Unlikely Allies: Sanders Backs Trump's Call for Government Stake in Intel

In an unexpected turn of political alignment, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has publicly voiced support for an idea floated by former President Donald Trump: that the U.S. government should take an equity stake in Intel, especially given the substantial taxpayer funds flowing to the semiconductor giant through the CHIPS and Science Act.

This bipartisan convergence on an issue of corporate accountability underscores growing concerns about how public money is utilized to bolster private industry.

The CHIPS and Science Act, a landmark piece of legislation, allocates tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and tax credits to incentivize domestic semiconductor manufacturing, aiming to reduce reliance on foreign supply chains and boost American competitiveness.

Intel, a major beneficiary of this act, is poised to receive significant financial assistance, with a recently announced preliminary agreement for nearly $20 billion in grants and loans.

Sanders, a long-standing advocate for working-class interests and a vocal critic of corporate welfare, articulated his position during an interview, emphasizing that if the government provides billions of dollars to a private corporation, taxpayers deserve a share of the returns.

"When the taxpayers of the United States put billions of dollars into a corporation, then the taxpayers of the United States should get a return for that investment," Sanders stated, suggesting options like equity or profit-sharing. His rationale is rooted in the principle that public investment should yield public benefit, not just private profit.

Donald Trump initially introduced the controversial idea on his social media platform, Truth Social, questioning the current structure of the CHIPS Act.

He asserted that if the government is acting as a venture capitalist, it should receive a "piece of the company" in exchange for its massive financial injections. Trump's proposal, while coming from a different ideological angle, mirrors Sanders's underlying concern about ensuring taxpayer value.

This unlikely consensus highlights a shared skepticism across the political spectrum regarding the terms of these large-scale industrial subsidies.

While the CHIPS Act does include some provisions designed to protect taxpayer interests – such as limitations on stock buybacks and executive compensation for companies receiving funds – it does not typically involve the government acquiring direct equity stakes. This absence of equity or profit-sharing mechanisms has prompted calls for stronger safeguards from various lawmakers and public interest groups.

The debate extends beyond Intel to the broader implications of industrial policy.

Proponents of government equity argue that it would not only provide a financial return for taxpayers but also give the public a vested interest in the success and strategic direction of companies deemed vital for national security or economic growth. Critics, conversely, might raise concerns about government overreach or potential market distortions.

As the rollout of the CHIPS Act continues and billions more are disbursed, the unified voices of Sanders and Trump may amplify calls for a re-evaluation of how public funds are deployed in private ventures, urging a shift towards models that guarantee a more equitable return for the American people.