U.S. Government ‘Controls’ 10% of Intel, According to Trump

Key Points

• Announcement: President Trump declared that the U.S. government now owns a 10% stake in Intel.
• Control: Trump’s use of the term “control” raises questions about the nature of the government’s involvement.
• Negotiation: Trump claims he negotiated the deal with Intel’s CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, without any financial outlay.
• Political Reactions: Democrats are divided on whether this government stake is beneficial for America.

President Donald Trump announced Friday that the U.S. government would be taking a 10% stake in Intel, the struggling U.S.-based chip manufacturer. But the president’s choice of words will definitely raise more than a few eyebrows, especially since the Trump regime has previously said the federal government will have no corporate governance role at the tech company.

“It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The government taking a 10% ownership stake in Intel shouldn’t be surprising, as rumors about the deal leaked last week. But what might surprise people is Trump’s use of the word “control.” Nobody seems to know what that means yet.

“I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars,” Trump continued.

“This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation,” according to Trump. The president ended his post with the now-customary, “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” and “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Lutnick’s denials on Tuesday

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was asked about the plans for a government stake in Intel during an interview with CNBC on Tuesday. Lutnick was specifically quizzed whether the government would get a governance role at Intel, something the Commerce Secretary insisted would not happen.

“Do you get governance here?” CNBC host David Faber asked.

“No, no, no, no, no…” Lutnick said over and over to the question, suggesting the entire idea was absurd. “Come on, stop that stuff. It’s not governance, right, we’re just what was a grant under Biden into equity for the Trump administration, for the American people.”

Faber pointed out that any other entity owning 10% would expect to have a say in how that company was run. “Why wouldn’t you want some…” Faber started to say before Lutnick drowned him out by repeatedly saying “non-voting, non-voting.”

Faber noted that the U.S. government got a so-called “golden share” when Japan-based Nippon Steel tried to buy U.S. Steel, meaning that Trump can potentially veto corporate decisions he doesn’t like. It’s unclear at this point what kind of influence Trump can have at Intel with this new 10% stake, which likely involves converting $10.86 billion in grants for Intel from the Biden-era CHIPS ACT into equity, according to reporting Tuesday by the New York Times.

Who actually negotiated the deal?

Lutnick was the first to break the news on social media in a tweet shortly before Trump, though the Commerce Secretary’s announcement obviously carries less weight in an increasingly authoritarian country like the U.S. It’s not real until Dear Leader says it’s real.

“BIG NEWS: The United States of America now owns 10% of Intel, one of our great American technology companies. This historic agreement strengthens U.S. leadership in semiconductors, which will both grow our economy and help secure America’s technological edge,” Lutnick wrote.

BIG NEWS: The United States of America now owns 10% of Intel, one of our great American technology companies.

This historic agreement strengthens U.S. leadership in semiconductors, which will both grow our economy and help secure America’s technological edge.

Thanks to Intel… pic.twitter.com/AYMuX14Rgi

— Howard Lutnick (@howardlutnick) August 22, 2025

Lutnick’s tweet was sent at 4:10 p.m. ET and included a photo of him with Intel CEO Lip Bu-Tan. That presumably irked Trump, who sent his own post on Truth Social almost an hour later, at 5:04 p.m. ET, and included the claim “I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan” in the second sentence.

Trump reportedly met with Tan last week after the president called for the Intel CEO’s resignation over alleged links to China. Trump insisted there was “no other solution to this problem” but changed his tune after the meeting.

What do the Dems say?

Folks on the left have been divided on whether Trump’s plan for Intel is a good one for America. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats, said earlier this week that he supports the plan for the U.S. government to take an equity stake.

“If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment,” Sanders told Reuters.

But Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, wouldn’t commit so emphatically one way or another. In an email to Gizmodo, Warner said taking an equity stake “may or may not be the right approach,” while emphasizing that cutting-edge chips should not “flow to China without restraint” if that undercuts investments made in the U.S.

“We need a strategy that protects American innovation, strengthens our workforce, and keeps the technologies of the future firmly in American hands,” Warner said. “Additionally, given the administration’s recent approach to other high-profile technology transactions, Congress must apply thorough scrutiny for potential conflicts of interest or undue interference in private-sector decisions unrelated to national security.”

Intel is a drop in the ocean

Warner is absolutely right that Congress needs to look into any conflicts of interest or “undue interference” on private companies. But given the current trajectory of the U.S.—where we’ve got armed troops on the streets of D.C. and harassment campaigns against the president’s opponents—it seems unlikely that Congress will be deploying any checks or balances soon.