Post Reports – "Trump makes the government Intel’s largest investor"

Date: August 26, 2025
Host: Elahe Izadi
Guest: Garrett Devink, Washington Post tech reporter

Episode Overview

In this episode, host Elahe Izadi and tech reporter Garrett Devink break down President Donald Trump’s announcement that the US government will acquire a 10% equity stake in Intel, one of America’s largest technology companies. The discussion delves into the details of this unprecedented move, its implications for the relationship between government and big tech, potential constitutional and market concerns, and reactions from across the political spectrum. The episode also puts this deal into historical context and considers what it means for US industrial policy and the future of tech manufacturing.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Is the Deal?

[00:01–01:55]

• Trump administration announced the US government will acquire 10% of Intel, making it the company’s largest shareholder.
  • "The Trump administration spent almost $9 billion to buy more than 430 million shares of Intel. So the US government is now Intel's largest shareholder."
    — Garrett Devink [01:55]
• The government redirected funds previously allocated to Intel as grants (under the CHIPS Act) for this equity purchase.
  • "You're not getting that money anymore. We're taking it back. And then we're gonna use the same amount of money to buy 10% of Intel."
    — Garrett Devink [02:13]

2. Background: Why Chips? Why Intel?

[02:45–04:01]

• The US seeks to reduce its dependence on Asian—especially Taiwanese—chip manufacturing for national security and economic resilience.
• Prior administrations supported this goal via grants and tax breaks (not ownership), highlighted by the CHIPS and Science Act.
  • "It set aside $52 billion of taxpayer money to incentivize companies to try to build more factories here in the US."
    — Garrett Devink [03:31]

3. Trump’s Different Approach

[04:05–05:58]

• Trump criticized previous “giveaway” policies, advocating direct government ownership to share in both profits and risks.
  • "Now that the US Taxpayer is a direct owner of part of Intel... if the company does well and the stock price goes up, the US Government can then sell those shares and actually make a profit..."
    — Garrett Devink [04:05]
• This move shifts more risk to taxpayers, as Intel’s business struggles could cause losses.
  • "If intel goes out of business or goes bankrupt, that's $10 billion of American taxpayer money that is just going to go up in air."
    — Garrett Devink [05:03]

4. Intel’s Perspective & Market Impact

[05:09–07:42]

• Intel would prefer old funding models; now existing shareholders get diluted, and the government may exercise more control than claimed.
  • "They had to annoy all of their existing shareholders because all the shares that are out there already are now diluted by the stock that the government owns."
    — Garrett Devink [05:28]
• Intel publicly expressed gratitude in a formal statement, but more quietly flagged concerns about potential commercial backlash (e.g., foreign customers’ reactions, pricing).
  • "They said the arrangement could subject the company to backlash if customers don't like that..."
    — Garrett Devink [06:17]
• No strong shareholder opposition—no lawsuits or official objections reported.

5. Intel’s Strategic Importance

[07:57–08:51]

• Intel is uniquely positioned as a domestic chip maker with its own manufacturing capability, unlike Nvidia and others that rely on Asian factories.
  • "Intel is a really important piece of the American strategy for building chips here in the United States again."
    — Garrett Devink [08:33]

6. Similar Deals with Other Tech Firms

[08:51–10:09]

• Trump uses one-on-one negotiations with CEOs (e.g., Nvidia, AMD) to change business practices—sometimes trading regulatory relief for government revenue shares.
  • "The way they work is, you know, big company CEO gets essentially called to the White House through social media...and then a week or two later we have a deal announced."
    — Garrett Devink [09:03]
• Example: US lifted restrictions on Nvidia/AMD’s China sales in exchange for receiving 15% of all their China sales revenue.

7. National Security vs. Economics

[10:09–11:42]

• Moves framed as both national security (outcompete China) and economic security (boost domestic manufacturing, jobs).
  • "It's been a national security argument...It's also an economic argument...so that's been a pretty significant change for [the US]."
    — Garrett Devink [10:23]
• Trump’s personal interventions could disrupt bipartisan progress and policy predictability.

