- US plans to take an equity stake in Intel with Chips Act funds, shifting subsidies toward direct ownership.
- The move highlights global chip race, as US, EU, Japan, and Korea invest heavily in semiconductor fabs.
What happened: US takes equity stake in Intel
The United States government is moving to take an equity stake in Intel in return for billions of dollars in grants provided under Chips and Science Act. The scheme was designed to support domestic semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on Asian supply chains. Washington has already allocated around $8.5bn in subsidies and $11bn in loans to Intel, aimed at building advanced chip fabrication facilities across the US.
Officials now want to secure shares in the company as part of these arrangements, marking a shift in how federal support for industry is delivered. The proposal would make Intel the first major semiconductor firm where public money is linked directly to ownership. The US Department of Commerce, which oversees the programme, said this structure helps align taxpayer investment with the long-term growth and competitiveness of the American semiconductor sector.
Also Read: US state seeks stake in Intel
Also Read: RAHA rebrands as Liquid Intelligent Technologies Tanzania
Why it’s important
The move shows how far governments are willing to go to keep a lead in semiconductors, a technology at the heart of today’s economies. Chips are used in phones, data centres, military tools and artificial intelligence. Intel has tried for years to win back its position against Taiwan’s TSMC and South Korea’s Samsung, which now hold the most advanced chipmaking skills.
The US government taking an equity stake means it wants to give money to Intel but also hold part of the company and be linked to its growth. This step is important for business and policy. In Europe, the EU Chips Act is made to raise its share of global chip production. In Asia, Japan and South Korea are also putting large sums into new factories. The US action sets an example for closer state control in company plans, mixing public money with ownership. For technology firms, this may bring stricter checks, more rules, and closer ties with national security needs.
