KAROLINE LEAVITT, White House Press Secretary:# The president wants to put America's needs first,## both from a national security and economic# perspective.

And it's a creative idea that## has never been done before to ensure that we're# both reshoring these critical supply chains,## while also gaining something of# it for the American taxpayer.

AMNA NAWAZ: That was White House Press Secretary# Karoline Leavitt explaining why the president is## weighing taking a 10 percent stake in computer# chipmaker Intel.

If approved, it would mark one## of the largest U.S. government interventions in# a private company since the auto bailout of 2008.

It's the latest in a series of actions# by the administration to take direct## financial interest in American businesses.

Joining me now to discuss this is Peter# Harrell from the Carnegie Endowment for## International Peace.

He's a former White House# economic adviser in the Biden administration.

Peter, welcome to the "News# Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

PETER HARRELL, Carnegie Endowment for# International Peace: Thanks for having me on.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, before we get# to the bigger picture here..

I just want to ask you# about Intel specifically.

If this deal goes through, the U.S. becomes the# largest shareholder in Intel.

In your view,## is it a good idea for the# government to take this move,## to essentially pick and put a thumb on the# scale among the many chipmakers in America?

PETER HARRELL: Well, I think it would be# fair to count me as skeptical that this## is the right way either to save Intel or to# help build U.S. semiconductor manufacturing.

I think there is bipartisan support.# We worked on it when I was in the Biden## administration to going back to Trump's# first term.

There is bipartisan support## in Washington for the idea that we need to be# building more leading-edge semiconductor chips## here in the United States.

That's why we have# had the CHIPS program to provide incentives for## reshoring semiconductor manufacturing# going back for five or six years now.

What's different is whether taking a 10# percent stake in the company is really## the most effective way to do that.

I don't# really see how taking 10 percent of Intel## is either going to help turn Intel# around or help this reshoring agenda.

AMNA NAWAZ: Are there questions around the# legality of this move as well?

I mean, back during## the financial crisis of 2008, it was Congress# that authorized specific bailouts for specific## auto companies and banks.

That's not the case# this time.

Is this legal for the president to do?

PETER HARRELL: No, I think# there are questions about## legally how they are going to structure this.

So, if we look back, back in 2022, so three or# four years ago now, Congress appropriated money## for the CHIPS Act.

The CHIPS Act had actually# preceded getting money.

Congress appropriated## money.

And then the Commerce Department# went through a period of giving grants,## which are clearly authorized by the CHIPS# Act, to a range of companies, including Intel,## including a company called TSMC, which is a# Taiwanese company, including Samsung and others,## to give those companies incentives to# build semiconductors here in the U.S. And the reason that the government didn't# take ownership in those companies then was## really twofold.

First, there's a question# about whether it's legal.

But, second,## these are companies -- these are not -- this is# not a bailout situation.

These are companies that## had been making chips very profitably overseas,# and the government wants them to do it here.

And had the government said, we're going to take# equity in you if you come to the United States,## the companies just would have said, thanks,# but no thanks.

We're fine manufacturing in## Taiwan and Singapore and Korea and places# like that.

So I don't think that taking## equity is really about -- very helpful# to getting the companies to onshore.

Now, Intel is a little bit different because Intel# over the last couple of years has had some serious## technological problems, some serious business# problems.

Again, we still have to get through,## is this really legal?

And I think it would be# helpful for the Trump administration to spell out## its legal rationale, because it was definitely# not originally contemplated in the CHIPS Act.

AMNA NAWAZ: So put this into some larger# context for us here.

If this deal goes through,## and that is still an if, it would# just be the latest example of the## Trump administration essentially taking# a cut from different American companies.

They're sharing in profits from Nvidia and# AMD sales of computer chips to China.

It's## taken a share in U.S. Steel as part of a# deal that would approve its merger with## Nippon Steel.

Bigger picture here,# Peter, what do you see going on?

PETER HARRELL: I mean, this is very# different from what we have seen in## the U.S. over at least the sort of 80# years since the end of World War II.

As you alluded to, there is some history# in the context of financial crises or other## kinds of crises the government taking# some stake in companies as part of## a bailout.

We saw that during the financial# crisis.

We also saw it some during## the COVID pandemic in 2020, where some of# the COVID relief the government enacted was## tied to the government getting some stakes# in companies that were getting bailed out.

But these have traditionally been short term# stakes, the government saying, we will take a## stake to get you through the tough times and then# we're going to sell it off.

This is much more of a## scenario where the president is saying he# wants the government to own stakes, not## just in companies that are failing, but in a whole# bunch of companies on a kind of open-ended basis,## very different from the way the U.S. has operated# on our economic model over the last 80 years.

And I think it's going to raise# a bunch of questions about,## are the -- is the government really going# to be the right shareholder to help these## companies succeed?

Is the government going to# start showing favoritism to these companies## over companies that it doesn't own?

What are# the kind of political requirements that are## going to be put on companies that the# government is taking an ownership in?

Because this is just not a business model that# has been the way the U.S. government and the## private sector have interacted in kind of the# modern era that we have all lived through.

AMNA NAWAZ: Peter Harrell from the Carnegie## Endowment for International Peace,# thank you so much for joining us.

PETER HARRELL: Thanks for having me.