The recent discourse around the U.S. government demanding equity stakes in tech giants like Intel exposes a fundamental flaw in how America approaches industrial policy. Lip-service about national security and economic independence often masks a misguided obsession with immediate gains rather than sustainable growth. U.S. officials seem fixated on extracting value once taxpayer dollars are allocated, transforming grants into equity stakes in hopes of gaining control or profits. This approach disregards the importance of fostering genuine innovation ecosystems, instead creating a transactional mentality that ultimately weakens the long-term health of America’s tech sector. Such tactics risk turning strategic investments into political tools, prioritizing short-term power plays over nurturing competitive industries that can thrive without government intervention.

The Illusion of Control Through Equity

Lutnick’s assertion that the government’s equity would be non-voting and purely aimed at converting grants into ownership reveals a dangerous naivety. Equity, even if non-voting, could serve as a political lever rather than a means of strategic partnership. Historically, government stakes in private companies tend to entangle the industry in politicized decision-making, often stifling innovation and risk-taking. Moreover, branding these arrangements as “for the American people” conveniently glosses over the fact that government involvement inevitably introduces inefficiencies, regulatory burdens, and a dilution of private enterprise incentives. Relying on such models risks creating a semi-nationalized industrial landscape where corporate success is increasingly tethered to political favor rather than market-led innovation.

Dangerous Precedents Fueled by Political Partisanship

The aggressive stance taken by Trump-era officials, calling for equity stakes and reshoring initiatives, signals a perilous shift toward economic nationalism. While sectors like chip manufacturing are undeniably strategic for national security, implementing such policies with a heavy-handed approach invites chaos rather than order. The suspicion that intelligence and manufacturing goals are driven by partisan aims rather than pragmatic foresight compromises the credibility of U.S. leadership. Intel’s struggles and the departure of its CEO further underscore this volatile environment, where political pressures undermine steady corporate governance. Turning to a history of government intervention, this path feels increasingly reminiscent of failed industrial policies that burdened economies rather than uplifted them.

The Risks of a Politicized Industrial Strategy

Underpinning these developments is an unsettling belief that government can and should be a shaper of technological destiny through direct interference. But history suggests otherwise: heavy-handed policies tend to distort markets, disincentivize risk, and stifle genuine competition. Positioning government as an active stakeholder, even with “non-voting” rights, inevitably introduces political influence that can override merit-based decisions. The Biden administration’s seemingly generous grants, contrasted with Trump’s push for equity stakes, reflect conflicting visions that could fragment national strategy — creating winners and losers based on political calculations rather than technological merit. Such a landscape is prone to the kind of crony capitalism that disillusioned entrepreneurs and investors are increasingly wary of.

In Defense of a Center-Right Approach

From a center-right liberal perspective, robust government involvement should be judicious, targeted, and aligned with market-based principles. While national security and economic resilience are vital, policymakers must resist the urge to turn strategic investments into political capital. Instead, fostering an environment where private enterprise drives innovation, with government serving as an impartial facilitator rather than a partner in ownership, is essential. The future of the U.S. tech industry depends not on politicized equity deals, but on creating an open, competitive environment that rewards risk-taking and entrepreneurship — not government cronyism. Only then can the nation truly regain its technological edge without succumbing to the pitfalls of shortsighted industrial nationalism.