Tangle - Should the government invest in Intel?

Episode Date: August 21, 2025

On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed reports that the Trump administration is working on a deal with Intel that would grant the U.S. government a 10% stake in the computer technology company. The possible agreement, first reported on August 14, may involveconverting roughly $10.86 billion in federal grants issued to Intel during the Biden administration into equity in the company, though the exact mechanism for doing so is unclear. Tangle LIVE tickets are available!We’re excited to announce that our third installment of Tangle Live will be held on October 24, 2025, at the Irvine Barclay Theatre in Irvine, California. If you’re in the area (or want to make the trip), we’d love to have you join Isaac and the team for a night of spirited discussion, live Q&A, and opportunities to meet the team in person. You can read more about the event and purchase tickets here.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think of the government owning equity in Intel? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox is an eight-episode Hulu original limited series that blends gripping pacing with emotional complexity, offering a dramatized look as it revisits the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox for the tragic murder of Meredith Kircher and the relentless media storm that followed. The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox is now streaming only on Disney Plus. This episode is sponsored by the OCS Summer pre-roll sale. Sometimes when you roll your own joint, things can turn out a little differently than what you expect it. Maybe it's a little too loose.

Maybe it's a little too flimsy. Or maybe it's a little too covered in dirt because your best friend distracted you and you dropped it on the ground. There's a million ways to roll a joint wrong, but there's one role that's always perfect. The pre-roll. Shop the summer pre-roll and infuse pre-roll sale today at OCS.orgia and participating retailers. What matters most to you? Is it unforgettable adventures? connections with lifelong friends,

peaceful moments of reflection, feelings of joy and freedom you can't wait to experience again and again. Or is it the vehicles that help you make all those special moments possible? Whatever your answer is, Toyota is here to bring you closer to the things that matter to you

because they matter to us too. Toyota, for what matters most. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the potential deal with Intel between the federal government, led by Donald Trump, and some leaders at Intel. We don't have as much information as I'd like, but this story's fascinating.

And I'm excited to cover it, in part because I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the commentary that I'm seeing about it. So it's a good one. We're going to dive in today. Before we do, though, I want to give you a quick heads up that tomorrow we're releasing a behind-the-scenes look at our little mini-documentary. on our three days we spent with Representative Jake Ockincloss, the Democrat from Massachusetts. We got indated with questions about the video, specifically questions about what happened off-camera

and what viewers didn't see. Tomorrow, in our members-only Friday edition, we're going to answer those questions. We'll cover how the video came together, why we didn't see Ockin-Claas fundraising, what his staff actually does, and whether the influence of lobbyists was apparent. A quick reminder that this is part of our members-only

stuff on the podcast. So we'll release this as a Friday edition in the newsletter and then we'll get a member's only podcast version of that newsletter out at some point over the weekend. If you want to receive those members only podcasts, well, you need to become a member. You have to go to readtangle.com forward slash membership and buy a membership. If you scroll down to the bottom, you can get a podcast only membership if you are just a listener. If you want to bundle it with a newsletter subscription or a membership that accesses our whole website, You can do that as well, and it's affordable, just $99 a year for the bundle and less than $5 a month if you get an annual subscription just for the podcast. All right, with that, I'm going to send it over to John for today's main story, and I'll be back for my take.

Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, the Texas House of Representatives voted 88 to 52 to pass a new state congressional map advancing the Republican-led mid-decade redistricting effort. Number two, President Donald Trump called for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's resignation, setting unconfirmed claims that she committed mortgage fraud. Trump is reportedly considering firing Cook if she does not resign. Number three, a federal district court in Texas issued a preliminary injunction temporarily

blocking a new law requiring public schools to display the 10 commandments in every classroom in the state. Number four, Israel said it will call up 60,000 reservists in advance of an expanded military operation in Gaza City. At number five, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reportedly plans to reduce its workforce by 30 to 40 percent and cut its annual budget by approximately $700 million. One name under the spotlight today, Intel. Shares popped nearly 7% on news. The struggling chipmaker secured a $2 billion investment from SoftBank.

