Betting taxpayer money on the fading star of Intel could be a big risk for U.S. President Donald Trump.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Gus Carlson is a U.S.-based columnist for The Globe and Mail.
The White House’s interest in making Intel INTC-Q the star of its blockbuster domestic chip-making initiative has generated a new round of head-scratching about what U.S. President Donald Trump is up to.
It’s not that the industrial logic behind the government’s desire to bulk up domestic chip-making doesn’t make sense. It’s the choice of Intel – the struggling tech has-been whose senior-most executive has been demonized for links to China – for the lead role that has raised eyebrows.
Mr. Trump is keenly aware of the U.S. vulnerability to foreign-made chips, particularly its heavy dependence on imports from Taiwan, where the bulk of the world’s chips are made, and that country’s precarious position in U.S. relations with China.
In discussing a potential stake in Intel, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last week the reliance on Taiwan had become a national security concern. “For national security, we have to stop that single point of failure,” he said.
A push to expand U.S. domestic chip production would begin to address that worry. And anointing a leader in the sector is consistent with Mr. Trump’s broader strategy of creating super-companies, or champions, in key industries.
Intel has agreed to a deal for U.S. to take 10% equity stake, Trump says
Bernie Sanders backs Trump administration plan to take stake in Intel and other chipmakers
There’s also a bit of payback involved. The administration is eager to leverage CHIPS and Science Act grants of more than US$50-billion made across the tech sector, including about US$8-billion to Intel, by former president Joe Biden in 2022. On Friday, Mr. Trump said Intel agreed to give the government a roughly 10-per-cent stake in Intel, citing the grants the company received.
But casting Intel in the lead role? The company has struggled for years with weak leadership, a dearth of innovation and sagging value. More recently, the Trump administration called for the resignation of CEO Lip-Bu Tan because of his ties to China.
Intel has fallen behind in the chip race and lagged competitors such as Qualcomm and Nvidia in the emerging mobile and artificial intelligence sectors. Intel’s also-ran status has forced the company to lay off 15 per cent of its staff and push out plans to build a new factory in Ohio until 2030.
To be blunt, Intel is yesterday’s news by almost every measure.
For Mr. Trump, this is a “Sunset Boulevard” moment. Can he take the tech equivalent of Norma Desmond, an aging star whose best days are behind it, and try to recapture its glory days?
Or would he be better off tapping his newfound Big Tech buddies to create something purpose-built to win in a world that has passed Intel by, and continues to accelerate away from it?
Mr. Trump certainly keeps the company who could do the latter quickly, smartly and globally.
Look no further than the stage at his inauguration in January to see the Who’s Who of the U.S. tech world supporting Mr. Trump – Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos – even Elon Musk.
Surely these guys have the chops to create something that would already be ahead of the curve when it opened its doors for business.
A pressing question is whether Intel really has the time or the runway to be great again. Ask anyone who has tried to revitalize a stale or damaged brand and they will tell you it can take as much time and money as building something new – and that’s just to get it back to level.
The challenge is even more intense in tech, where the pace of change is accelerating faster than in other industries – and on a global scale.
And even if Intel had time, how much lipstick would it take to make the company attractive again for investors, customers and particularly high-performing talent, which has abandoned Intel over the years for more innovative companies?
The other wild card in the administration’s designs on Intel is whether taxpayer money – in the form of converted grants, in this case – should be used to try to refloat a leaky boat?
Government has a spotty track record when it sticks its fingers into business in an effort to fix things. There’s a reason the phrase “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” is synonymous with failure.
In the famous 1950 film, it was suggested to Norma Desmond that she used to be big, but time had passed her by. “I am big,” she replied. “It’s the pictures that got small.”
Intel used to be big. But the global tech picture has changed so much and Intel has failed to keep up it is unclear if the company has a role in it any more.
Whether or not the Trump administration can – or should – give Intel one more starring role is questionable.
And betting taxpayer money that government can actually make things better is and always will be a crap shoot.