In recent headlines, the U.S. government’s flirtation with acquiring stakes in major corporations like Intel signals a troubling shift in how public resources are leveraged in the tech sector. Howard Lutnick’s proposal that the government should receive an equity stake in Intel in exchange for CHIPS Act funds exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of economic fairness and democratic oversight. Rather than viewing taxpayer dollars as a tool for strategic investment, this approach risks morphing into a crony capitalism model—one where corporations, already powerful, effectively call the shots, and the public becomes a silent beneficiary of their expansion. It’s an unsettling move that ignores the core principle that government intervention should serve the public interest, not corporate ambitions cloaked in patriotic rhetoric.
The Risks of Entrenching Corporate Domination in Strategic Sectors
The idea that the government could become a major shareholder—potentially the largest—raises profound concerns. Historically, governments hold stakes in failing industries out of necessity, not convenience. When they do, transparency and accountability are paramount; otherwise, it merely consolidates an unaccountable corporate elite with the power to influence policy, workforce, and innovation paths that should prioritize societal needs. Intel’s push for a government stake—under the guise of “converting grants to equity”—embeds the company’s interests deeper into the fabric of national economic strategy. This blurring of lines between public good and corporate profitability is a dangerous precedent that could incentivize companies to leverage taxpayer support for leverage over government policy, rather than true innovation or public service.
The Myth of Costless Corporate Subsidies and the White House’s Ambition
The narrative that billions handed to companies like Intel or TSMC are “free” benefits for U.S. innovation is naive at best and cynical at worst. These subsidies are investments—costly, contingent, and ultimately reflective of a misguided belief in industrial policy as a panacea. They do not guarantee success; they intertwine government interests with corporate fortunes, creating a system where failure is subtly rewarded—especially when taxpayer funds are at stake. The White House’s discussions around taking a 10% stake in Intel veer dangerously close to corporate socialism, yet without the transparency or accountability mechanisms that typically underpin true public ownership. Instead, what we see is a corporate state-building exercise, disguised as national interest.
Shifting Power Dynamics in Tech and Democracy’s Future
The Biden administration’s substantial investments intended to boost American manufacturing have been presented as critical to national security and economic sovereignty. However, the reality is more complex. These investments risk fueling an uneven balance of power—where multinational corporations like Intel, SoftBank, and others become de facto extensions of national strategy. The CEO’s recent remarks about slowing down Ohio factory plans suggest that even corporate giants are uncertain of the real value of these investments. Yet, by tying substantial public funds to private control, lawmakers risk creating a scenario where the government’s role morphs from a facilitator of public good into a facilitator of corporate dominance. This threatens democratic accountability, as corporate interests no longer serve consumers and workers but instead expand their influence—potentially at the expense of job security, innovation independence, and equitable growth.
The Potential Fallout of Business-Government Collusion
The proposed actions by Intel and other chipmakers expose a fundamental flaw in the current approach to economic nationalism. When government becomes a stakeholder—voting rights, governance influence, and strategic decision-making—public accountability becomes secondary. Who truly benefits when a tech giant’s success or failure increasingly hinges on government largesse? The implications extend beyond mere economic calculations; they threaten the fabric of democratic governance by allowing corporate interests to distort policymaking. American prosperity should not depend on a select few wielding disproportionate influence through government partnerships, especially when those partnerships are motivated by political expediency rather than genuine innovation.
Ultimately, the temptation to reward big tech with public funds in exchange for stakes or influence undermines the core principles of fairness, transparency, and democratic control. While the goal to bolster domestic manufacturing and technological self-sufficiency is laudable, it must not come at the expense of integrity and accountability. A genuine strategy should focus on empowering workers, fostering diverse innovation ecosystems, and guarding against the corporatization of government—a balancing act that requires skepticism and vigilance, not blind faith in corporate promises of mutual benefit.