The United States has acquired a 10% stake in Intel. Some argue the investment serves national security by preserving domestic chip capacity essential for AI and the broader economy. High-end chip production remains concentrated at TSMC in Taiwan, creating strategic vulnerability to China. Supporters claim propping up Intel is preferable to losing onshore semiconductor capability. Officials are considering similar equity arrangements with defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin. The move raises concerns about precedent, political motivations, and whether equity stakes will prioritize strategic resilience or presidential leverage over private markets.
Ben Thompson thinks it's the right call. Or, to be more precise, the influential tech analyst thinks not doing it would be disastrous. Thompson's argument, boiled down: Chips are crucial for AI and everything else; the US and everyone else are currently dependent on high-end chips manufactured by TSMC in Taiwan; TSMC and Taiwan are vulnerable to China, which means the US is vulnerable to China.
"At the end of the day it seems reckless for the US to place both its national security and its entire economy in the hands of foreign countries next door to China," he writes. So even if there are lots of issues with the US owning a stake in Intel, and actively propping it up, he argues, it's better than Intel not existing at all.
So what happens when Trump repeats the same thing with other companies? Because that seems quite likely. Trump officials like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are already floating the idea of doing similar deals with American defense contractors like Lockheed Martin. That would make sense since the company is already "basically an arm of the US government," Lutnick said Tuesday. And again, maybe there's a smart argument for similar deals in other crucial American industries.
Collection
[
|
...
]