Chips Act

Intel details everything that could go wrong with US taking a 10% stake

chipmaker, Chips Act, chips grants, Donald Trump, intel, Policy, semiconductor / DJ Henderson / August 27, 2025

Intel warns investors to brace for losses and uncertainties.

Some investors are not happy that Intel agreed to sell the US a 10 percent stake in the company after Donald Trump attacked Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan with a demand to resign.

After Intel accepted the deal at a meeting with the president, it alarmed some investors when Trump boasted that his pressure campaign worked, claiming Tan “walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States.”

“It sets a bad precedent if the president can just take 10 percent of a company by threatening the CEO,” James McRitchie, a private investor and shareholder activist in California who owns Intel shares, told Reuters. To McRitchie, Tan accepting the deal effectively sent the message that “we love Trump, we don’t want 10 percent of our company taken away.”

McRitchie wasn’t the only shareholder who raised an eyebrow. Kristin Hull, chief investment officer of a California-based activist firm called Nia Impact Capital—which manages shares in Intel for its clients—told Reuters she has “more questions than confidence” about how the deal will benefit investors. To her, the deal seems to blur some lines “between where is the government and where is the private sector.”

As Reuters explains, Intel agreed to convert $11.1 billion in CHIPS funding and other grants “into a 9.9 percent equity stake in Intel.”

Some early supporters of the agreement—including tech giants like Microsoft and Trump critics like Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—have praised the deal as allowing the US to profit off billions in CHIPS grants that Intel was awarded under the Biden administration. After pushing for the deal, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick criticized Joe Biden for giving away CHIPS funding “for free,” while praising Trump for turning the CHIPS Act grants into “equity for the Trump administration” and “for the American people.”

But to critics of the deal, it seems weird for the US to swoop in and take stake in a company that doesn’t need government assistance. The only recent precedent was the US temporarily taking stake in key companies considered vital to the economy that risked going under during the 2008 financial crisis.

Compare that to the Intel deal, where Tan has made it clear that Intel, while struggling to compete with rivals, “didn’t need the money,” Reuters noted—largely due to SoftBank purchasing $2 billion in Intel shares in the days prior to the US agreement being reached. Instead, the US is incentivized to take the stake to help further Trump’s mission to quickly build up a domestic chip manufacturing supply chain that can keep the US a global technology leader at the forefront of AI innovation.

Investors told Reuters that it’s unusual for the US to take this much control over a company that’s not in crisis, noting that “this level of tractability was not usually associated with relations between businesses and Washington.”

Intel did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment on investors’ concerns, but a spokesperson told Reuters that Intel’s board has already approved the deal. In a press release, the company emphasized that “the government’s investment in Intel will be a passive ownership, with no Board representation or other governance or information rights. The government also agrees to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.”

Intel reveals why investors should be spooked

The Trump administration has also stressed that the US stake in Intel does not give the Commerce Department any board seats or any voting or governance rights in Intel. Instead, the terms stipulate that the Commerce Department must “support the board on director nominees and proposals,” an Intel securities filing said.

However, the US can vote “as it wishes,” Intel reported, and experts suggested to Reuters that regulations may be needed to “limit government opportunities for abuses such as insider trading.” That could reassure investors somewhat, Rich Weiss, a senior vice president and chief investment officer of multi-asset strategies for American Century Investments, told Reuters. Without such laws, Weiss noted that “in an unchecked scenario of government direct investing, trading in those companies could be much riskier for investors.”

It also seems possible that the US could influence Intel’s decisions without the government explicitly taking voting control, experts suggested. “Several investors and representatives” told Reuters that the US could impact major decisions regarding things like layoffs or business shifts into foreign markets. At a certain point, Intel may be stuck choosing between corporate and national interests, Robert McCormick, executive director of the Council of Institutional Investors, told Reuters.

“A government stake in an otherwise private entity potentially creates a conflict between what’s right for the company and what’s right for the country,” McCormick suggested.

Further, Intel becoming partly state-controlled risks disrupting Intel’s non-US business, subjecting the company to “additional regulations, obligations or restrictions, such as foreign subsidy laws or otherwise, in other countries,” Intel’s filing said.

In the filing, Intel confirmed directly to investors that they have good cause to be spooked by the US stake. Offering a bulleted list, the company outlined “a number of risks and uncertainties” that could “adversely impact” shareholders due to “the US Government’s ownership of significant equity interests in the company.”

Perhaps most alarming in the short term, Intel admitted that the deal will dilute investors’ stock due to the discounted shares issued to Trump. And their shares could suffer additional dilutions if certain terms of the deal are “triggered” or “exercised,” Intel noted.

In the long term, investors were told that the US stake may limit the company’s eligibility for future federal grants while leaving Intel shareholders dwelling in the uncertainty of knowing that terms of the deal could be voided or changed over time, as federal administration and congressional priorities shift.

Additionally, Intel forecasted potential legal challenges over the deal, which Intel anticipates could come from both third parties and the US government.

The final bullet point in Intel’s risk list could be the most ominous, though. Due to the unprecedented nature of the deal, Intel fears there’s no way to anticipate myriad other challenges the deal may trigger.

“It is difficult to foresee all the potential consequences,” Intel’s filing said. “Among other things, there could be adverse reactions, immediately or over time, from investors, employees, customers, suppliers, other business or commercial partners, foreign governments or competitors. There may also be litigation related to the transaction or otherwise and increased public or political scrutiny with respect to the Company.”

Meanwhile, it’s hard to see what Intel truly gains from the deal other than maybe getting Trump off its back for a bit. A Fitch Ratings research note reported that “the deal does not improve Intel’s BBB credit rating, which sits just above junk status” and “does not fundamentally improve customer demand for Intel chips” despite providing “more liquidity,” Reuters reported.

Intel’s filing, in addition to rattling investors, likely also serves as a warning sign to other companies who may be approached by the Trump administration to strike similar deals. So far, the administration has confirmed that the US is not eyeing a stake in Nvidia and seems unlikely to seek a stake in the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. While Lutnick has said he plans to push to make more deals, any chipmakers committing to increasing investments in the US, sources told the Wall Street Journal, will supposedly be spared from pressure to make a similar deal.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Intel details everything that could go wrong with US taking a 10% stake Read More »

Trump says US will take 10% stake in Intel because CEO wants to “keep his job”

Chips Act, Donald Trump, intel, Policy, semiconductors, TSMC / 9u50fv / August 23, 2025

Intel has agreed to sell the US a 10 percent stake in the company, Donald Trump announced at a news conference Friday.

