In an Aug. 25 post [1] captioned “The Art of the Deal: Intel,” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said the president decided it would be “fair” if “America had shares” in Intel in exchange for the monetary support, which in total comes to $11.1 billion.What the Trump administration has done is rewritten the terms of the deal.The company has been paid $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants but needed to meet certain milestones to receive the remaining $6 billion, which was looking unlikely.The 2022 CHIPS and Science ...

All right. On happier times, call it the Trump effect. That's the subject of the riff. That's right.The Trump effect on the economy. Now, true enough, the ink is barely dry on the one big beautiful bill. And the impact of that in its entirety is really going to boost factory building and the bluecollar boom next year.But some of the business tax cuts are retroactive to January 1 of this year. So, American business already hard at work buying new equipment and machinery and various information, software, and ...

Core Points - The US government is taking a 9.9% stake in Intel, investing $8.9 billion primarily funded by grants from the CHIPS and Science Act, making it the largest single investor in the company [7] - The deal represents a significant departure from traditional GOP views on free market capitalism, garnering mixed reactions across the political spectrum [2][3] - Progressive figures like Bernie Sanders have expressed cautious support for the investment, advocating for additional policies to ensure taxpayer interests are protected [11][12] Investment Details - The investment of $8.9 billion is aimed at bolstering semiconductor manufacturing in the US, aligning with the goals of the CHIPS and Science Act [7] - The deal was initiated after a meeting between Trump and Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, following Trump's call for Tan's resignation due to concerns over his connections to Chinese companies [8] Political Reactions - Some Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul, criticize the deal as a move towards socialism and government overreach in the market [3] - Progressive lawmakers, while supportive of the stake, emphasize the need for conditions such as labor neutrality agreements and restrictions on stock buybacks to protect American jobs [12][14] Future Implications - Economic advisors to Trump suggest that this could be the first of many similar investments across various industries, indicating a potential shift in government investment strategy [9] - The proposal echoes earlier suggestions from Sanders and Warren regarding government equity stakes in companies benefiting from federal funding [10]