Taiwan Semi Weighs Buying Controlling Stake In Intel's Factories

 Earlier today we noted that one-time chip giant Intel, which has devolved to a shadow of its former self after years of catastrophic management decisions which cost former CEO Pat Gelsinger his job, just had its best week in history...

... after VP Vance, speaking at an AI summit in Paris on Tuesday, noted the Trump administration would boost domestic chip production. Momentum continued on Wednesday after a report from Robert W. Baird analysts suggested that the Trump team is working to broker a joint venture between Intel and TSMC, one which would focus on something we said last August has excess value at the Intel enterprise, namely its fabs.

Then moments ago, Bloomberg confirmed just that when it reported that Taiwan's chip giant, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, or TSMC, is considering taking a controlling stake in Intel Corp.’s factories to increase US chip production, at the request of Trump administration officials as the president looks to boost American manufacturing and maintain US leadership in critical technologies.

Trump’s team raised the idea of a deal between the two companies in recent meetings with officials from the Taiwanese chipmaker, a source told Bloomberg, and TSMC was receptive. It’s unclear whether Intel is open to a transaction, although at the right price, it will be.

Bloomberg notes that the talks are in very early stages, and the exact structure of a potential partnership hasn’t been established, although - again - with the stock plumbing the lowest level in decades, even a modest takeout premium would likely be considered by the board. 

The intended result of the deal would see the world’s largest made-to-order chipmaker fully operating Intel’s US semiconductor factories. It also would address concerns about Intel’s deteriorating financial state, which has forced the company to slash jobs and curb its global expansion plans.

In short, this would be a takeover, although the deal remains fluid. The arrangement may involve having major American chip designers take equity stakes, according to the person, along with support from the US government. That means the venture wouldn’t solely be owned by a foreign company. TSMC is the go-to chipmaker for Apple, Nvidia and other companies developing semiconductors that power AI algorithms.

Under former CEO Pat Gelsinger, Intel embarked on an ambitious and expensive plan to restore its chipmaking lead, and the company won $7.9 billion in US government funding to support projects in four states. It’s also secured $3 billion to produce chips for the US military, all of which will be paid out over time as Intel’s plants hit key milestones. The company has received $2.2 billion as of January.

But that effort has so far failed to attract enough outside customers to make the investments worthwhile, particularly at a new site in Ohio. Intel’s own products also are losing market share, adding to the overall squeeze on its finances — just when it needs spend heavily. Gelsinger was forced out in December after the board lost confidence in his turnaround plans.  

* * *

Intel shares are on track for their strongest weekly gain on record, based on Bloomberg trading data dating back to 1982. Investor enthusiasm surged after Vice President JD Vance, speaking at an AI summit in Paris on Tuesday, noted the Trump administration would boost domestic chip production. Momentum continued on Wednesday after a report from Robert W. Baird analysts suggested that the Trump team is working to broker a joint venture between Intel and TSMC.

On Tuesday, at the AI summit in Paris, VP Vance told the audience: "The Trump administration will ensure that the most powerful AI systems are built in the U.S. with American-designed and manufactured chips."

One day later, that was followed by a note via Robert W. Baird analysts claiming that the Trump team was pushing Intel and TSMC to form a joint chip production venture. 

"There are discussions from the Asia supply chain that the U.S. government will get involved in potentially the following: TSMC would send engineers to Intel's 3nm/2nm fab, applying the company's know-how to ensure that the fab and subsequent manufacturing projects from Intel become viable," Baird's Tristan Gerra told clients. 

Gerra said, "The fab could be spun off into a new entity jointly owned by TSMC and Intel, and run by TSMC. The new entity would receive U.S. Chip Act funding."

"While there is no confirmation and potential completion of this project could be lengthy, we think this move makes sense," she noted. 

On a separate note, Goldman's Bruce Lu, Toshiya Hari, and others provided clients on Friday with a closer look at the JV rumors involving Intel and TSMC: 

Media has speculated that TSMC and Intel (covered by Toshiya Hari) may be forming a joint venture to enhance U.S. chip manufacturing capabilities or that Intel may be considering spinning off its semiconductor fabrication unit to create a collaborative venture with TSMC with TSMC providing technical expertise and engineers to support advanced chip production at Intel's fabs.

