Musk sued Apple and OpenAI claiming iPhone AI conspiracy, but his own Grok hit #1 in February. The case tests whether platform integration equals unfair advantage—a fight that could reshape how AI reaches users.
First survey of 283 AI benchmarks exposes systematic flaws undermining evaluation: data contamination inflating scores, cultural biases creating unfair assessments, missing process evaluation. The measurement crisis threatens deployment decisions.
Brave discovered Perplexity's AI browser executes hidden malicious commands from web pages, bypassing decades of security protections. As every major browser adds AI agents, enterprises rush to buy secure alternatives.
Trump swaps Intel's CHIPS grants for 9.9% equity stake worth $8.9B—largest federal ownership since 2008. But former program architects warn: Intel needs customers, not capital. Will government ownership solve foundry crisis or create new conflicts?
💡 TL;DR - The 30 Seconds Version
👉 Trump converts Intel's remaining CHIPS Act grants into 9.9% government equity stake worth $8.9 billion, largest federal ownership since 2008 auto bailouts.
📊 Deal emerged rapidly after Trump criticized CEO over China ties, with government purchasing 433 million shares at $20.47 each using unpaid grant money.
🏭 Intel's foundry lost $13 billion last year with virtually no external customers for advanced processes, making customer acquisition the core challenge.
⚖️ Former CHIPS architects argue equity ownership creates governance conflicts while failing to address Intel's fundamental demand problem.
🌍 Move may strain competition with Samsung and TSMC as government becomes market participant rather than neutral referee in chip industry.
🚀 Success depends on Intel winning major customers for 18A and 14A processes, not government ownership or additional capital access.
A White House that scorns subsidies just turned them into stock. The Trump administration is swapping Intel’s remaining CHIPS Act grants for a 9.9% equity stake worth $8.9 billion—one of the largest federal footholds in a U.S. company since 2008—according to a detailed Times account of the equity deal. Backers call it “skin in the game.” The architects of CHIPS call it the wrong tool.
The government will buy roughly 433 million Intel shares at $20.47 each and hold them passively, with no board seat or special information rights. A five-year warrant allows up to another 5% if Intel ever owns less than 51% of its foundry. That clause matters if Intel spins or sells assets.
The equity swap also appears to push aside core CHIPS guardrails. Milestone-based disbursements and upside-sharing mechanisms—designed to pay taxpayers when profits surge—give way to cash up front and a perpetual stake. That’s a sharp pivot. It could prove costly if execution slips.
Intel’s problem is demand, not capital. Its foundry has struggled to win external volume for 18A—and leaders have said 14A cannot be sustained without outside customers. That is the heart of the business case.
Designers from Apple to Nvidia have spent years tuning products to TSMC’s processes. Switching fabs means re-engineering risk, yield uncertainty, and fresh toolchains—costs no equity deal erases. Volume pays for leading-edge fabs. Without it, unit costs stay high. Full stop.
Former CHIPS officials Mike Schmidt and Todd Fisher argue the government misdiagnosed the disease. Capital was never scarce—recent private injections, including a $2 billion SoftBank deal, show money will show up for credible plans. Their critique is simple: If the bottleneck is customers, buy demand, not shares. They have a point.
This move reframes CHIPS from a milestone-tied industrial policy to state ownership. That invites entanglements. If Intel cuts jobs, does Washington look like it profits from layoffs? When Commerce sets chip rules, is it a referee or a shareholder? Markets notice incentives. So do allies and rivals.
There’s also the statute. Lawyers and bankers warn the CHIPS Act may not permit converting grants into equity. Even if courts never weigh in, the mere cloud raises execution risk for Intel projects that depend on predictable public funding. Process certainty is an asset. This undermines it.
A federal shareholder in Intel strains the “level playing field” pitch to Samsung and TSMC as they expand U.S. fabs. Those firms already receive incentives; Intel now has a sovereign co-investor. Expect calls for parity or carve-outs. That’s the slippery part.