And as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik confirms, the White House is considering buying a stake in the company. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt confirmed reports that the Trump administration is working on a deal with Intel that would grant the U.S. government a 10% stake in the computer technology company. The possible agreement first reported on August 14th may involve converting roughly $10.86 billion in federal grants issued to Intel during the Biden administration into equity in the company, though the exact mechanism for doing so is unclear.

Under the deal, the government would not have voting or governance power, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik, and any agreement will likely require approval by Inton, Intel's board of directors. For context, Intel is the only U.S. company with leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing capabilities. The Chips Act of 2022 allocated $39 billion in grants to support semiconductor production in the United States, and Intel has been the largest recipient of those funds. The company has since spent billions of dollars building up chip fabrication facilities

in Ohio, with additional plans to build in Arizona, New Mexico, and Oregon. On Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Lutnik criticized the Biden administration for giving billions to Intel and other companies without a tangible return. The Biden administration literally was giving Intel for free and giving TSM, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, money for free. And all these companies just giving them money for free, Lutnik said. Donald Trump turns that into saying, hey, we want equity for the money. If we're going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action. U.S. government intervention in private companies is rare, but not unprecedented. During the 2008 financial crisis, the government authorized spending roughly $1 trillion

to stabilize banks and financial institutions facing insolvency and spend billions to prop up Chrysler and General Motors and support the U.S. auto industry. While Intel is not facing insolvency, the chipmaker is experiencing protracted struggles. Despite surging demand for semiconductor chips, it has fallen behind its competitors and has faced significant manufacturing setbacks over the past decade, leading to CEO Pat Gelsinger's resignation in 2024. Under new CEO, Lip Bhutan, and with billions in federal grants, Intel is seeking to modernize its operations. However, President Trump recently called for Tan's resignation over alleged conflicts of interest following Senator Tom Cotton's claims that Tan has extensive ties to Chinese

businesses. Tan met with the president earlier this month at the White House, where the two discussed Intel's commitment to strengthening U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership, according to a statement from Intel. On Tuesday, the Japanese investment company SoftBank announced it would invest $2 billion in Intel, viewed as a vote of confidence in the company's future and the Trump administration's efforts to bolster U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. Today, we'll explore reactions to the potential deal from the right, left, and technology writers, and then Isaac's take.

We'll be right back after this quick break. This episode is sponsored by the OCS summer pre-roll sale. Sometimes when you roll your own joint, things can turn out a little differently than what you expect it. Maybe it's a little too loose. Maybe it's a little too flimsy. Or maybe it's a little too covered in dirt because your best friend distracted you and you dropped it on the ground. There's a million ways. to roll a joint wrong. But there's one role that's always perfect, the pre-roll. Shop the summer

pre-roll and infuse pre-roll sale today at OCS.ca and participating retailers. What matters most to you? Is it unforgettable adventures, connections with lifelong friends, peaceful moments of reflection, feelings of joy and freedom you can't wait to experience again and again? Or is it the vehicles that help you make all those special moments possible? Whatever your answer is, Toyota is here to bring you closer to the things that matter to you because they matter to us too. Toyota, for what matters most. All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying.

Many on the right acknowledge Trump's desire to bolster U.S. chipmaking, but see Intel as a failed company not worth the investment. Others argue a government stake in Intel would violate conservative of economic principles. In The Spectator, Matthew Lynn said Trump may regret investing in Intel microchips. There is a case to be made for state support. Microchips are a key strategic industry. And just like Joe Biden, President Trump wants to make sure that the United States has

enough manufacturing capacity on its home soil. He wants to ensure the country is not completely reliant on imports from South Korea, Japan, or most worryingly of all, Taiwan, given that it could be invaded by China one day, Lin wrote. The trouble is, Intel also faces huge challenges. The days when laptops proudly boasted Intel inside are long in the past. The company's share price has halved over the last five years. In the mass market, Samsung has overtaken it, and Chinese manufacturers are snapping at its heels. It may have been one of the pioneers of the computer age, but it is now looking well past its prime, Lynn said. In reality, Intel has become hooked on subsidies and grants. The company has become

very good at hustling cash out of governments. It has not been so good at making chips or serving customers. It's very hard to see how a few more billions from the White House is going to turn that around. In the Wall Street Journal, Daniel J. Smith wrote about Trump, Intel, and the road to serfdom. The Trump administration is pursuing federal ownership stakes in companies such as Intel and U.S. steel, ostensibly to advance national security and domestic manufacturing. Yet these moves risk leading us down the road to serfdom that Frederick Hayek warned against in 1944. Such actions paved the way for future administrations to impose DEI, environmental, and regulatory mandates on businesses through backdoor control, Smith said.