At a glance: Fundamentally, the strategic merit for a potential JV seems unclear as TSMC and Intel operate under different business models and different tool sets which would likely require extra investment e.g. for purchasing/retiring equipment. For Intel and TSMC, even when looking at comparable technology nodes, some processes and equipment used are different. Also, Intel's equipment is generally for older process nodes, which is not the primary area of focus for capacity expansion for TSMC (i.e. TSMC's spending currently is mostly for its N2 expansion).

Additionally, TSMC's business strategy has been to remain independent and avoid entering into JVs that could compromise its neutral status with other clients. More importantly, TSMC's advanced nodes technology is its own property with proprietary processes, and is a key competitive advantage. Sharing this technology with a direct competitor like Intel could undermine its market position. Additionally, TSMC has historically been very cautious about sharing its intellectual property with other companies, especially with those in direct competition within the semiconductor space. Therefore, a technology transfer agreement between TSMC and Intel would seem uncharacteristic of TSMC's strategy.

Another outstanding issue is potential anti-trust implications of any TSMC/Intel partnership/JV given the dominant market positions of the two companies. However, to note, Intel and UMC announced a foundry collaboration in January 2024, the two companies will jointly develop a 12nm process platform. UMC will be leveraging Intel's existing equipment in Intel's existing fabs, with mass production timeline expected to begin in 2027 (see also: Intel/UMC new foundry collaboration; we view it as a positive strategic move for both companies, 26 January 2024).

The JV rumors have been more than enough to spark buying panic in beaten-down Intel shares. 

There's a tweet for that. 

Intel may log one of the best weeks on record if gains hold through Friday's close. 

Here's Tom's Hardware's take on the rumors:

Ongoing geopolitical turmoil, coupled with Intel's financial and execution struggles, have generated various rumors surrounding the blue giant. In this case, significant technological and business hurdles — ranging from differences in tooling process recipes at Intel and TSMC to TSMC's lack of incentive to aid a competitor — cast doubt on the feasibility of such a partnership.

. . . 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/best-week-intel-record-fueled-vp-vances-us-chip-pump-potential-jv-tsmc

The Jokes Liberals Used To Make

 Just after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, Colin Jost, host of the fake news segment on “Saturday Night Live,” Weekend Update, buried a prescient joke near the end of his segment. “The dating app Tinder announced a new feature this week, which gives users 37 different gender identity options,” Jost deadpanned. “It’s called, ‘Why Democrats lost the election.’”

To anyone who watched the election and deduced Trump’s 2016 victory was, in fact, helped by the explosion in identity politics, the joke was a harmless jibe at the political left. But to some, it was an attack on transgenderism and put people in danger. The tweets attacking Jost began flooding in: “What the actual f—. What a f—in stretch to blame the existence of trans/nonbinary people,” wrote one transgender tweeter. “Yeah f— that s—,” tweeted another user. “It’s not even trying to be a funny joke, just a s—y cheap shot. Ugh,” tweeted another.

Jost foolishly began arguing with people online, trying to satiate his critics with lines like, “I’m on your side a hundred percent. Only trying to learn from this defeat and get stronger.”

Of course, Jost’s attempts at solidarity just made things worse. Deadspin piled on with a post titled “Colin Jost Is a Dumbass,” and a Medium writer argued that SNL has long been “a flagship in normalizing transphobic violence.”

It had to be shocking for liberal SNL writers to realize that they, too, were not exempt from the aggressive language and joke policing that was surging in the latter half of the last decade. After all, they had spent four decades as “the cool people.” They were the ones that dictated taste, not random angry Twitter users.

Of course, people on the right have spent decades walking on eggshells while being lambasted for “insensitivity” by progressives. Certainly the Germans must have a word for “feeling joy when the most condescending people on the planet are canceled by their own extreme wing.”

But it had to be even more stunning given that SNL had gotten away with anti-politically correct comedy since 1975. The new brand of lefty looking to nuke their reputations was an entirely new creation. Suddenly, around 2015, it was as if the millennial Mogwais were fed after midnight and began turning into woke gremlins.

