Commentary by Rich Corbett
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 US 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.
Contributing Pundit Corbett writes about myriad subjects at his MyDesultoryBlog.
_____________________________________________
What is (The) Right Today?
Our right column is reflective of the long-going split among American conservatives. Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay always has been a never-Trumper conservative, while Contributing Pundit Rich Corbett remains a fervent pro-MAGA Republican.
This dichotomy will provide for some very interesting discussions in this column in the coming weeks and months as the Trump White House continues to make moves that look very much like state capitalism, such as potentially taking 10% of Intel stock (as described in the center column news aggregate).
Scroll down to the bottom of this page with the trackbar on the far-right to read Macaulay’s “Who Is the Real Radical?”
Further up the page is Macaulay’s commentary on President Trump’s meeting with Russian dictator/President Vladimir Putin, in Alaska last Friday, “Monty Hall Would Shake His Head in Disbelief.”
Amidst these commentaries is “America’s Future is Bright,” by Corbett, also an easy scroll down the page.
Submit your own COMMENTS on these columns and/or issues, with an email to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line so we may post your comments in the appropriate column. –Editors