The US stake is worth $10 billion, Trump said, confirming that the deal was inked following his talks with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan.

Trump had previously called for Tan to resign, accusing the CEO of having “concerning” ties to the Chinese Communist Party. During their meeting, the president claimed that Tan “walked in wanting to keep his job and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States.”

“I said, ‘I think it would be good having the United States as your partner.’ He agreed, and they’ve agreed to do it,” Trump said. “And I think it’s a great deal for them.”

Sources have suggested that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick pushed the idea of the US buying large stakes in various chipmakers like Intel in exchange for access to CHIPS Act funding that had already been approved. Earlier this week, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) got behind the plan, noting that “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.”

However, Trump apparently doesn’t plan to seek a stake in every company that the US has awarded CHIPS funding to. Instead, he likely plans to only approach chipmakers that won’t commit to increasing their investments in the US. For example, a government official, speaking anonymously, told The Wall Street Journal Friday that “the administration isn’t looking to own equity in companies like TSMC that are increasing their investments” in the US.

Trump says US will take 10% stake in Intel because CEO wants to “keep his job” Read More »

Trump confirms US is seeking 10% stake in Intel. Bernie Sanders approves.

bernie sanders, Chips Act, Donald Trump, intel, Joe Biden, Micron, Policy, samsung, TSMC / Mike M. / August 21, 2025

Trump plan salvages CHIPS Act he vowed to kill

While chipmakers wait for more clarity, Lutnick has suggested that Trump—who campaigned on killing the CHIPS Act—has found a way to salvage the legislation that Joe Biden viewed as his lasting legacy. It seems possible that the plan arose after Trump realized how hard it would be to ax the legislation completely, with grants already finalized (but most not disbursed).

“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.

“It’s not governance, we’re just converting what was a grant under Biden into equity for the Trump administration, for the American people,” Lutnick told CNBC.

Further, US firms could potentially benefit from any potential arrangements. For Intel, the “highly unusual” deal that Trump is mulling now could help the struggling chipmaker compete with its biggest rivals, including Nvidia, Samsung, and TSMC, BBC noted.

Vincent Fernando, founder of the investment consultancy Zero One, told the BBC that taking a stake in Intel “makes sense, given the company’s key role in producing semiconductors in the US,” which is a major Trump priority.

But as Intel likely explores the potential downsides of accepting such a deal, other companies applying for federal grants may already be alarmed by Trump’s move. Fernando suggested that Trump’s deals to take ownership stake in US firms—which economics professor Kevin J. Fox said only previously occurred during the global financial crisis—could add “uncertainty for any company who is already part of a federal grant program or considering one.”

Fox also agreed that the Intel deal could deter other companies from accepting federal grants, while possibly making it harder for Intel to run its business “effectively.”

Trump confirms US is seeking 10% stake in Intel. Bernie Sanders approves. Read More »

US may purchase stake in Intel after Trump attacked CEO

Chips Act, Donald trump. intel, Joe Biden, NVIDIA, Policy, semiconductors, us-china trade war / 9u50fv / August 15, 2025

Trump’s attacks on Intel CEO may stem from beef with Biden.

Lip-Bu Tan, chief executive officer of Intel Corp., departs following a meeting at the White House. President Donald Trump said Tan had an “amazing story” after the meeting.

Donald Trump has been meddling with Intel, which now apparently includes mulling “the possibility of the US government taking a financial stake in the troubled chip maker,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Trump and Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan weighed the option during a meeting on Monday at the White House, people familiar with the matter told WSJ. These talks have only just begun—with Intel branding them a rumor—and sources told the WSJ that Trump has yet to iron out how the potential arrangement might work.

The WSJ’s report comes after Trump called for Tan to “resign immediately” last week. Trump’s demand was seemingly spurred by a letter that Republican senator Tom Cotton sent to Intel, accusing Tan of having “concerning” ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Cotton accused Tan of controlling “dozens of Chinese companies” and holding a stake in “hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms,” at least eight of which “reportedly have ties to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”

Further, before joining Intel, Tan was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which recently “pleaded guilty to illegally selling its products to a Chinese military university and transferring its technology to an associated Chinese semiconductor company without obtaining license.”

“These illegal activities occurred under Mr. Tan’s tenure,” Cotton pointed out.

He demanded answers by August 15 from Intel on whether they weighed Tan’s alleged Cadence conflicts of interest against the company’s requirements to comply with US national security laws after accepting $8 billion in CHIPS Act funding—the largest granted during Joe Biden’s term. The senator also asked Intel if Tan was required to make any divestments to meet CHIPS Act obligations and if Tan has ever disclosed any ties to the Chinese government to the US government.

Neither Intel nor Cotton’s office responded to Ars’ request to comment on the letter or confirm whether Intel has responded.

But Tan has claimed that there is “a lot of misinformation” about his career and portfolio, the South China Morning Post reported. Born in Malaysia, Tan has been a US citizen for 40 years after finishing postgraduate studies in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In an op-ed, SCMP reporter Alex Lo suggested that Tan’s investments—which include stakes in China’s largest sanctioned chipmaker, SMIC, as well as “several” companies on US trade blacklists, SCMP separately reported—seem no different than other US executives and firms with substantial investments in Chinese firms.

“Cotton accused [Tan] of having extensive investments in China,” Lo wrote. “Well, name me a Wall Street or Silicon Valley titan in the past quarter of a century who didn’t have investment or business in China. Elon Musk? Apple? BlackRock?”

He also noted that “numerous news reports” indicated that “Cadence staff in China hid the dodgy sales from the company’s compliance officers and bosses at the US headquarters,” which Intel may explain to Cotton if a response comes later today.

Any red flags that Intel’s response may raise seems likely to heighten Trump’s scrutiny, as he looks to make what Reuters reported was yet another “unprecedented intervention” by a president in a US firm’s business. Previously, Trump surprised the tech industry by threatening the first-ever tariffs aimed at a US company (Apple) and more recently, Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and AMD that gives US a 15 percent cut of the firms’ revenue from China chip sales.

