The U.S. government acquired a stake in Intel – does that make Trump a statist?

The U.S. government has acquired 10% of Intel ! Yes, you heard that right. The state has become a shareholder in one of the largest technology companies in the world.

And no, this is not just simple financial support. This is a clear strategic decision with huge geopolitical and economic implications.

INTEL IN CRISIS

The truth is that Intel hasn’t been doing so well in recent years, with its revenues on a downward trajectory.

That’s because it seems to have fallen behind technologically compared to its major rival, TSMC, which supplies giants like Apple, Nvidia, and Qualcomm. At the same time, Intel is facing massive delays in its big project: the factory in Ohio, which was promised to become the new “Silicon Heartland.”

This factory, designed to host cutting-edge technology, is now expected to begin operations in 2030! And if that sounds far away, consider that in the world of tech investments, 5 years is an eternity.

And that’s not all: the company’s operating margin is shrinking, while Free Cash Flow continues to fall, just like the stock price—which has lost 50% of its value over the last 5 years.

Recently, the company’s CEO warned employees that “there are no more blank checks,” declaring that Intel will significantly scale back its investment plans. All this points to one thing: Intel is in decline.

But here’s the big “however,” because now it has an unexpected ally: the U.S. government.

With an investment worth $8.9 billion, the U.S. government acquired 10% of the company, buying 433 million shares at a price below market value. A large part of the money comes from the CHIPS Act, with the rest from special funds for secure chip production.

In fact, the government also obtained the right to purchase an additional 5% of the shares if Intel ceases to be the majority owner of its manufacturing division. And all this without even securing a single seat on the board of directors.

So could this support mark a historic turnaround for the company? Possibly. Because in the history of investing, we’ve seen many times when the state acted as the “last lifeline” for giants that later rebounded.

THE GRAND PLAN

But it’s not just Intel ($INTC). This seems to be only the beginning. President Trump himself stated clearly that “he will make deals like this all day long for America.” And it doesn’t stop there.

His goal is to create a full-fledged sovereign wealth fund, the first in U.S. history. This is a model we see in countries like Norway, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia—states that invest their surpluses to strengthen their economies over the long term.

We’re already seeing similar moves, such as the government’s stake in MP Materials, the deal with Apple for U.S. investments, the approval to sell technology to Nvidia and AMD in exchange for a share of profits, as well as the requirement for equity stakes in every company receiving government support.

So this isn’t just politics. It’s a redefinition of how the U.S. economy works.

Of course, this whole U.S. strategy has many supporters as well as critics.

Supporters of this new policy argue that it’s absolutely necessary for reasons of national security. They point out that China and other countries support their companies with state subsidies, so the U.S. must respond in kind to maintain its competitive edge. At the same time, they believe that such measures strengthen U.S. self-sufficiency in critical sectors such as energy, chips, and rare earths—areas essential for national security and technological supremacy. Finally, they argue that these investments will create new jobs and upgrade the country’s infrastructure, leading to an overall economic boost.

On the other hand, critics fear that the state is getting too deeply involved in the economy, potentially distorting the rules of free competition. They believe such interventions open the door to state-dependent giants that survive not because of competitiveness but because of political backing. They also express concern that this sets a dangerous precedent for future governments, which may intervene more and more in markets. Ultimately, they fear these moves could lead to a form of state capitalism—or even elements of “American socialism.”

Posted Using INLEO