Historically, the U.S. government has only taken equity in private firms during bailouts with the goal of exiting quickly. Recent deals with companies like Intel represent a new strategy of long-term investment to bolster specific industries, a marked departure from past policy.
Related Insights
The legal basis for taking equity stakes in firms like Intel is not explicit authorization. Instead, the administration relies on the fact that laws like the CHIPS Act don't expressly forbid it, coupled with the low likelihood of a legal challenge from the benefiting companies.
The U.S. is shifting from industry supporter to active owner by taking direct equity stakes in firms like Intel and U.S. Steel. This move blurs the lines between free markets and state control, risking a system where political connections, not performance, determine success.
To solve national security gaps without permanent state control, create a single, specialized, and temporary capital fund. It would be politically shielded, operate with a clear mandate to fill critical private sector gaps, and have a built-in expiration date to prevent it from becoming a permanent bureaucracy.
In an era of financial repression and heavy government intervention, the most effective investment strategy is to identify sectors receiving direct government support. By positioning capital near these "money spigots," investors can benefit from policies designed to manage the economy, regardless of traditional market fundamentals.
As part of its equity deal with Intel, the U.S. government has agreed to vote its 9.9% stake according to the board's recommendations. This arrangement effectively hands the board a powerful, stable voting bloc, insulating management from shareholder activism and reinforcing the existing power structure.
SoftBank selling its NVIDIA stake to fund OpenAI's data centers shows that the cost of AI infrastructure exceeds any single funding source. To pay for it, companies are creating a "Barbenheimer" mix of financing: selling public stock, raising private venture capital, securing government backing, and issuing long-term corporate debt.
Geopolitical competition with China has forced the U.S. government to treat AI development as a national security priority, similar to the Manhattan Project. This means the massive AI CapEx buildout will be implicitly backstopped to prevent an economic downturn, effectively turning the sector into a regulated utility.
The government's equity stake in Intel replaced a milestone-based grant system. This delinks the funding from specific performance targets, like building fabs, converting the deal into a higher-risk bet on the company's overall success rather than a payment for specific outcomes.
To rebuild its industrial base at speed, the US government must abandon its typical strategy of funding many small players. Instead, it should identify and place huge bets on a handful of trusted, patriotic entrepreneurs, giving them the scale, offtake agreements, and backing necessary to compete globally.
A large government commitment, like the $80 billion nuclear development plan with Westinghouse, does more than create a single customer. It acts as a powerful catalyst for the entire industry. This de-risks the supply chain, signals market viability, and attracts massive private capital (e.g., Brookfield), creating tailwinds for all players.