However, Trump was seemingly impressed by Tan after some face-time this week. Trump came out of their meeting professing that Tan has an “amazing story,” Bloomberg reported, noting that any agreement between Trump and Tan “would likely help Intel build out” its planned $28 billion chip complex in Ohio.

Those chip fabs—boosted by CHIPS Act funding—were supposed to put Intel on track to launch operations by 2030, but delays have set that back by five years, Bloomberg reported. That almost certainly scrambles another timeline that Biden’s Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo had suggested would ensure that “20 percent of the world’s most advanced chips are made in the US by the end of the decade.”

Why Intel may be into Trump’s deal

At one point, Intel was the undisputed leader in chip manufacturing, Bloomberg noted, but its value plummeted from $288 billion in 2020 to $104 billion today. The chipmaker has been struggling for a while—falling behind as Nvidia grew to dominate the AI chip industry—and 2024 was its “first unprofitable year since 1986,” Reuters reported. As the dismal year wound down, Intel’s longtime CEO Pat Gelsinger retired.

Helming Intel for more than 40 years, Gelsinger acknowledged the “challenging year.” Now Tan is expected to turn it around. To do that, he may need to deprioritize the manufacturing process that Gelsinger pushed, which Tan suspects may have caused Intel being viewed as an outdated firm, anonymous insiders told Reuters. Sources suggest he’s planning to pivot Intel to focus more on “a next-generation chipmaking process where Intel expects to have advantages over Taiwan’s TSMC,” which currently dominates chip manufacturing and even counts Intel as a customer, Reuters reported. As it stands now, TSMC “produces about a third of Intel’s supply,” SCMP reported.

This pivot is supposedly how Tan expects Intel can eventually poach TSMC’s biggest customers like Apple and Nvidia, Reuters noted.

Intel has so far claimed that any discussions of Tan’s supposed plans amount to nothing but speculation. But if Tan did go that route, one source told Reuters that Intel would likely have to take a write-off that industry analysts estimate could trigger losses “of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.”

Perhaps facing that hurdle, Tan might be open to agreeing to the US purchasing a financial stake in the company while he rights the ship.

Trump/Intel deal reminiscent of TikTok deal

Any deal would certainly deepen the government’s involvement in the US chip industry, which is widely viewed as critical to US national security.

While unusual, the deal does seem somewhat reminiscent to the TikTok buyout that the Trump administration has been trying to iron out since he took office. Through that deal, the US would acquire enough ownership divested from China-linked entities to supposedly appease national security concerns, but China has been hesitant to sign off on any of Trump’s proposals so far.

Last month, Trump admitted that he wasn’t confident that he could sell China on the TikTok deal, which TikTok suggested would have resulted in a glitchier version of the app for American users. More recently, Trump’s commerce secretary threatened to shut down TikTok if China refuses to approve the current version of the deal.

Perhaps the terms of a US deal with Intel could require Tan to divest certain holdings that the US fears compromises the CEO. Under terms of the CHIPS Act grant, Intel is already required to be “a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,” Cotton reminded the company in his letter.

But social media users in Malaysia and Singapore have criticized Cotton of the “usual case of racism” in attacking Intel’s CEO, SCMP reported. They noted that Cotton “was the same person who repeatedly accused TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew of ties with the Chinese Communist Party despite his insistence of being a Singaporean,” SCMP reported.

“Now it’s the Intel’s CEO’s turn on the chopping block for being [ethnic] Chinese,” a Facebook user, Michael Ong, said.

Tensions were so high that there was even a social media push for Tan to “call on Trump’s bluff and resign, saying ‘Intel is the next Nokia’ and that Chinese firms would gladly take him instead,” SCMP reported.

So far, Tan has not criticized the Trump administration for questioning his background, but he did issue a statement yesterday, seemingly appealing to Trump by emphasizing his US patriotism.

“I love this country and am profoundly grateful for the opportunities it has given me,” Tan said. “I also love this company. Leading Intel at this critical moment is not just a job—it’s a privilege.”

Trump’s Intel attacks rooted in Biden beef?

In his op-ed, SCMP’s Lo suggested that “Intel itself makes a good punching bag” as the biggest recipient of CHIPS Act funding. The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden’s lasting legacy in the US, and Trump has resolved to dismantle it, criticizing supposed handouts to tech firms that Trump prefers to strong-arm into US manufacturing instead through unpredictable tariff regimes.

“The attack on Intel is also an attack on Trump’s predecessor, Biden, whom he likes to blame for everything, even though the industrial policies of both administrations and their tech war against China are similar,” Lo wrote.

At least one lawmaker is ready to join critics who question if Trump’s trade war is truly motivated by national security concerns. On Friday, US representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.-Ill.) sent a letter to Trump “expressing concern” over Trump allowing Nvidia to resume exports of its H20 chips to China.

“Trump’s reckless policy on AI chip exports sells out US security to Beijing,” Krishnamoorthi warned.

“Allowing even downgraded versions of cutting-edge AI hardware to flow” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “risks accelerating Beijing’s capabilities and eroding our technological edge,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. Further, “the PRC can build the largest AI supercomputers in the world by purchasing a moderately larger number of downgraded Blackwell chips—and achieve the same capability to train frontier AI models and deploy them at scale for national security purposes.”

Krishnamoorthi asked Trump to send responses by August 22 to four questions. Perhaps most urgently, he wants Trump to explain “what specific legal authority would allow the US government to “extract revenue sharing as a condition for the issuance of export licenses” and what exactly he intends to do with those funds.

Trump was also asked to confirm if the president followed protocols established by Congress to ensure proper export licensing through the agreement. Finally, Krishnamoorthi demanded to know if Congress was ever “informed or consulted at any point during the negotiation or development of this reported revenue-sharing agreement with NVIDIA and AMD.”

“The American people deserve transparency,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. “Our export control regime must be based on genuine security considerations, not creative taxation schemes disguised as national security policy.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

US may purchase stake in Intel after Trump attacked CEO Read More »

White House unveils sweeping plan to “win” global AI race through deregulation

AI, AI and work, AI development tools, AI ethics, AI infrastructure, AI law, AI regulation, AI research, AI security, biosecurity, Biz & IT, china, Chips Act, data centers, David Sacks, Deepfakes, Department of Commerce, Donald Trump, Energy, Export controls, machine learning, Michael Kratsios, national security, NIST, Open Source, Policy, semiconductors, White House / 9u50fv / July 24, 2025

Trump’s plan was not welcomed by everyone. J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate for Public Citizen, in a statement provided to Ars, criticized Trump as giving “sweetheart deals” to tech companies that would cause “electricity bills to rise to subsidize discounted power for massive AI data centers.”

