CPU chips, not doing much at all with producing AI chips, the supposed ultra-focus of the Trump administration. Surprisingly, the new Intel chip is getting some market traction with good reviews, but it’s still plodding along.
The intel stock price has also been bumping along downward from $64 in 2022 to $27 this week. The market hasn’t been particularly friendly. The news about US government interest in Intel caused a relative spike in the stock price in mid-August. Forbes seems to think the Intel stock could go back up to $60.
The real question is how much of an asset Intel can be to the US government in the superheated AI environment. Superficially, not very. Intel isn’t much of a player in AI. It doesn’t even have a nominal market position.
Some say it’s “crony capitalism”, which it could well be. If you include the typical upvaluing of companies by association with people and publicity, it does look like it. Nvidia has been accused of that, too, although Nvidia has had trouble staying out of the limelight, unlike Intel.
This is also known as “state capitalism”, in which nations take roles in direct capital investment and ownership. This was far more common in the mid-20th century, particularly in the English-speaking countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK.
However- state capitalism is also the direct antithesis of modern conservative doctrine which openly demands maniacal levels of privatization and deregulation.
It depends how naïve you are in terms of this particular move.
For instance; if you assume that state capitalism isn’t just another name for privatization. It could well be. What value does a 10% stake in Intel deliver to the US? IP values? A market platform for pet programs? Somewhere to put new patents?
How about nepotech, the extension of the administration’s torrid love affair with big rich tech companies? Now do you see why this is as much a market move as any sort of policy?
Or, perhaps, a place to put direct market values on specific assets? if this sounds like guesswork, it has to be guesswork. There are no clear parameters for what 10% of Intel may mean in dollar values. Nor can those values be fixed for any length of time. The market can raise and lower values on specific assets, especially tech assets, very easily.
Watch how this works, because a lot of money is likely to flow through this sudden interest in Intel.
______________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
August 23, 2025
Silicon Valley chip maker Intel says it cut about 15 percent of its 'core workforce' in the recently ended quarter - Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP JUSTIN SULLIVAN
For those fortunate souls who don’t understand the basics of modern markets and politics, this is an object lesson. Intel has “agreed to” the US government taking a 10% stake in the company.
This rather bland bit of almost-information contains a lot to extremely warily unpack. As a writer who is extremely tired of hardly literate “TLDR” overviews, I’ll try to be tactful. I just won’t try very hard. This situation is extremely tricky.
Let’s start with the Intel side:
Intel has been staggering along with its CPU chips, not doing much at all with producing AI chips, the supposed ultra-focus of the Trump administration. Surprisingly, the new Intel chip is getting some market traction with good reviews, but it’s still plodding along.
The intel stock price has also been bumping along downward from $64 in 2022 to $27 this week. The market hasn’t been particularly friendly. The news about US government interest in Intel caused a relative spike in the stock price in mid-August. Forbes seems to think the Intel stock could go back up to $60.
The real question is how much of an asset Intel can be to the US government in the superheated AI environment. Superficially, not very. Intel isn’t much of a player in AI. It doesn’t even have a nominal market position.
Some say it’s “crony capitalism”, which it could well be. If you include the typical upvaluing of companies by association with people and publicity, it does look like it. Nvidia has been accused of that, too, although Nvidia has had trouble staying out of the limelight, unlike Intel.
This is also known as “state capitalism”, in which nations take roles in direct capital investment and ownership. This was far more common in the mid-20th century, particularly in the English-speaking countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK.
However- state capitalism is also the direct antithesis of modern conservative doctrine which openly demands maniacal levels of privatization and deregulation.
It depends how naïve you are in terms of this particular move.
For instance; if you assume that state capitalism isn’t just another name for privatization. It could well be. What value does a 10% stake in Intel deliver to the US? IP values? A market platform for pet programs? Somewhere to put new patents?
How about nepotech, the extension of the administration’s torrid love affair with big rich tech companies? Now do you see why this is as much a market move as any sort of policy?
Or, perhaps, a place to put direct market values on specific assets? if this sounds like guesswork, it has to be guesswork. There are no clear parameters for what 10% of Intel may mean in dollar values. Nor can those values be fixed for any length of time. The market can raise and lower values on specific assets, especially tech assets, very easily.
Watch how this works, because a lot of money is likely to flow through this sudden interest in Intel.
______________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
Trump called out after big Intel move: 'Literally communism'
Sarah K. Burris
August 22, 2025
Donald Trump raises a fist to the cameras. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
President Donald Trump has wielded his insult machine at Democrats he claims are "socialists" and "communists," but the state purchase of Intel has many, including conservatives, questioning whether he's the real "big government" guy.
