3 6 Ke·2025-08-26 00:21Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the evolving relationship between the U.S. government and major semiconductor companies like Intel and Nvidia, highlighting the implications of government investments and agreements on corporate governance and market dynamics. Group 1: Intel's Situation - Intel has faced significant challenges recently, including pressure from former President Trump, who publicly called for CEO Pat Gelsinger's resignation due to alleged conflicts of interest [2] - Following negotiations with Trump, Intel announced a "mixed reform" that allowed for government investment, which is seen as a sign of confidence from the Trump administration in Intel's role in the U.S. semiconductor industry [2][4] - The investment consists of $5.7 billion in unallocated funds from the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion from the Secure Enclave program, both initiated under the Biden administration [3][4] Group 2: Government's Role and Influence - The U.S. government will not have board seats or governance rights in Intel but retains a five-year warrant to purchase an additional 5% of Intel's common stock if the company's foundry business ownership falls below 51% [4] - This arrangement reflects a broader trend of the U.S. government seeking to control semiconductor trade and ensure manufacturing remains in the U.S. [5] Group 3: Nvidia's Agreement - Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang managed to secure approval from the Trump administration to sell H20 chips to China after negotiations that included a 15% revenue share to the U.S. government [8][9] - This revenue-sharing model has raised questions about legality, with some analysts likening it to an export tax, although it is framed as voluntary by the companies involved [10] Group 4: Industry Reactions and Implications - Other semiconductor companies, such as TSMC and Micron, have expressed concerns about the implications of government investments and the potential for similar arrangements [13] - The article suggests that the U.S. is moving towards a form of "national capitalism," where government involvement in private enterprises is increasing, drawing comparisons to practices in China [17][18]