Infrastructure demands and energy requirements

Trump’s new AI plan tackles infrastructure head-on, stating that “AI is the first digital service in modern life that challenges America to build vastly greater energy generation than we have today.” To meet this demand, it proposes streamlining environmental permitting for data centers through new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) exemptions, making federal lands available for construction and modernizing the power grid—all while explicitly rejecting “radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.”

The document embraces what it calls a “Build, Baby, Build!” approach—echoing a Trump campaign slogan—and promises to restore semiconductor manufacturing through the CHIPS Program Office, though stripped of “extraneous policy requirements.”

On the technology front, the plan directs Commerce to revise NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework to “eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change.” Federal procurement would favor AI developers whose systems are “objective and free from top-down ideological bias.” The document strongly backs open source AI models and calls for exporting American AI technology to allies while blocking administration-labeled adversaries like China.

Security proposals include high-security military data centers and warnings that advanced AI systems “may pose novel national security risks” in cyberattacks and weapons development.

Critics respond with “People’s AI Action Plan”

Before the White House unveiled its plan, more than 90 organizations launched a competing “People’s AI Action Plan” on Tuesday, characterizing the Trump administration’s approach as “a massive handout to the tech industry” that prioritizes corporate interests over public welfare. The coalition includes labor unions, environmental justice groups, and consumer protection nonprofits.

White House unveils sweeping plan to “win” global AI race through deregulation Read More »

Trump can’t keep China from getting AI chips, TSMC suggests

AI chips, Artificial Intelligence, china, Chips Act, Donald Trump, Huawei, NVIDIA, Policy, semiconductors, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, tariffs, TSMC, us-china trade war / Kelly Newman / April 22, 2025

“Despite TSMC’s best efforts to comply with all relevant export control and sanctions laws and regulations, there is no assurance that its business activities will not be found incompliant with export control laws and regulations,” TSMC said.

Further, “if TSMC or TSMC’s business partners fail to obtain appropriate import, export or re-export licenses or permits or are found to have violated applicable export control or sanctions laws, TSMC may also be adversely affected, through reputational harm as well as other negative consequences, including government investigations and penalties resulting from relevant legal proceedings,” TSMC warned.

Trump’s tariffs may end TSMC’s “tariff-proof” era

TSMC is thriving despite years of tariffs and export controls, its report said, with at least one analyst suggesting that, so far, the company appears “somewhat tariff-proof.” However, all of that could be changing fast, as “US President Donald Trump announced in 2025 an intention to impose more expansive tariffs on imports into the United States,” TSMC said.

“Any tariffs imposed on imports of semiconductors and products incorporating chips into the United States may result in increased costs for purchasing such products, which may, in turn, lead to decreased demand for TSMC’s products and services and adversely affect its business and future growth,” TSMC said.

And if TSMC’s business is rattled by escalations in the US-China trade war, TSMC warned, that risks disrupting the entire global semiconductor supply chain.

Trump’s semiconductor tariff plans remain uncertain. About a week ago, Trump claimed the rates would be unveiled “over the next week,” Reuters reported, which means they could be announced any day now.

Trump can’t keep China from getting AI chips, TSMC suggests Read More »

New Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan will pick up where Pat Gelsinger left off

18a, Biz & IT, Chips Act, intel, pat gelsinger, Tech / Beth Washington / March 13, 2025

After a little over three months, Intel has a new CEO to replace ousted former CEO Pat Gelsinger. Intel’s board announced that Lip-Bu Tan will begin as Intel CEO on March 18, taking over from interim co-CEOs David Zinsner and Michelle Johnston Holthaus.

Gelsinger was booted from the CEO position by Intel’s board on December 2 after several quarters of losses, rounds of layoffs, and canceled or spun-off side projects. Gelsinger sought to turn Intel into a foundry company that also manufactured chips for fabless third-party chip design companies, putting it into competition with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company(TSMC), Samsung, and others, a plan that Intel said it was still committed to when it let Gelsinger go.

Intel said that Zinsner would stay on as executive vice president and CFO, and Johnston Holthaus would remain CEO of the Intel Products Group, which is mainly responsible for Intel’s consumer products. These were the positions both executives held before serving as interim co-CEOs.

Tan was previously a member of Intel’s board from 2022 to 2024 and has been a board member for several other technology and chip manufacturing companies, including Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), and Cadence Design Systems.

New Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan will pick up where Pat Gelsinger left off Read More »

China aims to recruit top US scientists as Trump tries to kill the CHIPS Act

Chips Act, department of government efficiency, doge, Donald Trump, intel, Micron, NSF, NVIDIA, Policy, samsung, semiconductors, TSMC / Kelly Newman / March 6, 2025

Tech innovation in US likely to stall if Trump ends the CHIPS Act.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump finally made it clear to Congress that he wants to kill the CHIPS and Science Act—a $280 billion bipartisan law Joe Biden signed in 2022 to bring more semiconductor manufacturing into the US and put the country at the forefront of research and innovation.

Trump has long expressed frustration with the high cost of the CHIPS Act, telling Congress on Tuesday that it’s a “horrible, horrible thing” to “give hundreds of billions of dollars” in subsidies to companies that he claimed “take our money” and “don’t spend it,” Reuters reported.

“You should get rid of the CHIPS Act, and whatever is left over, Mr. Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt,” Trump said.

Instead, Trump potentially plans to shift the US from incentivizing chips manufacturing to punishing firms dependent on imports, threatening a 25 percent tariff on all semiconductor imports that could kick in as soon as April 2, CNBC reported.

The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden’s legacy, and because he made it a priority, much of the $52.7 billion in subsidies that Trump is criticizing has already been finalized. In 2022, Biden approved $39 billion in subsidies for semiconductor firms, and in his last weeks in office, he finalized more than $33 billion in awards, Reuters noted.

Among the awardees are leading semiconductor firms, including the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), Micron, Intel, Nvidia, and Samsung Electronics. Although Trump claims the CHIPS Act is one-sided and only serves to benefit firms, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association, the law sparked $450 billion in private investments increasing semiconductor production across 28 states by mid-2024.

