Commentary: When Government Becomes a Shareholder $INTC
Posted By RichC on August 19, 2025
Noticing that my name was mentioned in TheHustings right-column today, I felt it was imperative that I at least voice my conservative concern over the Trump 
administration wanting taxpayers to become non-voting shareholders in Intel ($INTC).
Here are my thoughts; we’ll see if the editors include them?
Intel: When Government Becomes a Shareholder
The Trump administration is reportedly in talks to convert CHIPS Act funding into a roughly 10% non-voting equity stake in Intel ($INTC). On the surface, it makes sense: instead of handing out grants with no expectation of return, taxpayers would at least share in potential upside if the struggling chipmaker turns itself around. That principle of accountability and stewardship resonates with many of us who want government spending tied to measurable outcomes. After all, past administrations have poured billions into “strategic industries” through subsidies and grants – think of green energy ventures during the Obama/Biden years – that left taxpayers holding the bag when companies failed.
The case for involvement is not without merit. Intel’s financial challenges and construction delays in Ohio threaten U.S. ambitions to regain leadership in semiconductor manufacturing. And in a world where supply chains are fragile and adversaries are investing heavily in technology dominance, few would deny that securing chipmaking capacity is a strategic imperative. Even SoftBank’s recent multibillion-dollar investment suggests the private sector still sees value if Intel stabilizes.
But even as conservative Republicans acknowledge the logic, I’m personally concerned about where this path leads. A government equity stake – no matter how “non-voting” it may be – edges uncomfortably close to state capitalism. We fiscal conservatives have long criticized foreign governments for blurring the lines between public authority and private enterprise; it would be unwise to make that our own default playbook. Once Washington starts buying shares in one company, what stops it from expanding that practice into other industries viewed as strategically important?
The balance here is subtle. On the one hand, it is reasonable for taxpayers to receive more than vague promises when billions are at stake. On the other hand, the precedent carries risks of politicization, cronyism and unintended long-term obligations. If this move goes forward, it should come with safeguards: a clear timeline for divestment, strict transparency and an understanding that this is an exceptional case tied to national security – not a template for normal economic policy.
In the end, conservatives can support the principle of protecting national interests and ensuring a return on investment, while still voicing concern that government’s reach into the marketplace not become habitual. Guardrails are essential, because the difference between prudent stewardship and creeping corporatism often comes down to whether we recognize the line before we cross it.
I’ll ever say “intensive” again without remembering this post? 
