The U.S. government’s decision to take a 9.9% equity stake in Intel is being hailed as a victory from both extremes of the political spectrum. Bernie Sanders calls it a long-overdue assertion of government power over corporate America. Donald Trump touts it as a triumph of economic nationalism and proof of his industrial strategy. But when the furthest reaches of the left and right suddenly find themselves in agreement, it is rarely a sign of sound policy. More often, it signals a rotten deal that appeals to ideology while undermining economic fundamentals.
At first glance, the rationale seems compelling. Semiconductors are the backbone of the modern economy, powering everything from defense systems to AI supercomputers. Intel, once the unrivaled champion of U.S. chipmaking, has been struggling to hold ground against Taiwan’s TSMC and a host of rivals like AMD and Nvidia. But instead of fostering a competitive ecosystem, Washington has chosen to entrench Intel as a quasi-state actor. The 9.9% figure is no coincidence—it sits just below a takeover disclosure threshold, giving the government immense influence without the accountability of direct control. That makes Intel less a private company competing on merit and more a politically protected national champion.
The danger is not subtle. With Washington on its shareholder register, Intel’s board will find itself answering to political calendars as much as technology roadmaps. Bureaucrats and politicians—not engineers and markets—will begin shaping the company’s strategic decisions. Sanders applauds because he imagines government finally disciplining corporate power. Trump applauds because he sees a patriotic bulwark against foreign rivals. Both ignore the systemic costs: smothering competition, distorting capital allocation, and turning one of America’s most vital industries into a pawn of political theater.
History offers a warning. Government equity interventions in GM or AIG came in the depths of crisis, intended as temporary rescues. Even then, the distortions lingered long after. This Intel stake is not an emergency measure—it is a preemptive politicization of a strategic company, made permanent by ideology. Investors who imagine this will strengthen Intel’s position misunderstand what it means to be yoked to government ownership. Instead of focusing on out-executing TSMC or Nvidia, Intel risks becoming a state-owned zombie, dragged down by competing political visions that have little to do with innovation.
When Sanders and Trump are applauding the same policy, it is not a sign of consensus. It is a flashing red warning that Washington is trading market dynamism for political theater. The Intel stake is not about securing America’s semiconductor future—it is about securing political points from both extremes, while taxpayers, investors, and innovation itself pay the price.