With the CHIPS Act officially in Trump’s crosshairs, innovation appears likely to stall the longer that lawmakers remain unsettled on whether the law stays or goes. Some officials worried that Trump might interfere with Biden’s binding agreements with leading firms already holding up their end of the bargain, Reuters reported. For example, Micron plans to invest $100 billion in New York, and TSMC just committed to spending the same over the next four years to expand construction of US chips fabs, which is already well underway.

So far, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has only indicated that he will review the finalized awards, noting that the US wouldn’t be giving TSMC any new awards, Reuters reported.

But the CHIPS Act does much more than provide subsidies to lure leading semiconductor companies into the US. For the first time in decades, the law created a new arm of the National Science Foundation (NSF)—the Directorate of Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP)—which functions unlike any other part of NSF and now appears existentially threatened.

Designed to take the country’s boldest ideas from basic research to real-world applications as fast as possible to make the US as competitive as possible, TIP helps advance all NSF research and was supposed to ensure US leadership in breakthrough technologies, including AI, 6G communications, biotech, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing.

Biden allocated $20 billion to launch TIP through the CHIPS Act to accelerate technology development not just at top firms but also in small research settings across the US. But as soon as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) started making cuts at NSF this year, TIP got hit the hardest. Seemingly TIP was targeted not because DOGE deemed it the least consequential but simply because it was the youngest directorate at NSF with the most workers in transition when Trump took office and DOGE abruptly announced it was terminating all “probationary” federal workers.

It took years to get TIP ready to flip the switch to accelerate tech innovation in the US. Without it, Trump risks setting the US back at a time when competitors like China are racing ahead and wooing US scientists who suddenly may not know if or when their funding is coming, NSF workers and industry groups told Ars.

Without TIP, NSF slows down

Last month, DOGE absolutely scrambled the NSF by forcing arbitrary cuts of so-called probationary employees—mostly young scientists, some of whom were in transition due to promotions. All those cuts were deemed illegal and finally reversed Monday by court order after weeks of internal chaos reportedly stalling or threatening to delay some of the highest-priority research in the US.

“The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency,” US District Judge William Alsup said, calling probationary employees the “life blood” of government agencies.

Ars granted NSF workers anonymity to discuss how cuts were impacting research. At TIP, a federal worker told Ars that one of the probationary cuts in particular threatened to do the most damage.

Because TIP is so new, only one worker was trained to code automated tracking forms that helped decision-makers balance budgets and approve funding for projects across NSF in real time. Ars’ source likened it to holding the only key to the vault of NSF funding. And because TIP is so different from other NSF branches—hiring experts never pulled into NSF before and requiring customized resources to coordinate projects across all NSF fields of research—the insider suggested another government worker couldn’t easily be substituted. It could take possibly two years to hire and train a replacement on TIP’s unique tracking system, the source said, while TIP’s (and possibly all of NSF’s) efficiency is likely strained.

TIP has never been fully functional, the TIP insider confirmed, and could be choked off right as it starts helping to move the needle on US innovation. “Imagine where we are in two years and where China is in two years in quantum computing, semiconductors, or AI,” the TIP insider warned, pointing to China’s surprisingly advanced AI model, DeepSeek, as an indicator of how quickly tech leadership in global markets can change.

On Monday, NSF emailed all workers to confirm that all probationary workers would be reinstated “right away.” But the damage may already be done as it’s unclear how many workers plan to return. When TIP lost the coder—who was seemingly fired for a technicality while transitioning to a different payscale—NSF workers rushed to recommend the coder on LinkedIn, hoping to help the coder quickly secure another opportunity in industry or academia.

Ars could not reach the coder to confirm whether a return to TIP is in the cards. But Ars’ source at TIP and another NSF worker granted anonymity said that probationary workers may be hesitant to return because they are likely to be hit in any official reductions in force (RIFs) in the future.

“RIFs done the legal way are likely coming down the pipe, so these staff are not coming back to a place of security,” the NSF worker said. “The trust is broken. Even for those that choose to return, they’d be wise to be seeking other opportunities.”

And even losing the TIP coder for a couple of weeks likely slows NSF down at a time when the US seemingly can’t afford to lose a single day.

“We’re going to get murdered” if China sets the standard on 6G or AI, the TIP worker fears.

Rivals and allies wooing top US scientists

On Monday, six research and scientific associations, which described themselves as “leading organizations representing more than 305,000 people in computing, information technology, and technical innovation across US industry, academia, and government,” wrote to Congress demanding protections for the US research enterprise.

The groups warned that funding freezes and worker cuts at NSF—and other agencies, including the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health—”have caused disruption and uncertainty” and threaten “long-lasting negative consequences for our competitiveness, national security, and economic prosperity.”

Deeming America’s technology leadership at risk, the groups pointed out that “in computing alone, a federal investment in research of just over $10 billion annually across 24 agencies and offices underpins a technology sector that contributes more than $2 trillion to the US GDP each year.” Cutting US investment “would be a costly mistake, far outweighing any short-term savings,” the groups warned.

In a separate statement, the Computing Research Association (CRA) called NSF cuts, in particular, a “deeply troubling, self-inflicted setback to US leadership in computing research” that appeared “penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

“NSF is one of the most efficient federal agencies, operating with less than 9 percent overhead costs,” CRA said. “These arbitrary terminations are not justified by performance metrics or efficiency concerns; rather, they represent a drastic and unnecessary weakening of the US research enterprise.”

Many NSF workers are afraid to speak up, the TIP worker told Ars, and industry seems similarly tight-lipped as confusion remains. Only one of the organizations urging Congress to intervene agreed to talk to Ars about the NSF cuts and the significance of TIP. Kathryn Kelley, the executive director of the Coalition for Academic Scientific Computation, confirmed that while members are more aligned with NSF’s Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering and the Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, her group agrees that all NSF cuts are “deeply” concerning.

“We agree that the uncertainty and erosion of trust within the NSF workforce could have long-lasting effects on the agency’s ability to attract and retain top talent, particularly in such specialized areas,” Kelley told Ars. “This situation underscores the need for continued investment in a stable, well-supported workforce to maintain the US’s leadership in science and innovation.”

