U.S. Buys 10% of Intel: Lifeline for Chip Revival or Taxpayer Money Into a Sinking Ship?

WATCH: Bitcoin $200K? The math behind the next crypto supercycle.

Intel’s future has taken another unusual turn. On Friday, the Trump administration announced the U.S. government would purchase a near-10% equity stake in Intel (INTC) worth $8.9 billion, making Washington the chipmaker’s largest single investor. The deal represents one of the most direct government interventions in a U.S. corporate giant since the 2008 financial crisis and underscores the administration’s desire to secure domestic semiconductor manufacturing. While the cash infusion offers Intel breathing room as it ramps up its foundry ambitions, the arrangement raises critical questions about shareholder dilution, Intel’s execution challenges, and whether taxpayer money is being funneled into a business that has yet to prove it can compete with global leaders like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSMC) and Nvidia.

Terms of the Deal

The government will acquire 433.3 million new Intel shares at $20.47 each, equivalent to a 9.9% stake. Because these are primary shares, not secondary shares acquired on the open market, the issuance is dilutive to existing shareholders. The government’s stake will be funded by $5.7 billion in unpaid CHIPS Act grants and $3.2 billion from the Department of Defense’s Secure Enclave program. Intel noted the investment is passive: Washington will not gain board seats or information rights and has agreed to vote alongside Intel management on most shareholder matters. In addition, the government secured warrants that could allow it to raise its ownership to 15% if Intel’s foundry unit falls below 51% ownership by the parent company in the future.

Dilution vs. Cash Support

From a purely financial perspective, the issuance of nearly 10% new stock dilutes Intel’s existing equity base. That said, Intel’s stock initially rallied on the announcement, reflecting relief that the company had secured significant capital at a time when its foundry business is losing billions of dollars annually. Unlike grants, which are milestone-based and conditional, equity capital is upfront and unconditional. Critics argue this puts Intel at a cost disadvantage relative to peers such as TSMC, which receive direct subsidies without handing over equity. For Intel’s long-suffering shareholders, the deal may represent a short-term confidence boost but also a structural reduction in ownership value per share.

The Strategic Context

This investment comes just days after Japan’s SoftBank agreed to take a $2 billion stake in Intel, underscoring the company’s need for external backing. SoftBank’s involvement carries potential strategic upside, given its majority ownership of Arm Holdings, a critical player in chip design. If Arm or other SoftBank affiliates were to utilize Intel’s manufacturing processes, that could provide the validation Intel desperately needs for its next-generation foundry technologies. Still, no such customer commitment has yet materialized.

Intel’s foundry division remains its Achilles’ heel. The unit lost more than $13 billion last year and has secured only limited external orders. Without major customers for its advanced 18A and upcoming 14A process nodes, Intel cannot justify the massive capital expenditures required to compete with TSMC and Samsung. CEO Lip-Bu Tan has positioned the government investment as a vote of confidence in U.S. chip leadership, but the harder truth is that Intel needs customers, not just cash.

Risks of State Capitalism

The government’s equity ownership raises novel policy risks. If Intel struggles, taxpayers are directly exposed. If the company cuts jobs, questions will arise about whether Washington is profiting from layoffs. And if the government is simultaneously setting industrial policy while owning a stake in one of the players, competitors like TSMC or Samsung may view the playing field as unfairly tilted. Moreover, the conversion of milestone-based CHIPS grants into unconditional equity removes safeguards that had been designed to protect taxpayer money and ensure Intel met performance targets before receiving funds.

A Potential Sinkhole?

The stakes are high. On one hand, Intel’s ability to produce leading-edge chips domestically is undeniably in the national security interest. On the other hand, pouring billions into a struggling foundry business that has yet to prove its competitiveness risks repeating the mistakes of past industrial policy, where government money propped up declining businesses without fixing structural flaws. If Intel fails to win customers and close the technology gap with rivals, the U.S. could end up as a major shareholder in a declining asset—a politically awkward and economically costly outcome.

Conclusion

Intel’s government-backed capital injection provides short-term liquidity and symbolic support for U.S. chip independence. But the dilutive impact on shareholders, the lack of external foundry customers, and the policy risks of state equity ownership make this a highly unconventional—and risky—experiment in industrial policy. Unless Intel can translate this new capital into tangible operational improvements and customer wins, the deal may go down less as a bold step forward in semiconductor resilience and more as the U.S. sinking billions into a foundry business that cannot compete.