8. Historical Context: How Different Is This?

[12:48–13:15]

• Previous interventions (e.g., GM bailout during 2009 financial crisis) involved temporary government equity, but were more structured and transparent.
  • "[This is] quite unprecedented...it's very rare for the US Government to sort of directly get involved and buy up shares of a company and kind of, you know, start to influence that company's behavior."
    — Garrett Devink [13:37]

9. Conservative and Corporate Concerns

[15:40–16:51]

• Some conservative voices argue this undermines free-market capitalism:
  • "Senator Thom Tillis...said...this starts to sort of open Pandora's box for the government getting involved in companies and for so many of my self described true conservatives..."
    — Garrett Devink [15:50]
  • "You're going to have to explain to me how this reconciles with true conservatism and true free market capitalism."
    — Washington Post Announcer, quoting Republicans [16:05]
• Worry about favoritism, competition distortions—companies may feel pressure to align with government-favored firms.

10. Left-Wing and Populist Responses

[16:51–17:18]

• Policy creates “strange bedfellows”: Bernie Sanders once argued for government equity in exchange for industrial subsidies.
  • "Bernie Sanders...has said that the US Government should have taken a stake in intel when it gave the CHIPS act funding last year."
    — Garrett Devink [16:58]

11. Uncertainty and Lack of Industry Pushback

[17:41–19:46]

• Business leaders express unease with piecemeal, unpredictable policy shifts driven by Trump’s personal decisions.
  • "Policy is changing week to week. It’s unclear which companies are in Donald Trump’s favor, which ones aren’t."
    — Garrett Devink [18:03]
• Notable silence from major tech companies and shareholders, despite being affected.

12. Limits and Legal Challenges

[19:46–20:40]

• While litigation or shareholder opposition could theoretically halt such deals, so far neither have materialized.
• Legality of certain deals (e.g., those involving revenue sharing, foreign operations) questioned but untested in court.
  • "The Nvidia deal in particular was potentially unconstitutional. But again, that requires someone to actually say, hey, I want to fight this fight..."
    — Garrett Devink [20:06]

13. Implications for Broader Policy

[20:40–21:51]

• Likely more deals to come—Trump adviser Kevin Hassett confirmed as much.
• May cause foreign firms (e.g., Samsung, TSMC) to rethink US investments, potentially undermining domestic manufacturing goals.
  • "It might not make sense for Samsung and these other Taiwanese semiconductor companies to take the same deal. Maybe they just stop building their factories and head home."
    — Garrett Devink [21:24]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "The relationship between government and corporate America under Donald Trump has completely changed."
  — Garrett Devink [00:40]

• “Trump really didn’t like the previous arrangement. He felt like the US Was just giving away money to a company without getting anything in return.”
  — Garrett Devink [04:05]

• "Imagine…Intel sold a piece of itself to the government of Germany or the government of China...they would be launching lawsuits...but we haven't seen that."
  — Garrett Devink [07:10]

• "Analysts, people that I've spoken to, are pointing out that from their perspective, once the government starts to favor one company, that sort of warps competition..."
  — Garrett Devink [16:11]

• "There is definitely some strange bedfellows here."
  — Garrett Devink [17:10]
  (on both the populist left and market conservative right having, at times, similar views on state equity stakes.)

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:01–01:55 – Trump’s Intel share purchase announcement and basics
• 02:45–04:01 – The US chip security rationale and CHIPS Act background
• 04:05–05:58 – Shift from grants to ownership; Taxpayer risk
• 07:01–07:42 – Shareholder reaction and comparative hypotheticals
• 09:03–10:09 – Trump’s deals with Nvidia, AMD; mechanism and controversy
• 12:48–13:15 – Bailouts versus direct ownership: how this policy is different
• 15:40–16:51 – Conservative backlash and market distortion worries
• 17:41–19:46 – Business community’s anxiety over unpredictability
• 20:40–21:51 – Outlook on future US–tech sector relations; possible global business fallout

Tone & Style

Throughout the episode, both host Elahe Izadi and guest Garrett Devink maintain a conversational, analytical tone, breaking down complex policy and economic arguments in accessible language. The discussion highlights both the dramatic nature of the government's intervention and the confusion and concern it sows among policymakers and business leaders—often with a sense of disbelief at how rapidly previously sacrosanct norms are being upended.

Summary Takeaway

The Trump administration’s Intel deal marks a major turning point in American industrial and economic policy, positioning the US government as a direct owner of a key private tech company for the first time in decades. While aimed at building domestic manufacturing and competing with China, the move raises deep questions about market fairness, constitutional limits, and the future predictability of US business regulation. With both support and alarm sounding from unexpected corners, the outcome could reshape the boundaries of American capitalism—and the fate of the global tech industry.