Other industry sources unwilling to go on the record told Ars that arbitrary cuts largely affecting the youngest scientists at NSF threatened to disrupt a generation of researchers who envisioned long careers advancing US tech. There’s now a danger that those researchers may be lured to other countries heavily investing in science and currently advertising to attract displaced US researchers, including not just rivals like China but also allies like Denmark.

Those sources questioned the wisdom of using the Elon Musk-like approach of breaking the NSF to rebuild it when it’s already one of the leanest organizations in government.

Ars confirmed that some PhD programs have been cancelled, as many academic researchers are already widely concerned about delayed or cancelled grants and generally freaked out about where to get dependable funding outside the NSF. And in industry, some CHIPS Act projects have already been delayed, as companies like Intel try to manage timelines without knowing what’s happening with CHIPS funding, AP News reported.

“Obviously chip manufacturing companies will slow spending on programs they previously thought they were getting CHIPS Act funding for if not cancel those projects outright,” the Semiconductor Advisors, an industry group, forecasted in a statement last month.

The TIP insider told Ars that the CHIPS Act subsidies for large companies that Trump despises mostly fuel manufacturing in the US, while funding for smaller research facilities is what actually advances technology. Reducing efficiency at TIP would likely disrupt those researchers the most, the TIP worker suggested, proclaiming that’s why TIP must be saved at all costs.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

China aims to recruit top US scientists as Trump tries to kill the CHIPS Act Read More »

TSMC to invest $100B as Trump demands more US-made chips, report says

AI chips, Chips Act, chips fabs, Donald Trump, Policy, semiconductors, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, tariffs, TSMC / Shannon Garcia / March 4, 2025

Currently, TSMC only builds its most advanced chips in Taiwan. But when the most advanced US fabs are operational, they’ll be prepared to manufacture “tens of millions of leading-edge chips” to “power products like 5G/6G smartphones, autonomous vehicles, and AI datacenter servers,” the Commerce Department said in 2024.

TSMC has not confirmed the WSJ’s report but provided a statement: “We’re pleased to have an opportunity to meet with the President and look forward to discussing our shared vision for innovation and growth in the semiconductor industry, as well as exploring ways to bolster the technology sector along with our customers.”

Trump threat of semiconductor tariffs still looms

Advanced chips are regarded as critical for AI innovation, which Trump has prioritized, as well as for national security.

Without a steady supply, the US risks substantial technological and economic losses as well as potential weakening of its military.

To avert that, Trump campaigned on imposing tariffs that he claimed would drive more semiconductor manufacturing into the US, while criticizing the CHIPS Act for costing the US billions. Following through on that promise, in February, he threatened a “25 percent or more tariff” on all semiconductor imports, the WSJ reported. According to CNBC, Trump suggested those tariffs could be in effect by April 2.

“We have to have chips made in this country,” Trump said last month. “Right now, everything is made in Taiwan, practically, almost all of it, a little bit in South Korea, but everything—almost all of it is made in Taiwan. And we want it to be made—we want those companies to come to our country, in all due respect.”

While it’s unclear if Trump plans to overtly kill the CHIPS Act, his government funding cuts could trigger a future where the CHIPS Act dies with no workers left to certify that companies meet requirements for ongoing award disbursements, a semiconductor industry consultant group, Semiconductor Advisors, warned in a statement last month.

“If I were running a chip company, I would not count on CHIPS Act funding, even if I had a signed contract,” SA’s statement said.

TSMC to invest $100B as Trump demands more US-made chips, report says Read More »

Micron’s $6B CHIPS funding should have more strings attached, critics say

Chips Act, chips and science act, memory chips, Micron, micron technology, Policy, semiconductor / Beth Washington / December 10, 2024

Micron’s NY fabs are the only CHIPS projects undergoing full environmental review.

Micron Technology will receive more than $6.1 billion after the US Department of Commerce finalized one of the largest CHIPS Act awards ever to “the only US-based manufacturer of memory chips,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in a press statement.

Micron will use the funding to construct “several state-of-the-art memory chips facilities” in New York and Idaho, Harris said. The chipmaker has committed to a “$125 billion investment over the next few decades” and promised to create “at least 20,000 jobs,” Harris confirmed.

Additionally, Micron “agreed to preliminary terms for an additional investment of $275 million to expand” its facility in Manassas, Virginia, Harris confirmed. Those facilities will mostly be used to manufacture chips for automotive and defense industries, Harris noted.

Because of billions in CHIPS funding doled out by the Biden administration, Harris said, the US’s “share of advanced memory manufacturing” will go “from nearly 0 percent today to 10 percent over the next decade.”

The Semiconductor Industry Association, a trade and lobbying group that bills itself as “the voice of the semiconductor industry,” celebrated Micron’s award. In a press release, its president and CEO, John Neuffer, said that the award sets the US on a path to become a leading memory chip innovator.

“Memory is a technology critical to America’s economic future and national security, and Micron’s historic investments in producing memory chips in the US will strengthen US leadership for the long term,” Neuffer said.

In a statement, Micron President and CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said that “Micron is uniquely positioned to bring leading-edge memory manufacturing to the U.S., strengthening the country’s technology leadership and fostering advanced innovation.”

“Micron’s investments in domestic semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, supported by the bipartisan CHIPS Act, will help drive economic growth and ensure that the US remains at the forefront of technological advancements,” Mehrotra said.

Advocates: Micron needs to explain what a “good job” is

But while Neuffer joined Harris’ and the Commerce Department’s chorus, praising the award for creating “high-paying American jobs,” bolstering US national and economic security, and fueling “innovation for years to come,” communities are raising questions.

Advocates with Jobs to Move America (JMA)—who are organizing ahead of Micron’s New York construction starting in 2026—are concerned that Micron hasn’t been clear about what a “good job” is before moving into an area with “one of the highest poverty rates in the country.”

“There has been little discussion or firm commitments made regarding what exactly a ‘good job’ is, or how equitable access for said jobs will be achieved for current local residents,” JMA’s “Good Jobs Platform,” drafted earlier this year with more than 20 local advocacy groups, said.

“We define a ‘good job’ as one that guarantees: workers have a fair and clear process to organize a union without employer opposition, family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits, safe working conditions, equitable hiring and employment practices, and is supported by an accessible workforce pipeline,” the platform said.

And equally important are communities’ and workers’ health and safety concerns, the platform noted, urging that “a good job is a safe job.”

