Comment by sgnelson

“National security” is often used by third world countries to nationalise companies and industries. Often with a bad outcome.

Once the money is in, government becomes invested in the success of the company. This leads to preferential policies and government demands for the invested company. I think it is safe to say that US is going full on third world strong man government at this point.

Unfortunately, this ship sailed quite some time ago. For example, after the 2008 financial crisis, the Senate rejected a proposed bailout of GM. But Bush approved it anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9320...

> However, it had been argued that the Treasury lacked the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers, since TARP is limited to "financial institutions" under Section 102 of the TARP. It was also argued that providing TARP funds to automaker's financing operations, such as GMAC, runs counter to the intent of Congress for limiting TARP funds to true "financial institutions".[79] On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding.

Also, “unitary executive” doesn’t mean overriding other branches. It just means that whatever powers the executive branch does or does not have are exercised by the President, just like the 535 members of Congress exercise all the powers of Congress, and the 9 Justices exercise all of the powers of the Supreme Court. It means that executive branch employees don’t have independent powers, just as House staffers and Supreme Court law clerks don’t have independent powers.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70 (“Federalist No. 70 emphasizes the unitary structure of the executive. The strong executive must be unitary, Hamilton says, because ‘unity is conducive to energy...[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.’”).

> unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government

Is there even a pretence of a law being cited by the White House?

The "or else' isn't the problem. The problem is the government trying to get involved in the first place. Intel was not forced to give away 10% of their company for 10 billion dollars, they simply wanted the 10 billion dollars. It's the fault of our government for propping up failing companies. Intel should be dying instead.

> This is about the breakdown of the rule of law

Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.

Why would the government need to "demand" to buy a piece of a publicly-traded company? Is 10% of Intel more than what is being traded in the public market?

This will scare off foreign investment. Especially pharma which can be considered national security. Why would I invest billions in the US to risk having my factories taken by the US government when the market in India or China is way bigger and the risk at this time seems a lot less.

Straight up blackmail. It was my immediate thought, and nothing I’ve since it was announced has changed my opinion.

> is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government.

What do you think about Senator Bernie Sanders backing Trump plan for government stake in Intel?

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/8/20/us-senator-berni...

Trump was explicit about the "or else" part. He said publicly that Intel did it because "[the CEO] wanted to keep his job," a reference to Trump's earlier pressure for him to be fired due to his vulnerability to pressure from the CCP.