Many of the jokes dealing with now-verboten topics weren’t even seen as controversial when they aired. In May 2005, new cast member Jason Sudeikis’ first speaking role is in a sketch in which “Jackass” star Johnny Knoxville plays Sudeikis’ father, a trans woman. For Mother’s Day, Sudeikis and his brother, played by Seth Meyers, get Knoxville a card that says, “Dear father/mother: As you make this transition, one thing is true, no matter what’s in your panties, we’ll always love you.” (Needless to say, this sketch is not on the SNL YouTube feed.)

Just a season later, the show featured a segment in which confused talk show host Larry King, played by Fred Armisen, hosts a number of transgender people on his panel. All the big names take part in this one—cast members Kristen Wiig, Amy Poehler, Rachel Dratch, Will Forte and host Natalie Portman all play roles, unaware the world would look upon them unkindly two decades later. The humor in the sketch comes when, for instance, Armisen’s befuddled King asks Forte if he was a lesbian before he became a woman.

It was more than just transgender jokes that wouldn’t fly in the Oberlin faculty lounge. A few years ago, blackface became a major issue in America for a few weeks, and many examples being exhumed to cancel comedians were from SNL. There was Jimmy Fallon doing a Chris Rock impersonation. There was master impersonator Darrell Hammond darkening his skin to play Jesse Jackson. In the show’s 10th season, Billy Crystal all but bought a Sherwin-Williams store full of brown paint to play Sammy Davis Jr., Muhammad Ali and other famous black entertainers. (At the time, Crystal excused his rampant blackface by pointing out he had worn the makeup in a sketch with Jesse Jackson, who had no problem with it.)

Perhaps one of the most persistent jokes on the show, especially in the early 2000s, was to simply throw a gay character into a sketch. In the aforementioned 2005 Johnny Knoxville episode, there were no fewer than four sketches in which the single joke was “he’s gay!”

When former cast member Dana Carvey returned to host the show in 2000, he brought his famous “Church Lady” character with him and went on a rant comparing bisexuals to people who had sex with dogs. (When he was on the show, Carvey spent years doing a thickly accented Asian character named “Ching Change” who was eager to let America know that chickens make bad house pets.)

Again, these are not religious conservatives making these jokes. SNL’s writers and cast members are typically card-carrying members of New York City’s liberal elite. During the early 2000s, the show had gay writers and one male writer who famously transitioned to womanhood. And yet they could see the absurdity in any and all situations related to race, gender and sexual identity.

And that goes for cast members of all political stripes. While hosting Weekend Update, comic mastermind Tina Fey often resorted to crude gay jokes, despite once telling journalist Eric Spitznagel that the fake news segment had a “liberal bias.”

Consider when Fey joked that Elizabeth Taylor’s husband, David Gest, had a vagina. Or when Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family suggested SpongeBob SquarePants was gay propaganda, and Fey wondered aloud why he gave a free pass to that “carpet muncher Dora the Explorer.”

On Weekend Update, Fey once joked that “In a recent interview, Colin Farrell said he used to smoke ‘280 fags per week.’ Just to clarify this statement, in parts of Europe, the word ‘fag’ is a slang term for ‘gay dude.’” And when a book came out suggesting Abraham Lincoln was gay, Fey said it makes sense Lincoln started the Gettysburg Address with an effeminate “Listen up, bitches.”

This isn’t all to suggest that the world would be better with more jokes about gay and transgender people or that blackface should be acceptable. It just means that everyone is guilty, and some people should lighten up. Social media has amplified the voices of grievance peddlers looking to boost their purity by calling for the cancelation of anyone who jokes about a sensitive topic, but we have been here before and it’s not so bad.

In fact, if anything, Colin Jost’s “37 genders” joke ended up being prescient again in 2024. It is now commonly accepted that Trump’s recent election was a backlash to cultural “wokeism.” In fact, his most effective campaign ad was one that included footage of Kamala Harris telling an interviewer she wanted taxpayers to pay for gender reassignment surgery for prisoners (which, even if you support trans rights, is a bit hard to defend).

As SNL celebrates its 50th season on the air this weekend, it is important to recognize all the prescient moments the show has had, whether through crude humor or otherwise. James Joyce coined the term in risu veritas—“in laughter, truth.” As SNL has shown, trying to shut down comedy leaves us with an incomplete view of the world.

