White House confirms talks to acquire 10% stake in Intel — 'We should get an equity stake for our money'

Intel logo
(Image credit: Getty / Justin Sullivan)

U.S Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has confirmed in an interview that the White House is in talks with Intel to acquire a 10% stake in the company. Lutnick confirmed this in a live interview with CNBC, saying that the government wants the grants given to the company under the CHIPS Act to be converted into equity. Secretary Lutnick also reiterated that the U.S. must manufacture its own chips domestically.

“America should get the benefit of the bargain; that is exactly Donald Trump’s perspective, which is, ‘Why are we giving a company worth $100 billion this kind of money? What are (sic) in it for the American taxpayer?’ And the answer Donald Trump has is, ‘We should get an equity stake for our money,’” Lutnick said. “So, we’ll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden Administration. We’ll get equity in return for it; get a good return for the American taxpayer, instead of just giving grants away. Donald Trump views [that] we should get benefits for the economics that we put out.”

At the moment, Intel has only received $2.2 billion of the promised $7.86 billion under the CHIPS Act. It’s unclear if the government will release the remaining balance in one fell swoop if it gets the 10% equity stake, but a move like that would benefit the cash-strapped company, possibly allowing it to speed up the construction of its Ohio fab. Aside from that, Lutnick says that the proposed equity stake does not come with any governance provisions, so Intel’s board would still be in charge of the direction that the company is taking. This will not be a golden ticket for Intel, though, as it would still need a path to profitability, even if it gets the extra cash from Washington. We've reached out to Intel for comment on this latest development.

TOPICS
Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • logainofhades
    Not unusual really. The US government had for more shares of GM, like nearly 61%, after the bailouts in 2008. 10% is small potatoes.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Wasn't the chips act supposed to be an incentive for companies to build stuff in the US?
    How is losing a decent percentage of your company an incentive?!?!
    Nobody is going to take them up on that, if the gov want to buy stocks then go ahead, they are free to anybody.

    Also depending on how the chips act is worded I would not be surprised if companies could sue the gov for backing out/altering the deal.
    Reply
  • SonoraTechnical
    Isn't this a form of socialism? Gov't ownership of this stuff? Just askin'
    Reply
  • American2021
    Governments commonly invest in publicly traded companies, often through state-owned enterprises or sovereign wealth funds. There are upsides when done correctly, in a way that achieves a reasonable return on investment. However, there are downsides as well. Perhaps the two greatest are 1) incompetence of government employees doing the investing and 2) politically motivated investing that goes awry. An example would be the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contribution to the 2008 housing market collapse.

    A separate but related discussion would be around the politically motivated gifting of taxpayer dollars through agencies such as the USAID which DOGE revealed was a slimy can of worms.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    SonoraTechnical said:
    Isn't this a form of socialism? Gov't ownership of this stuff? Just askin'

    Not when they have 0 voting power, or governance provisions.
    Reply
  • HairyApe911
    It is 1000% socialism. I do not want big brother being vested in a tech company. Too much conflict of interest is going on, but what do I know?
    Reply
  • HairyApe911
    logainofhades said:
    Not when they have 0 voting power, or governance provisions.
    They do not need voting power. They can easily own anyone on the board through blackmail.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    HairyApe911 said:
    They do not need voting power. They can easily own anyone on the board through blackmail.
    Why do they need a share in the company if they can do this anyway?!?
    Reply
  • HairyApe911
    TerryLaze said:
    Why do they need a share in the company if they can do this anyway?!?
    With a 10% stake, that means they have more power, and legally. Without it, they can still operate as they wish, but through secrecy. It makes things more difficult. My point is that we are screwed either way, and I am not in favor of letting big brother come through the door any further than needed. Not sure why that is difficult to understand. This could spill over into other companies too.

    In regards to the CHIPS act; that keeps America in a "capitalism with incentives mode", while a 10% stake would move us in a direction of state capitalism. Which is creeping into socialism, and not a good look. Government is already corrupt we don't need to give them more tools.
    Reply
  • phead128
    US govt is prepping for Intel Foundry Sale, with 10% stake, gives US govt a seat on the high table to advocate for continuation the manufacturing focused agenda for the spinned off entity. At minimum, the spinned off entity has to continue manufacturing agenda, in order to satisfy CHIPS ACT requirements.
    Reply