Kevin O’Leary is furious at Trump ‘force-feeding’ him Intel — as the US aims to invest taxpayer money in another company

The federal government’s decision to use taxpayer money to buy a stake in Intel has rankled many, including sworn free-market capitalist Kevin O’Leary.

If you ask him, Intel should suffer a very different fate.

“It’s like a fish dying in the ocean. So Intel is a fish. It dies. It goes to the bottom. The slugs eat it,” the Shark Tank host tells Moneywise, arguing the company is best consumed by its competitors.

Must Read

The $8.9 billion purchase of Intel (INTC) shares makes the embattled chip manufacturer, which has fallen behind its competitors amid the AI boom, a partially state-owned enterprise. That’s far more common in places like China and Europe, but it may not be a rarity in the U.S. for long.

Recently, the Trump administration bought an equity stake in MP Materials (MP), a rare-earth materials company, and took a “golden share” in U.S. Steel. There’s also been talk of buying stakes in defense contractors, like Lockheed Martin (LMT).

“I don’t like governments picking winners and losers in any sector, ever,” O’Leary says.

Want the full Kevin O’Leary conversation? Subscribe now to watch all our latest interviews before anyone else.

Unfortunately for him, the administration is now reportedly considering shares in yet another company: a mining venture that could be seen as critical to national security.

Making Intel great again

The decision to give Intel taxpayer money did not originate with the Trump administration.

The 2022 CHIPS and Science Act signed by President Joe Biden awarded Intel about $8 billion in grants to support its manufacturing expansion plans and strengthen national security. It was also awarded $3.2 billion as part of the Secure Enclave program.

The company has been paid $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants but needed to meet certain milestones to receive the remaining $6 billion, which was looking unlikely.

What the Trump administration has done is rewritten the terms of the deal.

In an Aug. 25 post [1] captioned “The Art of the Deal: Intel,” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said the president decided it would be “fair” if “America had shares” in Intel in exchange for the monetary support, which in total comes to $11.1 billion.

It’s clear the market sees Intel’s fortunes shifting now that it has the backing and interest of the federal government. Trump himself appeared to celebrate the jump in the company’s share price, posting an AI image [2] of himself sitting at a trading desk in the White House, with monitors bearing the captions “Bought: Intel 20” and “Intel: Now 30.”

The stock is now up more than 45% in the past month. Rival Nvidia (NVDA) announced its own investment in Intel, and reports say Apple (AAPL) is in talks to invest as well.

That said, DeepWater Asset Management analyst Gene Munster argues the iPhone maker’s only interest would be earning political goodwill by showing support for U.S. manufacturing.

“A financial investment in Intel would do little to advance Apple’s chip leadership, and I believe it would complicate rather than strengthen Apple’s supply chain strategy,” he wrote [3].

Speaking to Moneywise, O’Leary made clear his opposition to the Intel investment, on the basis of both principle and strategy.

“Taking my money and force-feeding me an investment like Intel just pisses me off,” he says. “It’s failed for the last 14 years and it deserves to be broken up and sold in pieces. It’s got bad management.”

He argues the “natural Darwinian forces of capitalism” should take over, with competitors like Nvidia identifying and buying up what parts of the company remain valuable.

“Nobody wants Intel product. That’s the problem. Nobody wants to buy their chips … Who in government knows how to run a chip-manufacturing company?”

Read more: Robert Kiyosaki warns of a ‘Greater Depression’ coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 ‘easy-money’ assets will bring in ‘great wealth’. How to get in now

Which company is next?

This week two sources speaking with Reuters said the Trump administration is seeking an equity stake of as much as 10% in Vancouver-based Lithium Americas (LAC) [4].

As with Intel, this would also be a renegotiation of a Biden-era deal. In October last year, the mining company announced it would receive a $2.26 billion loan from the U.S. Department of Energy for its Thacker Pass lithium project in Nevada, a joint venture with General Motors (GM).

Used in rechargeable batteries needed for the clean energy transition, lithium is considered a “critical material” by the U.S. government. That means the material serves an essential function in one or more energy technologies and it faces a high risk of supply chain disruption.

When completed in 2028, the Thacker Pass lithium project is expected to be the biggest source of the mineral in the Western Hemisphere.

As with Intel, the administration has again stressed to Reuters that it wants to be “fair to taxpayers” and “there’s no such thing as free money.”

The Toronto-listed stock has skyrocketed since the news broke.

The U.S. government becoming a key player in private industry could impact taxpayers, investors and the economy as a whole.

Financial experts speaking with Reuters highlighted the risks of such an environment, including a rise in insider trading and boards being forced to weigh company interests against national interests [5].

“We have a lot of evidence at this point across countries, within the U.S., in China, in Europe, that giving government part ownership, essentially having these companies become partly state-owned, leads to very bad economic outcomes,” Ann Harrison, an economics professor at UC Berkeley, told NPR’s Planet Money [6].

According to Harrison, these companies end up being insulated from competition.

For now, investors should be cautious about piling into companies on the government’s shopping list.

As Barron’s points out in the Lithium Americas case, the Trump administration is not offering more money than the earlier promised loan, so it’s effectively asking for a free stake that will dilute share value [7].

What to read next

Join 200,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.

Article sources

At Moneywise, we consider it our responsibility to produce accurate and trustworthy content people can rely on to inform their financial decisions. We rely on vetted sources such as government data, financial records and expert interviews and highlight credible third-party reporting when appropriate.

We are committed to transparency and accountability, correcting errors openly and adhering to the best practices of the journalism industry. For more details, see our editorial ethics and guidelines.

[1]. @howardlutnick. X post on Aug. 25, 2025

[2]. @realDonaldTrump. Truth Social post on Sept. 18, 2025

[3]. GeneMunster.com. “Apple investing in Intel would be largely political”

[4]. Reuters. “Trump wants piece of company in charge of America’s biggest lithium mine”

[5]. Reuters. “Investors worry Trump’s Intel deal kicks off era of US industrial policy”

[6]. Planet Money. “The U.S. now owns a big chunk of Intel. That’s a huge deal”

[7]. Barron’s. “Why a U.S. stake in Lithium Americas may not be a good deal for the Canadian miner”

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.