The Trump administration’s big Intel investment comes from already awarded grants

[u/Franco1875]

https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/23/the-trump-administrations-big-intel-investment-comes-from-already-awarded-grants/

[u/venom21685]

Effectively the CHIPS Act, as passed by Congress, by withholding the funds appropriated by Congress and imposing new and arbitrary terms on that funding. Of course, the judicial system is fucked in this country too so it's ultimately going to be a "Dear Leader can do whatever he wants" situation, but it would never have flown before in American history.

[u/Bokbreath → u/venom21685]

I understand - but the law was not changed. it may not have been followed as congress originally intended however for that to be challenged requires a plaintiff, in this case Intel. They are going along with the program so in terms of taxpayer value we are in front. I now effectively own about 1/35000000% of Intel.
Not seeing a downside here.

[u/venom21685 → u/Bokbreath]

I imagine some real Intel shareholders could also file suit as the C-suite just effectively gave away 10% of the company and devalued their shares.

Don't get me wrong I'm honestly not against taking equity in a company if they're getting grants/bailouts, but the requirements should be in the actual bill and the company's decision to weigh fairly. If anything this seizure should actually discourage investment in a company because what if the administration decides 10% isn't enough?

[u/Bokbreath → u/venom21685]

not sure it can be characterized as seizure. It was more give us equity or we don't give you taxpayers money. The option to decline the funds was always available.
And yes, a shareholder could easily file for mismanagement. It will be interesting to watch and see if this happens.

[u/venom21685 → u/Bokbreath]

It was more give us equity or we don't give you taxpayers money.

Which would be fine if those were the terms set out in the law appropriating the funds. They were not, nor were they amended into the law in any legal capacity. The executive does not have the authority to require it, thus it is a seizure and/or extortion.

[u/Bokbreath → u/venom21685]

Ah, the executive does have that authority. I quote the CHIPS act for your convenience:-

The Department of Commerce shall establish within the financial assistance program an additional program that provides federal financial assistance to covered entities to incentivize investment in facilities and equipment in the United States for the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes. In awarding federal financial assistance to covered entities under such additional program, Commerce must give priority to covered entities that support the resiliency of semiconductor supply chains for critical manufacturing industries in the United States.

That's my bold, but the act instructs the dept of commerce to execute the function and they are part of the executive branch. This is not novel. Congress appropriates funds but very rarely manages the distribution. The closest is when they earmark money for their districts.

[u/venom21685 → u/Bokbreath]

Yes, it gives the Department of Commerce the authority to provide federal financial assistance to entities that support the resiliency of semiconductor supply chains, etc in the United States.

Where does it give the authority for the Department of Commerce to require equity as compensation for the financial assistance?

[u/Bokbreath → u/venom21685]

It doesn't have to. That is up to Commerce. As I said. Congress appropriates money and tells Commerce to manage it. How Commerce does that is up to them. The only guideline congress inserted in the law is this bit:-

No funds made available under the program may be used to construct, modify, or improve a facility outside of the United States.