Hayek warns in the road to serfdom that state ownership threatens both prosperity and liberty. As he defined it, socialism involves state ownership and direction of the economy, which President Trump's policies increasingly resemble. A government's stake in Intel could override market-driven innovation, favoring bureaucratic priorities over consumer needs. State ownership also expands public sector employment, leading to concentrated special interest groups and the suppression of dissent. Even a modern share of federal ownership would be a powerful bargaining chip for striking unions, especially if a Democrat sat in the White House Smith Road. Even if well-intentioned, Mr. Trump's actions erode the GOP's free market credentials. Lawmakers will soon argue that if chips and steel

are too important to leave to free markets, food and medicine are as well. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left is also critical of the potential deal, suggesting it is an extension of Trump's desire to exert control over the entire U.S. economy. Some note how Trump's supporters have seemingly abandoned their pro-market principles. In the American prospect, Harold Meyerson said, the U.S. goes in for state capitalism. To be sure, there have been times in our history when the government has involved itself directly in businesses' affairs

and taken temporary stakes in them. But until now, that's always been during particular and time-limited emergencies. When the domestic auto industry faced the prospect of collapse in the wake of the 2008 financial crash, the government took a temporary stake in both General Motors and Chrysler in return for bailing them out, Meyerson wrote. While also bailing out the largest banks, however, it did not take a stake in them.

And while the Biden administration boosted the strategically important green energy industry with tax credits, it took no stake in those companies. It's impossible to imagine Trump or Republicans in general, supporting any form of state capitalism, however, if it occurred under anyone else's presidency. It's happened under Trump because, like Louis XIV, Trump, Trump adheres to the doctrine, let's see me, I am the state. Under his rule, the state has become primarily the vehicle through which he can maximize his personal control of whatever he wishes to control, Meyerson said.

No broader doctrine, not nationalism, not mercantilism, not liberalism's preference for regulated capitalism or a mixed economy, and certainly not social democracy or any form of socialism, is at the root of Trump's embrace of state capitalism. In CNN, Alison Morrow and Phil Mattingly questioned corporate America's silence as Trump abandons free market principles. Not long ago, American conservative orthodoxy held that when it comes to doing business, the government that governs least governs best. The orthodoxy manifested itself in familiar ways. Groups that claimed the mantle of individual liberties would decry new legislation.

Talk radio and podcasts would mock unnamed bureaucrats for ham-fisted overreach, and powerful business lobbies were quick to denounce in press releases and even lawsuits, regulations or taxes they saw as government overreach, Morrow and Mattingly wrote. But when faced with President Donald Trump's efforts to seize control of private enterprise, those same groups have gone quiet. The silence from corporate America to Trump's incursion into private businesses isn't entirely unexpected. Businesses have lost their appetite for the kind of social progressive rhetoric many adopted in

response to the 2020 murder of George Floyd. At the same time, Trump's return to the White House came with a cost-benefit analysis for any business leaders thinking of speaking out, make yourself a target, or fall in line and wait for the massive tax cuts the president has promised. All right. That is up for what the right and the left are saying, which brings us to what technology writers are saying. Some tech writers see the merits of Trump's idea, but suggest he should do more to save Intel. Others worry government investment could make it harder for Intel to compete. In Silicon angle, Dave Valenti explored Trump's Intel pivot. President Donald Trump's

