What's New

In an interview published Monday by Fortune, President Trump openly admitted he underplayed his hand with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan. Trump's words: he asked for "10% ownership for free," Tan said "you have a deal," and Trump's reaction was, in his own words, "S---, I should have asked for more."

Intel's Numbers Since the Deal

Intel's stock is up more than 300% since the stake was announced in August 2025, according to CNBC. April was Intel's best single month in the company's 55-year history on the Nasdaq, with the stock more than doubling that month alone.

The government's entry price: $20.47 per share for 433.3 million shares, a total investment of $8.9 billion — funded by converting CHIPS Act grants that had already been awarded but not yet paid, plus $3.2 billion from the Pentagon's Secure Enclave program, according to NPR.

Apple and Intel reportedly reached a preliminary agreement for Intel to manufacture chips for Apple devices. Elon Musk said in April he plans to use Intel chips for his $119 billion Terafab project. Bank of America predicts the CPU market could more than double by 2030.

Expanding the Model

White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told CNBC this week that Intel is a "very, very special" circumstance — but then added that "there'll be more transactions, if not in this industry, then other industries."

That's a direct signal from a sitting White House official that the U.S. government intends to acquire equity stakes in more American private companies. Not loans. Not grants. Ownership.

The Backlash — From the Right

Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, posted on X in direct response to Hassett: "ARE you effing kidding me? We are going past 1984 into Animal Farm territory at this point. Did anyone vote for this?"

Daniel Di Martino, a fellow at the right-of-center Manhattan Institute, warned that government ownership will breed cronyism — that companies "will underperform because they know they will be bailed out" — and that "taxpayers will lose billions."

Conservative talk show host Erick Erickson put it bluntly, according to CBS News: "You can't just be against socialism when the left does it. If you support socialism, apparently Donald Trump is your guy."

Scott Lincicome, vice president at the libertarian Cato Institute, called out the Intel deal specifically — noting that Intel hasn't just struggled for a few years but has been underperforming for decades, making the government's bet a risky one regardless of recent stock gains.

The Administration's Argument

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick framed it simply to CNBC: "We should get an equity stake for our money. We'll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden administration. We'll get equity in return for it."

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed that, saying the government is taking stakes "to ensure that the United States government is making our country wealthy again."

The mechanics are straightforward: the CHIPS Act money was already committed. Getting equity instead of just writing grants with no return is fiscally smarter on paper. Hassett's statement about "more transactions" in "other industries," however, goes well beyond restructuring pre-committed grant money.

The Broader Industrial Policy Question

Left-leaning outlets like NPR and CBS News are correctly flagging the government overreach concern — but they're framing it primarily as a Trump-specific power grab.

The CHIPS Act itself — the Biden-era legislation that created the grant pool now being converted to equity — was already a massive government intervention in private industry. Trump took Biden's industrial policy and made it more aggressive. That's the actual through-line, and it crosses party lines.

The Long-Term Risk

Intel's 300% stock surge makes this look like a success right now. Government equity in private companies, however, creates a conflict of interest that doesn't disappear in a bull market — it just hides.

When the government owns a piece of Intel, it has an incentive to protect Intel through policy: tariffs, procurement rules, regulatory barriers against competitors. Trump told Fortune that Intel "would be the biggest company in the world" if he'd been in office earlier to block Chinese chips with tariffs.

If this model spreads to "other industries" as Hassett suggested, American companies will compete not on merit but on proximity to Washington. Companies will benefit from tariffs, procurement preferences, and regulatory protection — the definition of cronyism. And it won't matter which party is in power.