US examines equity stake in chip makers for CHIPS Act cash grants
As part of a plan to revive U.S. manufacturing – a key Trump agenda – Lutnick said earlier on Tuesday the U.S. government wants an equity stake in Intel in exchange for cash grants approved by the administration of former President Joe Biden.
Now Lutnick wants to expand that plan to other companies, according to a White House official and a person familiar with the situation.
The Trump administration has recently made unusual deals with U.S. companies, including allowing AI chip giant Nvidia to sell its H20 chips to China in exchange for the U.S. government receiving 15% of those sales. The Pentagon is slated to become the largest shareholder in a small mining company to boost output of rare earth magnets.
The government's intervention in corporate matters has worried critics who say President Donald Trump's actions create new categories of corporate risk and that a bad bet could mean a hit to taxpayer funds.
Much of the funding under the CHIPS Act has not yet been dispersed for companies such as Micron, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co, Samsung and Intel.
TSMC and Intel declined comment. Micron, Samsung and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on whether Lutnick is considering more stakes.
Speaking to reporters in Taipei on Wednesday and asked whether the U.S. government could take a stake in TSMC, Taiwan Economy Minister Kuo Jyh-huei said his ministry had just heard about it and 'needs some time to discuss.'
The two sources told Reuters on Tuesday that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is also involved in the CHIPS Act discussions, but that Lutnick is driving the process. The Commerce Department oversees the $52.7 billion CHIPS Act money.
Lutnick has been pushing the equity idea, the sources said, adding that Trump likes the idea.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed earlier that Lutnick was working on a deal with Intel to take a 10% government stake.
'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,' she told reporters.
Speaking on CNBC, Lutnick said the U.S. wants a return on its 'investment'.
'We'll get equity in return for that … instead of just giving grants away,' he said.
President Donald Trump has previously said he wanted to kill the CHIPS Act program.
Lutnick's comments suggested any stake would be non-voting, meaning it would not enable the U.S. government to tell the company how to run its business.
His comments came a day after SoftBank Group agreed to invest $2 billion in Intel, which has struggled to compete after years of management blunders.
'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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
34 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Warns ‘Not Playing Games' in Visit to Federal Police in DC
President Donald Trump visited a Park Police operations facility to thank federal law enforcement officers he's deployed to patrol the streets of Washington, DC, saying he expected their deployment to last 'for a while.' 'We're going to then go on to other places, but we're going to stay here for a while,' Trump said. 'We want to make this absolutely perfect, it's our capital.' The visit to the building in Washington's Anacostia neighborhood appeared less dramatic than his suggestion on a radio show earlier Thursday that he would be 'going out' with a patrol in a 'secret' trip with the police and military, but nevertheless returned focus to his controversial move last week to surge US officers and troops into the nation's capital and put the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control. 'We're not playing games. We're going to make it safe,' Trump said. The president brought hamburgers and pizza to the officers he visited to thank them for their service. Trump last week argued the city's carjackings and robberies there amounted to a national emergency. While a post-pandemic crime surge in DC stirred public safety fears, Justice Department data released in January showed violent crime in the city plunging to a 30-year-low. The effort marked Trump's highest-profile moves yet to drive home his law-and-order message. But they are deeply unpopular with DC residents and any appearance by the president on the streets of the nation's capital risked stoking tensions further. Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller were heckled on Wednesday when they met with National Guard members at Union Station. Almost eight in 10 Washingtonians oppose Trump's takeover and 65% said they don't think it will make the city any safer, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll. Over the last week, the administration has faced criticism that the federal deployment has focused on low-crime, tourist-friendly areas of Washington and has not produced a significant uptick of arrests. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Wednesday that the effort has resulted in 550 arrests and 76 illegal firearms being seized. But data from DC Mayor Muriel Bowser's office showed that MPD arrests in the week before the federal takeover were higher than the week after. The White House has been adamant that the numbers don't accurately depict the level of crime and blight in Washington. Trump has sought to discredit the city's crime statistics, ordering the Justice Department to investigate whether local officials falsified the figures. Democrats have dismissed the the move as a thinly veiled attempt for Trump to take power in the nation's capital and amplify his message that liberal policies are soft on crime. With assistance from Myles Miller. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India.com
34 minutes ago
- India.com
Is Trump Ready To Risk Key Ally India For His America-First Agenda? Nikki Haley Sounds Alarm
