Absolutely this, there’s no longer any confidence to begin a project anymore. Would like to see the legal action go ahead against the government and set a standard that contracts can’t be treated just as “suggestions”.
If I was pharma I would think twice before investing In a factory that can be taken by the state just like that.
EDIT: I was not aware that something was paid. Every time I saw trump on TV he said he got it for nothing. Yeah I know he lies a lot and I should have checked more into it. This is dangerous however as internationally you don't always get the details right away and generally one believes what a head of state says.
I know that this is how it was reported everywhere including here, but I recently learned that it's apparently false. The US just bought shares. From https://www.reuters.com/business/us-take-10-equity-stake-int...:
> Under the agreement, the U.S. will purchase a 9.9% stake in Intel for $8.9 billion, or $20.47 per share, which represents a discount of about $4 from Intel's closing share price of $24.80 on Friday.
So they bought a 9.9% stake at a slight discount. (And just have to go back a couple of weeks to find Intel's stock price at under $20.47 per share, so I'm not sure you can really call it a real "discount").
I don't know how long it takes between when the price is set and when the deal becomes public. If the final price was set on friday, then yeah, there was a slight discount (though even then, the discount was within Intel's normal random short term share price fluctuations).
Maybe it's completely fair to call this a proper discount, I'm genuinely not familiar enough with the finance world to say. Regardless, I feel that this is important context; it's not like Intel's share price has been stable at between $24 and $25 per share for years and then the US comes in and buys at $20.
Not to buy shares.
I assumed they were buying shares like any other investor. How are they getting it for free?
In reality, the US bought a 10% stake for roughly $8.9 billion, paying market price for the shares.
So sure, no new funds, of which "free" is a nutty, insane interpretation, but whatever.
Weird ways to convey it aside, I do like shares as a guarantee for grants, which is not a new thing, but I'd still like to enforce funds allocation for those funds. Not sure if that's happening still.
> It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future. I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
“The United States paid nothing for these Shares”
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1150744446179...
The president has been known to not know all the facts or exaggerate about what is known. Personally, and sadly, his tweets are worthless than my fortune cookies.
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-everybody-eggs-now...
Also most exaggeration happens during campaigns for getting votes, but rarely the result is a strong enough mandate to push all things through, thus one has to compromise ... but campaigning on "well, realistically my options will be limited" doesn't really work, especially as the campaign promises form the negotiation base lateron.
But in that regard Trump is special, also.
1) A member of the opposition party tweets "The president stabbed a kid" without any proof. I go on facebook and post "WTF why did the president stab a kid? He is so evil."
2) The president tweets "I just stabbed a kid" without any proof. I go on facebook and post "WTF why did the president stab a kid? He is so evil."
Under Biden there was money to be granted (as in: via a grant, Congressionally approved) to Intel. Trump then held the grant hostage in return for government ownership of Intel shares.
There's also a threat that this deali supposedly eases around the Intel CEO that Trump said was 'too connected' to China.
It's either borderline or blatantly illegal, but there are likely no parties eligible to contest, or interested in contesting, it in court.
(Based on my memory of someone's breakdown of a few examples like this - there's a chance I'm conflating a couple of different but related things, the deal with Nvidia to allow selling of some more advanced chips to China being another)
I wonder if that's related to this.
The amended title here gave me the false impression that NPR had started speaking valley girl.
Some don't like their dear leader being shown in a negative light here.
They mention things like wind farms killing birds other says it's making noise or looking ugly but even though I never lived around a wind farm, I have came close to some large wind farms and they looked futuristic to me I didn't hear any noise. I'm not convinced that is uglier or noisier than any other modern infrastructure, like roads or planes.
Is this about money? is this ideological? what is this, what's going on?
Old man gave people what they wanted and now he is taking what he wants. He’s old, his offsprings are wealthy beyond comprehension and they will be fine.
The proximate cause is that the fossil fuel lobby went all-in on getting Trump elected. They paid big miney [1] and they expect a payback for that. Moves against renewables, electric vehicles, regulation, etc. are part of the transaction.
More widely, renewables occupy an adjacent space in the conservative worldview to environmentalists and the liberal left. Being seen to destroy them reinforces Trump's leadership of his base. And emphasising use of traditional, domestic, fossil-based energy sources appeals to nationalist/traditionalist sentiment.
So its money and ideology.
[1] https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/01/the-fossil-fuel-i...
You'd think a "drill baby drill" attitude would be more in line with his platform but a tiger can't change its stripes. Waspy east coast democrats all hate wind farms because they and their buddies all own waterfront property.
Personally, I think he's missing a great opportunity to really stick it to people who deserve to have it stuck to them (for a variety of reasons somewhat tangential to red/blue politics) while furthering the energy, economic and industrial goals of the nation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ørsted_(company)#Shareholders
edit to add: Moreover, Denmark's foreign minister visited California this Friday, and met with Gavin Newsom[1]—obviously a provocation to Trump, given Newsom's political actions. A connection FT also made[2].
I don't know why I'm being mass-downvoted. This is a perfectly valid theory—it'd be a continuation of a retaliation threat Trump himself made, overtly [3].
[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/california-3/newsom-partnership-d... ("Newsom signs partnership with Denmark on climate and tech" (Aug. 22))
[2] https://www.ft.com/content/27bce438-9008-4c46-979a-26217e75a... ( https://archive.is/r2FfQ ) ("Ørsted hit by US stop-work order on Rhode Island wind farm")
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-01-07/trump-... ("Trump Threatens Denmark With Tariffs Over Greenland" (Jan. 7))
This is just another round of a fight that's been happening for over 20yr now.
Wind farms in this area have been a constant political football. Regardless of the pretext the real story is that the people who have a view they want to protect, the tourism industry and the hippie/nature/biology types are on the no-wind side and the climate types, greenies, domestic energy and big business types are on the other. Sometimes one side wins, sometimes another side wins. But nothing ever gets built.
It isn't so different from the previous administration's regulatory uncertainty around drilling permits. The allegedly pro-biz anti-regulation Republicans like gov regulation here, while the pro-regulation Democrats don't like it. If anything, it lays bare the hypocrisy of both sides. NPR is just along for the ride to once again tell us, "Trump bad".
The problem with these partisan sources is that even if there were a deeper rationalization for killing the project with regulations, such as a valid national security situation, we wouldn't expect NPR to cover it. Looking elsewhere I didn't find much.
>"The bureau is seeking to protect U.S. national security and prevent "interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas," Giacona said.
There are multiple sources indicating this administrations stance on wind power. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/28/are-trum... for instance. It would seem the foreign production source (China) is probably the only related to US security. The other statements about price or environmental impact have no particular basis in data or direct US security impact.
This analysis of using foreign sourcing as a reason to kill energy projects roughly lines up with portions of the official press release: https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/department-interior-curbs-... Although they amend that with statements about land use and environmental impact.
From a strictly personal analysis, it’s hard though to frame the current administrations aggregate actions as anything but an attempt to cripple wind and solar based industries, which have far less environmental impact and carbon footprint than any other industry except maybe nuclear. But nuclear struggles due to buy in costs and public perception.
stuaxo•3h ago
JumpCrisscross•3h ago
wcoenen•3h ago
Perhaps the government can set up some type of holding company which holds such shares and receive the stream of protection money. Next, arrange for investors to only be able to acquire shares of this company if they also trade in some US debt, like France once did with the Mississippi company.
JumpCrisscross•1h ago
Those are deals with the state. The point is if you personally enrich Trump and his cronies, you get approved. If you don’t, you don’t.
hliyan•1h ago