On Friday, computer chip manufacturer Intel agreed to allow the government to purchase 10% of its company, making the U.S. government the largest shareholder in the company, NPR reported.
Libertarian Cato Institute vice president Scott Lincicome took to X to list off some of the worst possible outcomes of such a purchase, namely that it is "bad for Intel's long-term viability, as politics, not commercial considerations, increasingly drive its decisions." He added that it's also bad for Intel competitors, because the U.S. is being seen as picking winners and losers. It can also be problematic because Intel doesn't just manufacture computer chips, it has its claws in a number of other businesses.
"Washington will be Intel's single largest shareholder, and have a massive political/financial interest in the company's operations here and abroad. If you think this share will remain passive, I've got an unfinished chip factory in Ohio to sell you," he later added.
"Trump says Intel CEO agreed to give U.S. government $10 billion. Trump implies it’s an equity stake. The irony of his criticism of Democratic-Socialists as communists when, if this is true, its actual government takeover of private industry," said former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks, a co-host of the "Sisters in Law" podcast.
Conservative former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum pointed out, "On the same day, Trump is promoting government ownership of Intel and military patrols of Chicago, New York City, following upon existing military control of Los Angeles and District of Columbia. But apparently only RINOs still care about free enterprise and civilian rule. The conservatives these days get much more excited about the marketing decisions of roadside restaurant chains."
"Trump wants the U.S. government to take a 10% stake in Intel. Make no mistake: Trump’s "state capitalism" has nothing to do with public ownership, socialism, helping the working class, or improving national security. It’s another personal power grab," said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
Dan Shafer, political editor of Civic Media commented, "It's so funny to me that there are all these 'free market' think tanks in Wisconsin and none of them have said a single godd--n thing about tariffs, or the federal government buying a stake in Intel, or any of the very much not free market things happening in the Trump admin."
After Trump teased the idea on Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) lamented, "If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea."
"Small government conservative," wrote Spencer Hakimian, the founder of Tolou Capital Management, his written voice dripping with sarcasm. He later agreed that Trump was a "socialist."
"Trump just announced that the CEO of Intel has agreed to give the US government a 10% stake in the company. That is literally communism!!!!!!!!!" Bernard Taylor, a local firefighter and paramedic running for Congress in Florida, exclaimed.
NO IT'S NOT! IT'S STATE CAPITALI$M
Sarah K. Burris
August 22, 2025
RAW STORY
Donald Trump raises a fist to the cameras. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
President Donald Trump has wielded his insult machine at Democrats he claims are "socialists" and "communists," but the state purchase of Intel has many, including conservatives, questioning whether he's the real "big government" guy.
On Friday, computer chip manufacturer Intel agreed to allow the government to purchase 10% of its company, making the U.S. government the largest shareholder in the company, NPR reported.
Libertarian Cato Institute vice president Scott Lincicome took to X to list off some of the worst possible outcomes of such a purchase, namely that it is "bad for Intel's long-term viability, as politics, not commercial considerations, increasingly drive its decisions." He added that it's also bad for Intel competitors, because the U.S. is being seen as picking winners and losers. It can also be problematic because Intel doesn't just manufacture computer chips, it has its claws in a number of other businesses.
"Washington will be Intel's single largest shareholder, and have a massive political/financial interest in the company's operations here and abroad. If you think this share will remain passive, I've got an unfinished chip factory in Ohio to sell you," he later added.
"Trump says Intel CEO agreed to give U.S. government $10 billion. Trump implies it’s an equity stake. The irony of his criticism of Democratic-Socialists as communists when, if this is true, its actual government takeover of private industry," said former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks, a co-host of the "Sisters in Law" podcast.
Conservative former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum pointed out, "On the same day, Trump is promoting government ownership of Intel and military patrols of Chicago, New York City, following upon existing military control of Los Angeles and District of Columbia. But apparently only RINOs still care about free enterprise and civilian rule. The conservatives these days get much more excited about the marketing decisions of roadside restaurant chains."
"Trump wants the U.S. government to take a 10% stake in Intel. Make no mistake: Trump’s "state capitalism" has nothing to do with public ownership, socialism, helping the working class, or improving national security. It’s another personal power grab," said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
Dan Shafer, political editor of Civic Media commented, "It's so funny to me that there are all these 'free market' think tanks in Wisconsin and none of them have said a single godd--n thing about tariffs, or the federal government buying a stake in Intel, or any of the very much not free market things happening in the Trump admin."
After Trump teased the idea on Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) lamented, "If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? Terrible idea."