Washington: 'To achieve America's foreign policy goals of outcompeting China, few objectives are more critical than getting relations between Washington and New Delhi back on track,' wrote Nikki Haley, U.S. President Donald Trump's fellow Republican and former U.N. ambassador, in an op-ed for Newsweek. She urged that India must be treated 'like the prized free and democratic partner that it is, not an adversary like China, which has thus far avoided sanctions for its Russian oil purchases, despite being one of Moscow's largest customers'. She warned that undoing decades of diplomatic momentum with the only Asian power capable of balancing Beijing would be a 'strategic disaster'. She also highlighted India's role in shifting supply chains away from China. 'While the Trump administration works to bring manufacturing back to our shores, India stands alone in its potential to manufacture at a China-like scale for products that cannot be quickly or efficiently produced here, like textiles, inexpensive phones and solar panels,' she said. Add Zee News as a Preferred Source Haley described New Delhi as a 'crucial asset to the free world's security', stressing that unlike authoritarian China, a rising democratic India strengthens the global order. Trump, however, has unsettled both allies and critics by threatening to impose an additional 25 per cent tariff on India for importing discounted oil from Russia. The measure comes on top of a similar levy already rolled out this month, taking the total duty to 50 per cent. Once hailed as Washington's counterweight to China, New Delhi now finds itself grouped with Brazil, whose President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has already threatened retaliation. Beijing, the largest buyer of Russian crude, has been spared from similar penalties. 'Biggest Mistake' Geopolitical analyst Fareed Zakaria joined the wave of criticism. Speaking to CNN, he called the tariff push 'America's biggest foreign policy mistake', warning that even if Trump walks back the decision, 'the damage is done'. According to him, India now views the United States as 'unreliable, its willingness to be brutal to those whom it calls its friends' and may deepen its ties with Russia while easing tensions with China. 'Stupidest Tactical Move' Economist Jeffrey Sachs struck a similar note. On 'Breaking Points' with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, he said the White House is effectively binding the BRICS bloc closer together. He branded the tariffs 'the stupidest tactical move in U.S. foreign policy' and labelled Trump 'the great unifier of BRICS'. 'Tariff Tantrum' The pushback has reached Capitol Hill as well. Senior Congressman Gregory Meeks, a Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, denounced the policy as a 'tariff tantrum' that risks dismantling over two decades of strategic, economic and cultural ties. 'We have deep strategic, economic and people-to-people ties. Concerns should be addressed in a mutually respectful way consistent with our democratic values,' he said.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
US court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump
Agency: PTI Last Updated: New York, Aug 22 (AP) A New York appeals court has thrown out President Donald Trump's massive financial penalty while narrowly upholding a judge's finding that he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The Thursday's ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory" in the case, which stemmed from a civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State," the Republican wrote. James, a Democrat, focused on the parts of the decision that went her way, saying in a statement that it 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud." The ruling came seven months after Trump returned to the White House, his political fortunes unimpeded by the civil fraud judgment, a criminal conviction and other legal blows. A sharply divided panel of five judges in the state's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive". A lower-court judge, Arthur Engoron, had ordered Trump last year to pay $355 million in penalties after finding that he flagrantly padded financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties for executives at his company, the Trump Organisation, including sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr, have brought the total to $527 million with interest. 'While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award" to the state, Judges Dianne Renwick and Peter Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. They called the penalty 'an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution." Both were appointed by Democratic governors. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. Donald Trump Jr celebrated the decision by mocking James, who had periodically posted a running tally of the fraud penalty, with interest. Over a post from James in February 2024, when the tally was nearly $465 million, Trump Jr wrote: 'I believe you mean $0.00. Thank you for your attention to this matter." The five-judge panel, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the monetary penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause to prevent any punishments from taking effect. While the Appellate Division dispatches most appeals in a few pages in a matter of weeks, the judges weighing Trump's case took nearly 11 months to rule after oral arguments last fall and issued 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt James' lawsuit was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any lenders felt cheated, they could have sued Trump themselves, and none did. Another wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial that James had proven Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, appointed by a Republican governor, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business," Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business." Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man" and the case was a 'fraud on me". The Republican leader has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign". Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defence also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. top videos View all And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims. (AP) SCY SCY (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 22, 2025, 04:45 IST News agency-feeds US court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