A senior researcher and policy coordinator for JMA, Anna Smith, told Ars that Harris’ statement was missing any mention of a community impact statement. And while Harris mentioned “utilizing project labor agreements and registered apprenticeship programs, which will further strengthen local economies” and “support workers,” more enforceable commitments are needed to protect communities as Micron’s construction begins, Smith said.

The “Good Jobs Platform” recommends a range of commitments, from labor peace agreements that would ensure workers can unionize to community workforce agreements keeping workers involved in key discussions regarding ongoing training and career development. Local labor leaders have sought similar commitments, urging Micron to commit to a community benefits agreement “that enshrines legally enforceable provisions that protect the community, its workers, and the environment.”

In his statement, Mehrotra said that Micron had formed local partnerships to build a “community investment framework” that would “revitalize central New York.”

Micron first CHIPS fabs to get full environmental review

More transparency is also urgently needed regarding Micron’s environmental commitments, advocates told Ars. In New York, Micron’s fabs are preparing to wipe out over 200 acres of mature forested wetlands, and so far, Micron has not provided a public “detailed mitigation plan to compensate for the loss,” a local environmental expert, Catherine Landis, warned during a public comment period on Micron’s plan to pave over the wetlands.

Unlike any other fab site in the US receiving CHIPS Act funding, Micron’s New York fabs must release a full environmental impact statement (EIS), which is currently being drafted and expected to be distributed to agencies this month, advocates told Ars. Construction has been delayed until the EIS is completed, at which point the public will gain a better understanding of how much harm could be caused by the project and what steps Micron will take to mitigate harms.

JMA has warned about potential impacts, like increased flooding in the area impacting both communities and Micron’s fabs. Destroying the wetlands will also displace federally protected endangered animal populations, JMA said, including the northern long-eared bat and the sedge wren. Potential chemical spills, reported at other US fabs, could endanger water quality, as could any mismanaged handling of chemical waste. And perhaps most critically, the energy demand to operate Micron’s facilities could risk setting back New York’s climate goals, JMA advocates said.

More transparency would help communities better prepare to welcome Micron and other chipmakers developing fabs across the US. JMA and local experts have agreed that the promised economic benefits Micron’s fabs will deliver in New York are a positive development, as are Micron’s commitments guaranteeing New York construction workers can unionize.

But communities will likely be the ones raising alarms as Micron’s operations introduce to the environment “thousands of compounds used in chip manufacture (most unregulated)” with “short- and long-term effects on plants, animals, people” still largely unknown, Landis said. And that’s where JMA hopes to make an impact, submitting freedom of information acts to request undisclosed data and pushing for community benefit agreements and other commitments from Micron to ensure communities aren’t irreversibly harmed by new fabs.

JMA expects that the EIS could help galvanize communities preparing for Micron’s construction to start in New York.

“I do think it is a really helpful tool that we have in our belt, and something that will help the public engage about concerns that we have,” Smith told Ars. “It spans, of course, air emissions, wastewater, runoff, toxics, wetlands, but it also includes things like housing and transportation, and those are things that we think that the Syracuse community is very concerned about.”

The EIS could mean that New York residents have a clearer understanding of how CHIPS funding may be polluting their communities. Most of the other communities nationwide impacted by CHIPS projects likely won’t have the same level of detailed information. Eric Romann, a JMA regional director, told Ars that, while “it’s positive that a higher bar has been set” for Micron’s New York project, that’s only “compared to the very low bar set for the other projects around the country, or you could say very low to non-existent bar.”

Micron declined to comment directly on workers’ concerns. In a statement provided to Ars, Micron’s spokesperson said that “Micron is committed to environmental stewardship across our global operations, including developing and maintaining critical environmental protections for our planned investment” in New York.

“A required environmental impact statement is currently in production with both federal and state lead agencies, and we are working closely with government stakeholders to ensure we meet any environmental permitting required for the project,” Micron’s spokesperson said. “We look forward to engaging with the public and government stakeholders during comment periods for the project’s draft environmental impact statement and environmental permitting in the near future.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Micron’s $6B CHIPS funding should have more strings attached, critics say Read More »

US blocks China from foreign exports with even a single US-made chip

AI chips, applied materials, Chips Act, kla, lam research, Policy, samsung, semiconductor, us-china trade war / DJ Henderson / December 2, 2024

But while Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said that these new curbs would help prevent “China from advancing its domestic semiconductor manufacturing system” to modernize its military, analysts and “several US officials” told The Post that they pack “far less punch” than the prior two rounds of export controls.

Analysts told The Wall Street Journal that the US took too long to launch the controls, which were composed around June. As industry insiders weighed in on the restrictions, word got out about the US plans to expand controls. In the months since, analysts said, China had plenty of time to stockpile the now-restricted tech. Applied Materials, for example, saw an eye-popping 86 percent spike in net revenue from products shipped to China “in the nine months ending July 28,” the WSJ reported.

Because of this and other alleged flaws, it’s unclear how effectively Biden’s final attempts to block China from accessing the latest US technologies will work.

Beyond concerns that China had time to stockpile tech it anticipated would be restricted, Gregory Allen, the director at the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the WSJ that these latest controls “left loopholes that Huawei and Chinese companies could exploit.”

Loopholes include failing to blacklist companies that Huawei regularly uses—with allies and American companies allegedly lobbying to exempt factories or fabs they like, such as ChangXin Memory Technologies Inc., “one of China’s largest memory chipmakers,” The Post noted. They also include failing to restrict older versions of the HBM chips and various chipmaking equipment that China may still be able to easily access, Allen said.

“These controls are weaker than what the United States should have done,” Allen told The Post. “You can make a halfway logical argument that says, ‘Sell everything to China.’ Then you can make a reasonable argument, ‘Sell very little to China.’ But the worst thing you can do is to dramatically signal your intention to cut off China’s access to tech but then have so many loopholes and such bungled implementation that you incur almost all of the costs of the policy with only a fraction of the benefits.”

US blocks China from foreign exports with even a single US-made chip Read More »

Workers demand more transparency after Intel secures $8B CHIPS funding

AI chips, Chips Act, chips fabs, chips plants, Donald Trump, intel, Policy, semiconductor / Mike M. / November 26, 2024

Intel awarded nearly $8B to “supercharge” US semiconductor innovation.

