In a move that’s upending decades of economic orthodoxy, the U.S. government is poised to become a major shareholder in Intel, one of the world’s largest semiconductor companies. The plan, announced on August 19, 2025, by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, would see previously allocated Biden-era CHIPS and Science Act funds converted into a 10% equity stake in Intel—potentially making Uncle Sam the chipmaker’s largest shareholder. This follows a string of bold maneuvers by President Trump’s administration to inject the government directly into the affairs of America’s most vital tech firms, aiming to secure both national security and a better deal for taxpayers.
“We should get an equity stake for our money,” Lutnick declared on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.” He explained, “So we’ll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden administration. We’ll get equity in return for it, get a good return for the American taxpayer instead of just giving grants away.” These remarks came as Intel’s shares soared nearly 7% on the news, reflecting optimism—if not a little surprise—on Wall Street about the government’s new hands-on approach.
The plan is simple in theory: rather than handing out billions in grants to chipmakers, as was the norm under the Biden administration, the Trump administration wants the government to receive nonvoting equity stakes in exchange. “It’s not governance, we’re just converting what was a grant under Biden into equity for the Trump administration, for the American people,” Lutnick clarified, emphasizing that the government would not seek voting or governance rights at Intel.
Bloomberg reported just a day earlier that the White House was discussing a 10% stake, while SoftBank, the Japanese conglomerate, announced its own $2 billion investment—about 2% of Intel—making it the company’s fifth-largest shareholder. If the U.S. government’s stake goes through, it would dwarf even SoftBank’s position, signaling a new era of public-private partnership in America’s tech sector.
This isn’t a one-off, either. Lutnick hinted that President Trump could seek similar arrangements with other recipients of CHIPS Act funding. “Donald Trump turns that into saying, ‘Hey, we want equity for the money. If we’re going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action,’” Lutnick told CNBC. The message: the days of no-strings-attached subsidies are over.
The context for this policy shift is the fierce global competition for semiconductor supremacy. The U.S. has long relied on companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) and Samsung to produce the most advanced chips, but recent geopolitical tensions have exposed the risks of such dependence. Lutnick was blunt about this reality, telling CNBC, “We’d like an American transistor built in America.” He added that the administration would “fix infrastructure that China competed away” and that the U.S. “must handle the Chinese risk.”
Intel, for its part, has been on a spending spree, pouring billions into a new factory complex near Columbus, Ohio—dubbed the “Silicon Heartland.” The first factory is now scheduled to start operations in 2030, funded in part by a nearly $8 billion grant from the CHIPS and Science Act. Yet, as CEO Lip-Bu Tan admitted in July, there would be “no more blank checks,” and Intel has slowed construction depending on market conditions. The company has also struggled to capitalize on the artificial intelligence boom, lagging behind rivals like Nvidia and AMD.
Speaking of rivals, the Trump administration’s interventionist streak doesn’t stop at Intel. In a move that stunned both Wall Street and Washington, the U.S. government recently brokered a deal requiring Nvidia and AMD to remit 15% of their revenues from sales of certain AI chips to China directly to the U.S. government. This arrangement, which allows the companies to re-enter the lucrative Chinese market in exchange for export licenses, is unprecedented in American economic policy. It’s also made waves in the stock market, with shares of both Nvidia and AMD closing moderately lower after the announcement amid investor uncertainty about the long-term impact.
Analysts have offered mixed views on the revenue-sharing deal. Ben Barringer, a global technology analyst at Quilter Cheviot, observed, “From an investor perspective, it’s still a net positive, 85% of the revenue is better than zero.” But others, like George Chen of The Asia Group, warned that “the question will be whether Nvidia and AMD adjust their prices by 15% to account for the levy.” Neil Shah of Counterpoint Research described the revenue cut as an “indirect tariff at source,” raising fears of a slippery slope if such deals spread beyond semiconductors.
Geopolitical implications abound. China has voiced concerns about security vulnerabilities in Nvidia’s chips—particularly the potential for “backdoors” that could be exploited for national security purposes. The Chinese government, however, has yet to comment officially on the revenue-sharing agreement as of August 19, 2025.
Meanwhile, the drama at Intel has had its own share of intrigue. Less than two weeks before the equity stake announcement, President Trump publicly called for CEO Lip-Bu Tan’s resignation, citing alleged conflicts of interest due to Tan’s investments in Chinese companies and his prior role at Cadence Design Systems. That company recently pleaded guilty to violating export controls by selling chip design technology to a Chinese military university during Tan’s tenure. Yet after a meeting with Tan at the White House last week, Trump’s tone softened. “The meeting was a very interesting one. His success and rise is an amazing story,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Mr. Tan and my Cabinet members are going to spend time together, and bring suggestions to me during the next week.”
Intel declined to comment on the ongoing equity stake discussions. For now, the company is focused on its ambitious U.S. expansion plans and on weathering the rapid changes in both market conditions and government policy. Lutnick, for his part, remains optimistic, expressing a desire for “Intel to be successful in America” and praising the leadership at Nvidia as well.
As the government’s intervention in the semiconductor industry deepens, experts are debating whether this new model of economic statecraft will secure America’s technological future or risk distorting markets in ways that echo the very Chinese model it seeks to counter. With international agreements with Japan and Korea reportedly just weeks away, and infrastructure improvements on the horizon, the stakes for U.S. industry—and taxpayers—have rarely been higher.
One thing’s for sure: the old rules of the chip game are being rewritten, and the world is watching how America’s bold new play unfolds.