"Small government conservative," wrote Spencer Hakimian, the founder of Tolou Capital Management, his written voice dripping with sarcasm. He later agreed that Trump was a "socialist."
"Trump just announced that the CEO of Intel has agreed to give the US government a 10% stake in the company. That is literally communism!!!!!!!!!" Bernard Taylor, a local firefighter and paramedic running for Congress in Florida, exclaimed.
Trump turns US$11.1B in U.S. government funds into a 10% stake in downtrodden Intel
By The Associated Press
August 22, 2025
By The Associated Press
August 22, 2025
An Intel sign is shown at the chipmaker's global headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif. on Friday, Aug. 8, 2025. (AP Photo/Terry Chea
WASHINGTON – U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday announced the U.S. government has secured a 10 per cent stake in struggling Silicon Valley pioneer Intel in a deal that was completed just a couple weeks after he was depicting the company’s CEO as a conflicted leader unfit for the job.
“The United States of America now fully owns and controls 10 per cent of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,” Trump wrote in a post.
The U.S. government is getting the stake through the conversion of US$11.1 billion in previously issued funds and pledges. All told, the government is getting 433.3 million shares of non-voting stock priced at $20.47 apiece -- a discount from Friday’s closing price at $24.80. That spread means the U.S. government already has a gain of $1.9 billion, on paper.
The remarkable turn of events makes the U.S. government one of Intel’s largest shareholders at a time that the Santa Clara, California, company is i n the process of jettisoning more than 20,000 workers as part of its latest attempt to bounce back from years of missteps taken under a variety of CEOs.Trade War coverage on BNNBloomberg.ca
Intel’s current CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, has only been on the job for slightly more than five months, an d earlier this month, it looked like he might be on shaky ground already after some lawmakers raised national security concerns about his past investments in Chinese companies while he was a venture capitalist. Trump latched on to those concerns in an August 7 post demanding that Tan resign.
But Trump backed off after the Malaysian-born Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, leading to a deal that now has the U.S. government betting that the company is on the comeback trail after losing more than $22 billion since the end of 2023. Trump hailed Tan as “highly respected” CEO in his Friday post.
In a statement, Tan applauded Trump for “driving historic investments in a vital industry” and resolved to reward his faith in Intel. “We are grateful for the confidence the President and the Administration have placed in Intel, and we look forward to working to advance U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership,” Tan said.
Intel’s current stock price is just slightly above where it was when Tan was hired in March and more than 60 per cent below its peak of about $75 reached 25 years ago when its chips were still dominating the personal computer boom before being undercut by a shift to smartphones a few years later. The company’s market value currently stands at about $108 billion - a fraction of the current chip kingpin, Nvidia, which is valued at $4.3 trillion.
The stake is coming primarily through U.S. government grants to Intel through the CHIPS and Science Act that was started under President Joe Biden’s administration as a way to foster more domestic manufacturing of computer chips to lessen the dependence on overseas factories.
But the Trump administration, which has regularly pilloried the policies of the Biden administration, saw the CHIPs act as a needless giveaway and is now hoping to make a profit off the funding that had been pledged to Intel.
“We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said earlier this week. “It’s obvious that it’s the right move to make.”
About $7.8 billion had been been pledged to Intel under the incentives program, but only $2.2 billion had been funded so far. Another $3.2 billion of the government investment is coming through the funds from another program called “Secure Enclave.”
Although U.S. government can’t vote with its shares and won’t have a seat on Intel’s board of directors, critics of the deal view it as a troubling cross-pollination between the public and private sectors that could hurt the tech industry in a variety of ways.
For instance, more tech companies may feel pressured to buy potentially inferior chips from Intel to curry favor with Trump at a time that he is already waging a trade war that threatens to affect their products in a potential scenario cited by Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics for the Cato Institute.
“Overall, it’s a horrendous move that will have real harms for U.S. companies, U.S. tech leadership, and the U.S. economy overall,” Lincicome posted Friday.
The 10 per cent stake could also intensify the pressure already facing Tan, especially if Trump starts fixating on Intel’s stock price while resorting to his penchant for celebrating his past successes in business.
Nancy Tengler, CEO of money manager Laffer Tengler Investments, is among the investors who abandoned Intel years ago because of all the challenges facing Intel.
“I don’t see the benefit to the American taxpayer, nor do I see the benefit, necessarily to the chip industry,” Tengler said while also raising worries about Trump meddling in Intel’s business.
“I don’t care how good of businessman you are, give it to the private sector and let people like me be the critic and let the government get to the business of government.,” Tengler said.
