A leading business figure has said the Trump administration’s reported plan to take a stake in Intel could be one of the most important industrial interventions in recent history, describing it as a necessary step to safeguard America’s technological independence and national security.
On Friday, Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson, told CNBC’s Squawk Box that government intervention in the struggling chipmaker is “essential.” While Luria acknowledged that U.S. economic tradition leans heavily toward free-market capitalism, he argued that Intel’s current condition poses too great a risk for Washington to sit on the sidelines.
“We’re all capitalists,” Luria said. “We don’t want government to intervene and own private enterprise, but this is national security.”
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
Bloomberg first reported Thursday that the Trump administration is actively weighing the possibility of taking a direct equity stake in Intel, a move that immediately sent the company’s shares higher. On Friday, the rally continued as markets speculated over how such an unprecedented arrangement might be structured. Sources said one option under discussion involves deploying funds from the $52 billion CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law to boost U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on overseas suppliers.
For the administration, the reasoning is that Intel has fallen behind global rivals like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) and South Korea’s Samsung Electronics in producing advanced chips, a shortfall that leaves the United States vulnerable in a world where semiconductor supply chains are increasingly caught in geopolitical crossfire. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stressed the need to “make more chips and high-end technology in the U.S.” and lessen dependence on Asia.
A Rocky Road for Intel
Once the undisputed leader of the global semiconductor industry, Intel has spent much of the last decade struggling with manufacturing delays, missed technology milestones, and market share losses to AMD, Nvidia, and foreign competitors. The company has stumbled in its transition to smaller, more advanced manufacturing nodes, forcing U.S. tech firms to turn to TSMC for cutting-edge chip production.
These setbacks have been costly not just for Intel but for U.S. technological sovereignty. The pandemic-era chip shortage exposed just how dependent American industries—from smartphones to defense systems—have become on overseas suppliers. This vulnerability has since been magnified by tensions with China, a key player in the global semiconductor supply chain.
The political drama around Intel intensified earlier this week when Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan met with Trump at the White House. Just days earlier, the president had called for Tan’s resignation over alleged ties to China, a stance that raised eyebrows in Washington and Wall Street alike. But the meeting appeared to mark a turnaround, with Trump later striking a far more conciliatory tone and even praising the Intel boss—a shift some see as a signal that the administration is serious about partnering with the company to reestablish its global standing.
National Security and AI Risks
Luria underscored the national security implications of the semiconductor race, drawing a parallel between advanced chip production and the Cold War arms race. Citing recent warnings from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg that superintelligent AI could represent “the next wave of nuclear proliferation,” he said, adding that leaving chip manufacturing in foreign hands is untenable.
“We can’t rely on somebody else making shell casings for our nuclear arsenal,” Luria said. “We have to get it right.”
If the U.S. moves forward with an equity stake in Intel, it would mark a historic pivot in industrial policy—one in which the government directly invests in a major private-sector technology player to protect national interests. While critics warn that such involvement risks distorting competition, supporters argue the stakes are too high to ignore.
However, the administration is reportedly weighing multiple intervention models, but business leaders are increasingly reaching a consensus that the future of America’s technological independence could hinge on whether Intel regains its place at the cutting edge of semiconductor production.