180 on Intel Corp is at least directionally correct, certainly more so than calling for the ouster of Lipbutton, Intel CEO. But a contemplated investment by the U.S. in Intel, without a significant restructuring of Intel's entire business, is a recipe for failure, Valenti said. Specifically, we continue to urge Intel's board to spin out its foundry business. Every day it waits further decreases foundry's value. Moreover, we call on the U.S. government to use money from the Chips Act and its influence on large U.S. chip designers and Taiwan Semiconductor manufacturing company to secure a position for a U.S. domiciled company in advanced semiconductor manufacturing. U.S. taxpayers, via a combination of Chips Act funding and direct equity injections under the Trump

administration's manufacturing push, would take a controlling 51 percent stake. That majority position is designed not just to inject capital, but to guarantee U.S. leverage over advanced semiconductor manufacturing capacity at a time when supply chain security is a national priority, Valenti wrote. TSM's participation at 30% brings not only a massive $30 billion commitment, but also the critical intellectual property and operational expertise required to make the venture globally competitive. This mix of public capital, TSMC expertise, domestic assets, and private funding could

give the U.S. its most credible shot in decades at not only reshoring, but controlling a meaningful share of advanced semiconductor production. In the Financial Times, John Foley said, Uncle Sam taking a stake in Intel is sane in an absurd world. For a transactional-minded president, this calculus is pretty clear. Given all that large S, why not demand something back? Previous administrations presumably realized that rewards come in other forms, such as national prosperity and global greatness.

But converting grants and other goodies earmarked for Intel into equity creates a more tangible return on that investment, Foley wrote. The company is too important to fail, since it still commands the only substantial U.S. controlled source of leading-edge chip production. Why not invest preemptively instead, if doing so might make failure less likely? The risk is that government investors have an incentive to urge companies to do things other shareholders would rather they didn't. For example, Intel recently slowed construction of its Ohio mega plant, the kind of move

that might prove harder with the government on the shareholder register, Foley said. One important question is whether the White House really needs shares to get its way. Companies have generally kowt out to President Trump readily without such linkages. Trump's recent fleeting call for Intel Chief Lip Bhutan to be ousted undoubtedly focused minds. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for a little. with the left, the right, and some technology writers are saying, which brings us to my take. Government involvement in a company like Intel could go south for a few obvious reasons.

Most importantly, government stakeholders have different motivations than private investors. For instance, Intel could, say, take billions of dollars from the federal government to invest in manufacturing, and then maybe they determine the best location for a new foundry is New York instead of Pennsylvania. Would a Republican president, like Trump, publicly rethink the government's investment given the political upside of sending those jobs to Pennsylvania? Maybe a future Democratic president could determine the Intel board or leadership group wasn't diverse enough, even if it was doing its job well, and push for a disruptive shakeup that corporate shareholders would grit their teeth over. These kinds of mixed incentives drive most conservatives' free market instincts. I tend to share those ideals. I think capitalism is flawed, but it's still.

still the best economic system for prosperity, wealth, and quality of life that anyone has come up with. And in general, I want the government to regulate our collective industries, but stay out of our individual businesses. Laws governing fair enterprise are one thing, but I'm not particularly keen to see the government take over private entities, whether it's grocery stores in Manhattan or international chipmakers like Intel. Nevertheless, I was surprised to see that so many people on the right and left oppose this plan, because my initial reaction was that the idea, had some merit. The debt will be in the details, but it seems possible for President Trump to convert already allocated support from the Chips Act into a non-voting equity stake in the company.

This is a clever, albeit fairly novel way, to turn subsidies into an investment, and it would do so while avoiding giving the government direct power over high-level decision-making. The government already acts in a myriad of ways to stimulate the economy, and investing directly in Intel is really an extension of the Chips Act that pass with bipartisan support under President Biden and a rerun of attempts to help an industry like those made by President Obama after the 2008 financial crisis. Elsewhere, the Pentagon has already approved what could be a model for what an Intel deal could look like, purchasing 15% equity in a rare earth company contingent upon its selling to defense contractors with the goal of doubling the company's stock.