Christian Schneider is a Columnist, National Review. Author, "1916 the Blog." Co-Host, "Wasn't That Special: 50 Years of SNL."

https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/the-jokes-liberals-used-to-make

Full Charge: EPA Sent $160 Million to now Bankrupt Canadian Electric Bus Company

 by Jonathan Turley

There is considerable buzz in Washington about the disclosures of Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin on controversial grants by the Biden Administration, including the $50 million environmental justice grant to an organization that believes “climate justice travels through a Free Palestine.” However, one item was particularly notable: $160 million to a Canadian electric bus manufacturer which later announced bankruptcy without fulfilling the contract.

Both the Obama and Biden Administration wasted billions in loans and grants on green initiatives including the failed solar-panel company Solyndra and most recently the termination of the Ivanpah Solar Power Plant.

These projects often start with photo ops and virtue signaling that costs taxpayers billions in losses. What is missing is a modicum of economic and administrative judgment.

The Canadian electric bus company Lion Electric is such an example. Figures like Vice President Kamala Harris did repeated photo ops with electric buses as a defining issue. However, the company struggled from the start and the Biden Administration failed to take the most basic steps to protect taxpayer money. Rather than break up payments in segments based on actual production, Biden officials just sent the $160 million to the company.

The company is now shutting down without supplying $95 million in bus orders. The money is gone. Poof! and the company could vanish with the “Lion’s share” of U.S. public funds.

At the same time, the Administration pushed local and state governments to buy electric vehicles. Many blue cities went all-in but then had to spend more money to deal with the failures. Cities like Asheville, North Carolina, spent millions to buy more expensive electric buses only to find that they had to be recharged every 70 miles. Three out of five buses quickly broke down and could not be repaired because the company, Proterra, also filed for bankruptcy.

The concerning aspect of the Lion Corp payments is the apparent negligence of government officials in the handling of U.S. funds. Average Americans in contracting for their homes would require more assurances than what was allegedly demanded by the EPA.

Such accounts are likely to be cited in cases where Democratic groups are fighting to force agencies to continue to pay out money after court injunctions. The argument of the Trump Administration is that it wants to freeze expenditures as it reviews these contracts. In all likelihood, it will be able to accomplish such inspections and reviews as this litigation shakes out in the courts. It may result in some resumption of funding in the interim either by court order or waivers from the Administration, as done for health programs under the US AID.

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/02/14/full-charge-epa-sent-160-million-to-now-bankrupt-canadian-electric-bus-company/

RFK Jr. signals ending the ‘childhood chronic disease epidemic’ will be top priority

 Newly minted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. signaled Thursday that ending the “childhood chronic disease epidemic” will be one of his top priorities during President Trump’s second term.

“For 20 years, I got down every morning on my knees and prayed that God would put me in a position where I can end childhood chronic disease epidemic in this country,” Kennedy said after his swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office. 

“On August 23 of last year, God sent me President Trump,” he added, referring to the date he ended his 2024 White House bid and endorsed Trump. 

3

Kennedy was sworn in as HHS secretary in the White House on Thursday.Nathan Posner/Shutterstock

RFK Jr. argued that Trump’s vision of restoring “America’s strength” won’t be possible with a “weak citizenry,” as a result of chronic illness. 

“Sixty percent of our people are sick,” he said. 

“Seventy-seven percent of our children cannot qualify for military service,” Kennedy continued, referring to a 2022 Pentagon study. 

3

Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate in a 52-48 vote.

The HHS chief praised Trump’s recent moves to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development — an agency established by his uncle, former President John F. Kennedy — and said, “We want to do the same thing with the institutions that are stealing the health of our children.” 

Kennedy, who was confirmed by the Senate earlier in the day in a 52-48 vote, will oversee 13 HHS divisions and agencies — including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health — and a budget of roughly $1.7 trillion. 

He said he planned on implementing “radical transparency” at HHS and returning to “gold standard science” at the agencies he now oversees. 