Markets, however, like backstops. Intel shares jumped on the announcement, reflecting an implied “too-big-to-fail” put. That lowers perceived downside. It doesn’t raise yields, win sockets, or accelerate PDKs. Engineering still decides.
If resilience is the goal, Washington has cleaner tools than equity. Tie tax credits to dual-sourcing on U.S. soil. Use Defense and civil agencies to place take-or-pay orders at leading nodes, contingent on yield and on-time delivery. Offer time-boxed customer bounties that sunset as volume builds. That buys learning curves.
Keep the milestones. Keep the clawbacks. Keep the money behind performance gates that align national security with operational reality. Grants can do that. Shares can’t.
First, binding commercial orders. Announcements aren’t purchase orders; watch for take-or-pay volumes at 18A/14A and for named top-tier customers. Second, governance drift. A “passive” stake can still pressure policy choices at home and invite retaliation abroad. Third, the warrant trigger. Any foundry restructuring will now play out under federal options.
Equity could still produce a financial return if Intel executes, and a federal stake may strengthen political will when future appropriations get messy. That is not nothing. But returns to the Treasury are not the mission. Secure capacity is.
And equity creates new failure modes—politicized capital allocation, litigation risk, and partner distrust—without solving the core adoption hurdle. That’s a trade-off, not a free lunch.
Why this matters:
Q: Is it legal for the government to convert CHIPS grants into equity stakes?
A: Multiple lawyers and bankers who studied the CHIPS Act say it may not authorize converting grants into equity. The original law was structured around milestone-based grants with upside-sharing provisions, not government ownership. This legal uncertainty could complicate Intel's project execution and future funding predictability.
Q: What does the 5% warrant clause mean for Intel?
A: The government gets a five-year option to buy another 5% of Intel shares at $20 per share if Intel ever owns less than 51% of its foundry business. This essentially gives Washington veto power over any foundry spin-off or sale, ensuring government control over Intel's most strategically important division.
Q: How does this compare to other government bailouts?
A: At $8.9 billion, this ranks among the largest federal interventions since 2008, when the government spent over $80 billion bailing out GM and Chrysler. Unlike those crisis-driven rescues, Intel isn't bankrupt—it recently raised $2 billion from SoftBank, showing private capital remains available.
Q: Why can't Intel find customers for its advanced manufacturing?
A: Major chip designers like Apple, Nvidia, and Qualcomm have spent years optimizing their products for TSMC's proven processes. Switching to Intel requires extensive re-engineering, yield uncertainty, and new toolchains. Intel's 18A node has zero major external customers, while TSMC serves over 500 clients globally.
Q: Does this change the deal for other companies receiving CHIPS funding?
A: Other CHIPS recipients like TSMC and Samsung still operate under the original grant structure with milestone requirements and upside-sharing. Intel's equity conversion creates an uneven playing field—foreign competitors now face a U.S. government-backed rival. This could prompt demands for similar treatment or policy changes.
Tech giants successfully pushed Trump's White House to restrict funding for states with "restrictive" AI rules, while 1,000+ state bills flood legislatures. Colorado's pioneering law faces major revisions. The battle over who controls AI regulation is heating up.
Nick Clegg left Meta weeks before tech titans lined up at Trump's inauguration—timing he says wasn't coincidental. The former UK deputy PM warns AI power is concentrating without voter consent, creating a democracy problem few see coming.
Silicon Valley tech leaders panic online about NYC's socialist mayoral nominee, but 200 executives who met Zohran Mamdani in person tell a different story. The geographic divide reveals how distance distorts political risk assessment in tech.
While 23-year-old Leopold Aschenbrenner raises $1.5B betting AGI arrives by 2027, reality tells a different story. ChatGPT-5 underwhelmed, DeepSeek retreated to Nvidia chips, and energy demands threaten to outpace infrastructure.
Get the 5-minute Silicon Valley AI briefing, every weekday morning — free.