To me, the counterargument of the government shouldn't pick winners fails because it already does pick companies like Intel or SpaceX to support through grants or contracts. This would just give a more tangible potential return for that support. Maybe more to the point is just how critical this industry is to our economy and national security. Advanced semiconductors and microprocessors are in everything, from refrigerators to missiles. Current and past administrations would literally consider going to war with China to protect Taiwan in large part due to the role it plays in supplying semiconductor chips to the United States, though most political leaders will emphasize its strategic location and democratic government.

A 10% government stake in Intel won't magically create total independence from foreign suppliers of these critical chips in the next year. But if this industry is critical enough for us to stare down China, is it not so critical to justify taking an unusually aggressive stake in the industry's premier American company? Most commentators have focused on the downside risk of the U.S. government interfering or putting taxpayer dollars towards a company that's bleeding out billions. But not considered is the upside. Imagine a world where Intel turns its business around. A public equity stake significantly offsets the cost of chips act, and as Intel's share prices increase, we succeed in onshoreing more semiconductor factories and jobs. Again, the details of any deal will matter a lot. The government's stake would have to be a non-intrusive and non-voting one, and agreement would have to set clear milestones for Intel to hit on U.S.

and Intel would have to build that capacity domestically, not entirely unlike the Pentagon's recent deal. And then there would need to be automatic selldowns to exit the government's stake once Intel clears those milestones. That's the upside. Now, for the downside. For one, President Trump, who is reportedly negotiating the deal, has shown an unusual pension, putting it kindly for profiting from his position in office. We found out yesterday that Trump has purchased $100 million in government bonds since taking office, By some estimates, the Trump family has made about $4 billion, with a B, dollars off five separate crypto ventures attached to Trump's name or brand. In his first term, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, scored a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia

to his firm, and Kushner has gotten billions more from Qatari and Emirati firms this time around. Of course, Trump has also sold tens of millions of dollars of merchandise from Bibles to hats and collected millions more in fees at his clubs, all since taking office. If Trump negotiates a deal with a gigantic corporation like Intel, I'll be very concerned that he finds a way to profit personally, and any deal would need to avoid that outcome. Second, there's all the usual risk that comes with government intervention. Even with a well-structured deal, a large equity state comes with the implication that the money could disappear if the company does something to upset its giant investor, especially given

the way Trump has treated government grants for other institutions. All the while, the public is basically underwriting corporate risk without consent, aside from electing Trump, and sending a negative market signal that a giant, like Intel, needs our help, which actually sent Intel stock lower. And if things for Intel's fortunes continue to go south, then that's a lot of public money down the drain. Third, and maybe most convincingly, is just the precedent this sets. Historically speaking, the U.S. government directly intervening in businesses has been reserved for the most extreme and desperate circumstances, like the 2008 financial crisis. No such crisis exists now.

Even though the federal government does pick winners to some degree, this would be a step further, which would open the door to more meddling in specific companies like this in the future. Ultimately, my free market inclinations are not dogmatic enough to oppose a deal that resembles what's being discussed here. I think this sector is important enough, Intel is strong enough, and our position is vulnerable enough to justify unusual action, but I do appreciate the significant risk of this proposal. Until we see the details of a deal that gives the government a light touch, ensures the president or his family do not profit in any way, and sets clear landmarks for how the government will get

out, it's hard to know if the risks are worth taking. We'll be right back after this quick break. This episode is sponsored by the OCS Summer Pre-Rroll Sale. Sometimes when you roll your own joint, things can turn out a little differently than what you expected. Maybe it's a little too loose. Maybe it's a little too flimsy. Or maybe it's a little too covered in dirt because your best friend distracted you and you dropped it on the ground. There's a million ways to roll a joint wrong, but there's one roll that's always perfect.

The pre-roll. Shop the summer pre-roll and infuse pre-roll sale today at OCS.com. participating retailers. Searchlight Pictures presents The Roses, only in theaters, August 29. From the director of Meet the Parents and the writer of Poor Things comes The Roses. Starring Academy Award winner Olivia Coleman, Academy Award nominee Benedict Cumberbatch, Andy Sandberg, Kate McKinnon, and Allison Janney, a hilarious new comedy filled with drama, excitement, and a little bit of hatred, proving that marriage isn't always a bed of roses.