3

RFK Jr. will be tasked with overseeing a nearly $2 trillion budget at HHS.ALLISON DINNER/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

“Ending the corruption, ending the corporate capture of those agencies, getting rid of the people on those panels that have conflicts of interest — we can do unadorned and unimpeded science rather than the kind of product that is coming out of those agencies,” Kennedy said.

When asked by a reporter what he would like to tell Democratic senators who voted against his confirmation, RFK brought it back to children. 

“Whether you’re in a blue state or red state, I’m going to do everything I can to work with you, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, to restore child health in this country,” RFK Jr. said. 

https://nypost.com/2025/02/13/us-news/rfk-jr-signals-ending-the-childhood-chronic-disease-epidemic-will-be-top-priority-as-hhs-secretary/

Trump is doing what Americans want

 "Look what you've done! I'm melting, melting. Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world."

That line, from a scene in "The Wizard of Oz," is playing out now in Washington, D.C., as Democratic members of Congress accuse President Donald Trump of destroying the government by shrinking it. Not since Dorothy tossed her bucket of water on the Wicked Witch has shrinkage triggered such drama.

Democrats' rhetoric has grown more extreme as Trump and his chief efficiency officer Elon Musk have cut deeper. Rep. Kweisi Mfume, D-Md., declared, for example: "Every time you hear DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, you just remember it is the department of government evil."

Evil, of course, is a matter of perspective.

The coordinated efforts of Democratic leaders and the mainstream media have once again not resonated with the public. Trump, according to polls, is now at higher popularity levels than during his first term. And a strong majority of Americans say Trump is keeping his promises, including in his efforts to reduce government spending and waste.

Those efforts include a generous buyout offer for federal employees. The Trump administration offered federal workers the chance to stay home for months while receiving full pay if they would agree to resign from government employment. 

It was an extremely clever move. The best way to shrink the government is to get people to leave voluntarily. But Trump and Musk also have warned that layoffs will follow if not enough federal workers accepted the buyout.

It is a type of self-deportation from government service. And it worked, with about 75,000 federal workers accepting Trump's offer before the deal ended Wednesday.

It worked so well, in fact, that Democrats rushed to stop the voluntary exodus by falsely suggesting that it was a scam. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., warned employees that Trump would “stiff you," even though the offer comes with the authority of the federal government.

U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole on Wednesday lifted his injunction on the buyout program, agreeing that Trump has the authority to offer the buyouts.

Unions representing federal workers and liberal legal organizations are likely to now appeal O'Toole's decision. The unions, which are facing a major reduction in dues-paying members, have a disturbing conflict of interest in trying to deny federal workers the benefits of an offer they chose to accept.

The legal challenges to the buyout have relied on a plethora of arguments asserting that a president cannot allow employees to stay home and receive pay pending their departure from federal employment. Those arguments cited the Antideficiency Act, which bars agencies from spending beyond the money appropriated by Congress.

The counterargument is that money used for the buyouts was allocated to pay employees whose service normally continues year after year. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president is given ample discretion in running the executive branch, including the work status of federal employees.

Congress clearly has a role in controlling use of the federal purse. For example, Congress can determine whether to allocate money to build certain Navy vessels. However, once the ships are built, it is the president who decides where to send them and who will serve on the crew. The commander in chief also can expand or shrink the size of the crew.

Trump was well within his authority in offering to change employees' duties while they look for new positions, and the employees had every right to agree to eight months of paid leave in exchange for their resignation from government service. 

The opposition from Democrats and labor unions is the ultimate form of paternalism. In the name of protecting employees, opponents fought to prevent workers from accepting offers they believe are best for themselves and their families.

Federal employees are entitled to protections in their employment. But they're not entitled to permanent employment. Congress is entitled to appropriate money for specific purposes. But it is not entitled to manage the executive branch.

Trump is very willing to fight on this hill. He holds a strong constitutional position and an even stronger political position. 

For those who proclaimed themselves as defenders of democracy throughout last year's election cycle, this is what democracy looks like. Voters made clear that they want changes in the size and the focus of government.

Those voters are unlikely to be convinced by the warning of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that Musk is “taking away everything we have.”

That is precisely what Americans asked for in reelecting Donald Trump.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/02/14/trump-musk-buyout-federal-employees-constitution/78464511007/