Although rare, it’s not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60 per cent stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM.Latest updates on company news here
The U.S. government’s stake in Intel coincides with Trump’s push to bring production to the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country’s dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence.
Even before gaining the 10 per cent stake in Intel, Trump had been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are powering the AI craze, to pay a 15 per cent commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses.
By Michelle L. Price And Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press
Liedtke reported from San Ramon, California.
WASHINGTON – U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday announced the U.S. government has secured a 10 per cent stake in struggling Silicon Valley pioneer Intel in a deal that was completed just a couple weeks after he was depicting the company’s CEO as a conflicted leader unfit for the job.
“The United States of America now fully owns and controls 10 per cent of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,” Trump wrote in a post.
The U.S. government is getting the stake through the conversion of US$11.1 billion in previously issued funds and pledges. All told, the government is getting 433.3 million shares of non-voting stock priced at $20.47 apiece -- a discount from Friday’s closing price at $24.80. That spread means the U.S. government already has a gain of $1.9 billion, on paper.
The remarkable turn of events makes the U.S. government one of Intel’s largest shareholders at a time that the Santa Clara, California, company is i n the process of jettisoning more than 20,000 workers as part of its latest attempt to bounce back from years of missteps taken under a variety of CEOs.Trade War coverage on BNNBloomberg.ca
Intel’s current CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, has only been on the job for slightly more than five months, an d earlier this month, it looked like he might be on shaky ground already after some lawmakers raised national security concerns about his past investments in Chinese companies while he was a venture capitalist. Trump latched on to those concerns in an August 7 post demanding that Tan resign.
But Trump backed off after the Malaysian-born Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, leading to a deal that now has the U.S. government betting that the company is on the comeback trail after losing more than $22 billion since the end of 2023. Trump hailed Tan as “highly respected” CEO in his Friday post.
In a statement, Tan applauded Trump for “driving historic investments in a vital industry” and resolved to reward his faith in Intel. “We are grateful for the confidence the President and the Administration have placed in Intel, and we look forward to working to advance U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership,” Tan said.
Intel’s current stock price is just slightly above where it was when Tan was hired in March and more than 60 per cent below its peak of about $75 reached 25 years ago when its chips were still dominating the personal computer boom before being undercut by a shift to smartphones a few years later. The company’s market value currently stands at about $108 billion - a fraction of the current chip kingpin, Nvidia, which is valued at $4.3 trillion.
The stake is coming primarily through U.S. government grants to Intel through the CHIPS and Science Act that was started under President Joe Biden’s administration as a way to foster more domestic manufacturing of computer chips to lessen the dependence on overseas factories.
But the Trump administration, which has regularly pilloried the policies of the Biden administration, saw the CHIPs act as a needless giveaway and is now hoping to make a profit off the funding that had been pledged to Intel.
“We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said earlier this week. “It’s obvious that it’s the right move to make.”
About $7.8 billion had been been pledged to Intel under the incentives program, but only $2.2 billion had been funded so far. Another $3.2 billion of the government investment is coming through the funds from another program called “Secure Enclave.”
Although U.S. government can’t vote with its shares and won’t have a seat on Intel’s board of directors, critics of the deal view it as a troubling cross-pollination between the public and private sectors that could hurt the tech industry in a variety of ways.
For instance, more tech companies may feel pressured to buy potentially inferior chips from Intel to curry favor with Trump at a time that he is already waging a trade war that threatens to affect their products in a potential scenario cited by Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics for the Cato Institute.
“Overall, it’s a horrendous move that will have real harms for U.S. companies, U.S. tech leadership, and the U.S. economy overall,” Lincicome posted Friday.
The 10 per cent stake could also intensify the pressure already facing Tan, especially if Trump starts fixating on Intel’s stock price while resorting to his penchant for celebrating his past successes in business.
Nancy Tengler, CEO of money manager Laffer Tengler Investments, is among the investors who abandoned Intel years ago because of all the challenges facing Intel.
“I don’t see the benefit to the American taxpayer, nor do I see the benefit, necessarily to the chip industry,” Tengler said while also raising worries about Trump meddling in Intel’s business.
“I don’t care how good of businessman you are, give it to the private sector and let people like me be the critic and let the government get to the business of government.,” Tengler said.
Although rare, it’s not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60 per cent stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM.Latest updates on company news here
The U.S. government’s stake in Intel coincides with Trump’s push to bring production to the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country’s dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence.
Even before gaining the 10 per cent stake in Intel, Trump had been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are powering the AI craze, to pay a 15 per cent commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses.
By Michelle L. Price And Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press
Liedtke reported from San Ramon, California.
No comments:
Post a Comment