Last week, Wall Street was abuzz with news that the U.S. government had taken nearly a 10% stake in Intel Corp. with an $8.9 billion investment. While that makes for a sensational headline, the details are more nuanced.
Intel has had a rough few years compared with competitors like NVIDIA and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. The company attempted to both design and fabricate semiconductors but ultimately struggled to do either effectively.
Intel was previously awarded $5.7 billion in CHIPS Act grants, though those funds had not yet been distributed. Enacted in August 2022, the CHIPS and Science Act was designed to strengthen the U.S. semiconductor industry and passed in response to pandemic-era supply chain concerns. The law provides $52.7 billion in federal funding, plus $24 billion in tax incentives, to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing, research, and workforce development.
Although the grants were intended to jumpstart U.S. semiconductor production, Intel’s case became high profile because President Trump requested something in return: stock shares. At $20.47 per share, the U.S. government acquired a 9.9% stake in the company, making it Intel’s largest investor. The remainder of the “purchase” was funded by a $3.2 billion award from the Secure Enclave national security program, an initiative under the CHIPS Act supporting domestic manufacturing of advanced semiconductors for defense and security applications.
The U.S. government has a long history of investing in or subsidizing private industry when it believes national competitiveness, security, or economic growth are at stake. When an industry is deemed critical to national security or vital to improving America’s position in the global market, the government has stepped in with grants, loans, tax incentives, or even equity stakes. The CHIPS Act fits into a long lineage of U.S. industrial policy. Proponents see the grants as essential for protecting national security and revitalizing U.S. manufacturing. Critics argue they amount to corporate subsidies, with no guarantee of long-term success or independence from global supply chains.
Though uncommon in recent decades, government industrial interventions have precedents, including land grants for railroads in the 1800s, U.S. Post Office airmail contracts that subsidized fledgling airlines in the early 1900s, NASA contracts that funded private aerospace firms to build rockets and satellites in the 1960s, and the government bailout of GM and Chrysler during the Great Financial Crisis.
The global shutdown during the COVID-19 pandemic provided fresh impetus to bring manufacturing back to the United States, ensuring reliable access to critical technologies, components, and other essential products.
Although the U.S. has long championed free markets, in practice it often blends capitalism with strategic state intervention, particularly when competing with nations such as China, South Korea, and members of the European Union, all of which heavily subsidize their industries.
The Intel deal underscores a broader shift: the U.S. is no longer content to rely solely on market forces to shape critical industries. Instead, it is positioning itself as both regulator and investor to guarantee access to the technologies that underpin national security and economic growth. Whether this new era of industrial policy succeeds in restoring American leadership in semiconductors remains to be seen—but the message is clear. In a world where competitors deploy aggressive subsidies, the U.S. is now prepared to put its own capital at risk to stay in the game.
If you have questions on how this may affect your portfolio, the experts at Henssler Financial will be glad to help:
- Experts Request Form
- Email: experts@henssler.com
- Phone: 770-429-9166
Listen to the September 6, 2025 “Henssler Money Talks” episode.
This article is for demonstrative and academic purposes and is meant to provide valuable background information on particular investments, NOT a recommendation to buy. The investments referenced within this article may currently be traded by Henssler Financial. All material presented is compiled from sources believed to be reliable and current, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The contents are intended for general information purposes only. Information provided should not be the sole basis in making any decisions and is not intended to replace the advice of a qualified professional, such as a tax consultant, insurance adviser or attorney. Although this material is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with respect to the subject matter, it may not apply in all situations. Readers are urged to consult with their adviser concerning specific situations and questions. This is not to be construed as an offer to buy or sell any financial instruments. It is not our intention to state, indicate or imply in any manner that current or past results are indicative of future profitability or expectations. As with all investments, there are associated inherent risks. Please obtain and review all financial material carefully before investing. Henssler is not licensed to offer or sell insurance products, and this overview is not to be construed as an offer to purchase any insurance products.