An aerial view from February 2024 shows construction progress at Intel’s Ohio One campus of nearly 1,000 acres in Licking County, Ohio. Credit: Intel Corporation

On Tuesday, the Biden-Harris administration finalized a CHIPS award of up to $7.865 billion to help fund the expansion of Intel’s commercial fabs in the US. By the end of the decade, these fabs are intended to decrease reliance on foreign adversaries and fill substantial gaps in America’s domestic semiconductor supply chain.

Initially, Intel was awarded $8.5 billion, but it was decreased after Intel won a $3 billion subsidy from the Pentagon to expand Department of Defense semiconductor manufacturing. In a press release, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo boasted that the substantial award would set up “Intel to drive one of the most significant semiconductor manufacturing expansions in US history” and “supercharge American innovation” while making the US “more secure.”

For Intel, the CHIPS funding supports an expected investment of nearly $90 billion by 2030 to expand projects in Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oregon. Approximately 10,000 manufacturing jobs and 20,000 construction jobs will be created “across all four states,” the Commerce Department’s press release said. Additionally, Intel estimated that the funding will create “more than 50,000 indirect jobs with suppliers and supporting industries.”

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which oversees CHIPS funding for manufacturing and research and development initiatives, the “funding will spur investment in leading-edge logic chip manufacturing, packaging, and R&D facilities.”

The sprawling effort includes the construction of two new fabs in Chandler, Arizona, the modernization of two fabs in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, building a new leading-edge logic fab in New Albany, Ohio, and creating a “premier hub of leading-edge research and development” in Hillsboro, Oregon. By the end, Intel expects to operate America’s largest advanced packaging facility in New Mexico and “one of only three locations in the world where leading-edge process technology is developed” in Oregon, NIST said.

Who’s enforcing worker safety commitments?

To succeed, Intel will need to build a talented workforce, so $65 million has been set aside to fund those efforts. The majority, $56 million, will “help train students and faculty at all education levels,” Intel said. Another $5 million will “help increase childcare availability near Intel’s facilities,” and the final $4 million will support efforts to recruit women and “economically disadvantaged individuals” as construction workers, Intel said.

Recruitment could be challenging if worker safety concerns are continually raised, though. Chips Communities United (CCU), a coalition of “labor, environmental, social justice, civil rights, and community organizations representing millions of workers and community members nationwide,” has been monitoring worker concerns at facilities receiving CHIPS funding. While the coalition fully supports Intel’s US expansion, they recently requested a full environmental impact statement at one of Intel’s Arizona fabs, detailing potential environmental and worker hazards, as well as mitigation plans.

As of August, CCU said that Ocotillo workers and communities had been given “insufficient detail on the use, storage, and release of hazardous substances, as well as other environmental impacts, to conclude that there are no significant environmental impacts.”

Workers have a bunch of questions. But perhaps most urgently, they need more information on how environmental safety commitments will be enforced, CCU suggested, because no one wants to work in constant fear of chemical exposure. Especially when Intel’s facilities in Oregon were revealed last year to have “accidentally turned off its air pollution control equipment for two months and underreported its CO₂ emissions.”

NIST noted that Intel is required to protect workers to receive CHIPS funding and has promised to meet regularly with workers and managers at each project facility to discuss worker safety concerns.

Intel could not immediately be reached for comment on whether it’s currently in discussions with workers impacted by CCU’s recent claims.

Weighing in on the Intel Community Impact Report that NIST released today, CCU applauded Intel’s commitments to bring workers to the table, adopt the “most protective health and safety standards for chemical exposure,” “segregate PFAS-containing waste for treatment and disposal,” and “make environmental compliance public when it comes to energy and water use,” CCU coalition director Judith Barish told Ars. But the enforceability of the promised workplace safety conditions remains a concern at Intel’s facilities.

“Protective workplace health and safety regulation” has “historically been missing in semiconductor production,” Barish told Ars. And it’s a big problem Intel’s current plan is to regulate the management of toxic chemicals following guidelines developed by industry—not government.

“Unlike government regulations, this standard is not easily available for public inspection since it is proprietary, copyrighted, and can only be inspected by purchasing it,” Barish told Ars. “Allowing a regulated entity to write the regulations that will be applied to it violates basic principles of good government.”

While segregating PFAS-containing waste sounds good, Barish said that workers need more transparency to understand how it “will be separated, stored, and treated and what the environmental impacts will be for nearby communities.”

It’s also unclear to workers what might happen if Intel fails to follow through on its commitments. The Commerce Department has emphasized that Intel’s funding will be disbursed “based on Intel’s completion of project milestones,” but workers “aren’t clear on the penalties or clawbacks the Commerce Dept. would impose if Intel failed to meet workforce, health and safety, or environmental milestones and metrics,” Barish said.

Intel only approved unionized workers at one site

For top talent to be attracted to Intel’s facilities, establishing the most protective safety protocols will be critical. But just as critical for workers—especially “economically disadvantaged” workers Intel is targeting for construction jobs—will be worker benefits.

Barish noted that Intel has only committed to employing unionized construction workers at one of four sites. The company may struggle to recruit workers, Barish suggested, without being clear about their rights to “join a union free from intimidation, captive audience meetings, exposure to anti-union consultants, threats of retaliation, and other obstacles to achieve bargaining.”

CCU plans to continue monitoring concerns at Intel’s fabs and others receiving CHIPS funding as the presidential administration potentially introduces CHIPS Act changes next year.

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump attacked the CHIPS Act, saying he was “not thrilled” with the price tag, CNBC reported. However, analysts told CNBC that any changes under Trump would likely be smaller rather than something drastic like repealing the law.

The Commerce Department continues to tout the CHIPS Act as a firmly bipartisan initiative. Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, whose company’s large investment depends on bipartisan support for the CHIPS Act continuing for years to come, echoed that sentiment after the award was finalized.

“With Intel 3 already in high-volume production and Intel 18A set to follow next year, leading-edge semiconductors are once again being made on American soil,” Gelsinger said. “Strong bipartisan support for restoring American technology and manufacturing leadership is driving historic investments that are critical to the country’s long-term economic growth and national security. Intel is deeply committed to advancing these shared priorities as we further expand our US operations over the next several years.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Workers demand more transparency after Intel secures $8B CHIPS funding Read More »