Sign In
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
New Delhi: The U.S. government is weighing a dramatic shift in its approach to semiconductor subsidies. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has confirmed that Washington is considering taking equity stakes in major chip companies that benefit from the $52.7 billion CHIPS and Science Act.
This means firms like Intel, Micron, Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) could face a new condition: share ownership in exchange for federal support. The move comes as the Trump administration pushes for greater accountability and national security safeguards while distributing billions in taxpayer-funded grants.
The idea gained traction after reports surfaced that Lutnick is negotiating a deal for the U.S. to acquire a 10 percent stake in Intel in exchange for grant money. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the talks, saying, “The president wants to put America’s needs first, both from a national security and economic perspective, and it’s a creative idea that has never been done before.”
Lutnick later told CNBC, “We’ll get equity in return for that … instead of just giving grants away.” He clarified that any stake would likely be non-voting, meaning Washington would not interfere in Intel’s operations.
The administration now wants to extend this approach beyond Intel. According to people familiar with the discussions, Lutnick is exploring similar arrangements with memory giant Micron, South Korea’s Samsung and Taiwan’s TSMC. Much of the CHIPS Act funding has yet to be disbursed, leaving room for the government to attach new strings to upcoming deals.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is also said to be part of the talks, but Lutnick is driving the process. Critics argue the government is entering uncharted territory that could expose taxpayers to financial risk. A wrong bet on company performance could hurt public funds.
The proposal has triggered concerns in Asia, where both Samsung and TSMC play central roles in global chip supply. South Korean presidential advisor Kim Yong-beom said the companies need “predictability” before making long-term U.S. investments. A Korean chip industry official warned that some firms may delay or cancel their U.S. projects unless Washington offers stronger incentives alongside equity demands.
In Taipei, Taiwan’s economy minister Kuo Jyh-huei told lawmakers the government would consult with TSMC and assess the U.S. proposal carefully, noting the firm is private and not state-owned.
The Trump administration has shown a willingness to intervene directly in corporate deals. Earlier this year, Trump approved Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel only after securing a “golden share” to protect jobs and investment commitments. Similarly, Nvidia was allowed to sell its H20 chips to China under an agreement that gave Washington 15 percent of those sales.
For the chip sector, the shift reflects a broader strategy: treat subsidies not as handouts but as investments. Lutnick himself framed it as rewriting the rules of the CHIPS Act. “The Biden administration literally was giving Intel money for free and giving TSMC money for free, and all these companies just giving the money for free, and Donald Trump turned it into saying, ‘Hey, we want equity for the money. If we’re going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action for the American taxpayer,’” Lutnick said.
The CHIPS Act was signed in 2022 to rebuild U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on Asia. Since then, Intel, TSMC, Micron and Samsung have secured billions in subsidies for factories in Arizona, New York and Texas. Subsidies include $6.6 billion for TSMC, $6.2 billion for Micron and $4.75 billion for Samsung.
If equity-for-grants becomes policy, it could reshape the relationship between Washington and some of the world’s most powerful tech companies. Whether companies will accept such terms, or push back, remains uncertain.
