The Slippery Slope Of Government Ownership In Public Companies

Recently, Intel announced an agreement with the United States government. Under terms of the agreement, the U.S.government will make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock. When discussing the U.S. government’s direct ownership stake in a public company, one encounters a complex and potentially perilous set of realities.

On the surface, it might sound like a stabilizing force — after all, the government could be seen as a partner, backstop, or protector for a strategically important business. However, if history teaches us anything, it’s that when governments directly intervene in competitive technology markets, unintended consequences almost always follow.

The Washington Post has an article titled, “The Government’s Intel Stake is antithetical to American greatness.”

The New York Times reported that “The deal could face a challenge from shareholders or others concerned about its legality. The CHIPS Act may not allow the U.S. government to convert grants into equity, lawyers and bankers who have studied the law said.”

Although some CEOs, such as Satya Nadella of Microsoft, highlighted the benefits to the country and the broader technology ecosystem, others, like Michael Dell of Dell Technologies, emphasized the need for a robust U.S. semiconductor industry. However, several other CEOs I spoke with — who requested anonymity — expressed serious reservations, with some outright rejecting the deal. They feared it would set a dangerous precedent, allowing government intervention in tech companies’ operations and potentially restricting their ability to innovate freely.

The deal has also drawn criticism from analysts and commentators. Concerns include the potential for harm to Intel’s international sales, as the company itself noted in a regulatory filing, given that a significant portion of its revenue comes from outside the U.S. Critics have also questioned the risk of government favoritism towards Intel and view the deal as an unprecedented intervention in the economy. Some analysts have pointed out that the investment, made at a discount, appears to favor government interests over those of shareholders.

The reality is that a government stakeholder distorts fair competition. Public companies thrive when markets dictate their success. If Washington D.C. owns a slice, the perception — and sometimes the reality — is that this company now has a privileged position. Competitors, whether domestic or international, suddenly view the market as rigged. This risks slowing industry innovation, as rivals may reduce investment if they feel the playing field is permanently tilted.

This also creates conflicts of interest between public shareholders and government priorities. Shareholders want growth, efficiency, and profitability. Governments, however, are motivated by national security, political agendas, or regional job protection. Suddenly, business decisions are no longer purely strategic — they’re political. That tension can compromise product roadmaps, R&D investments, and long-term competitiveness in favor of short‑term political wins.

This one scares me the most. Influencing companies to design for political gain is counterintuitive to any tech company’s visions and goals.

There is also a chilling effect on global business relationships. Today’s tech companies are profoundly globalized — in their supply chains, sales, and partnerships. If a foreign partner views the U.S. government as a co-owner of a rival tech company, they may be hesitant to engage, fearing political leverage or hidden agendas. In an era of fragile geopolitics, this could weaken a company’s position internationally.

The most dangerous element, though, is the precedent. If we normalize federal ownership in publicly traded firms, we are telling the market that private risk and innovation are no longer the ultimate drivers of progress — political interests are. In the long run, that undermines the very spirit of entrepreneurial capitalism that made American tech dominant in the first place.

Technology flourishes most when agility, creativity, and competitive forces are allowed to run free. The government’s role should be to create guardrails — such as infrastructure, regulation, and policy frameworks — rather than to sit in the driver’s seat of competitive business. Once those lines blur, the cost to innovation, trust, and global competitiveness can be profound.

Disclosure: Intel, Microsoft and Dell subscribe to Creative Strategies research reports along with many other high tech companies around the world.