See The Roses only in theaters, August 29. Get tickets now. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answer. This one's from Perry and Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire. Perry said, if ICE is raiding workplaces and capturing people who they say are illegal, why isn't anything happening to the company who is hiring them? Isn't it illegal to hire someone without proper work documents? So, yes, you were correct.

hiring someone who does not have legal residency status in the United States is illegal. The Immigration and Nationality Act, the INA of 1952, contains a provision which states, quote, it is unlawful for a person or other entity to hire or to recruit or refer for a fee for employment in the United States an alien, knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien, with an exemption for employers contracting an unauthorized alien for seasonal farm labor, pretty big exemption, as long as the employer is compliant with the migrant, and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. This law was later amended and further defined in 1986 by the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

That's a lot of words and acronyms and stuff. The upside is basically, yes, it's usually illegal. Employers who are shown to have illegally hired someone not authorized to work in the United States can be fined up to $3,000 for each violation. Furthermore, employers face civil fines for violating I-9 requirements ranging from several hundred dollars to over $27,000 for repeat violations. And in the most extreme cases, employers who violate the law may be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars imprisoned or have their personal assets ceased.

Well, we primarily hear about ICE raids consequences for workers in the news. Employers are also facing punishments. In April, ICE set it fined three Denver businesses over $8 million, and a San Diego manager was prosecuted by the U.S. attorney for employment. unauthorized workers and was sentenced to one-year probation in June. Additionally, ICE has increased its I-9 audits tenfold since January, ramping up pressure on employers to comply with the law. That said, the Trump administration has mostly focused on prosecuting the workers themselves.

One potential reason for this is that the government has a burden to prove that an employer has knowingly hired unauthorized workers, making the law difficult to enforce. In general, the administration looks to be following a policy of maximizing deportations, not penalizing employers of raiding workspaces, but not prosecuting them. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace.

Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. On Tuesday, the American Academy of Pediatrics released its recommendations for COVID-19 vaccinations for children, which differed from current U.S. government guidelines. The AAP strongly advised that children aged six months to two years should receive a COVID vaccine and said that older children should also get the shot at their parents' discretion. Conversely, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guidelines, released under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., don't recommend COVID vaccinations

for healthy children of any age. The AAP has not substantially differed from the government in its vaccination recommendations in 30 years. It is going to be somewhat confusing, but our opinion is we need to be. need to make the right choices for children to protect them, Dr. James Campbell, vice chair of AAP Infectious Diseases Committee, said. The Associated Press has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right. Next up is our numbers section.

Intel was founded in 1968. Intel became a public company in 1971. There have been five chief executive officers at Intel since 2019. Intel's approximate annual revenue for 2022 was $63.1 billion, a 20.2% decline from 2021. Intel's approximate annual revenue for 2023 was $54.2 billion, a 14% decline from 2022. Intel's approximate annual revenue for 2024 was $53.1 billion, a 2.1% decline from 2023. The amount of money Intel received in Chips Act grants to support its domestic investment plans was $7.9 billion. The amount of money Intel received in Chips Act grants to support its semiconductor manufacturing for national security was $3 billion.

And Intel's new semiconductor chip factory in Ohio is scheduled to start operations in the year 2030. And last but not least, R have a nice day story. A long day of frustrating delays on an Alaska Airlines flight got a spontaneous burst of positivity last Tuesday when musicians from a jazz group pulled out their instruments and played an impromptu concert on the plane. The plane had been grounded for three hours before being diverted to a different city, and then delayed again. Saxophonist Dave Koss said he and the other passengers were at their breaking point when a flight attendant asked if the band would be willing to play a song. A few moments later, they whipped out their instruments and launched into Stevie Wonders

you haven't done nothing. A personal favorite song of mine off of the album fulfilling this first finale. If you haven't listened to it, you really should start to finish, perfect album. We were just taking a moment to try and make lemonade with lemons. And it tasted very good,

fellow saxophonist Marcus Anderson said. Good Morning America has this story and the video of the performance, and you can check that out with a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to reetangle.com,

where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. If you'd like to hear more about why I think Stevie Wonder is one of the greatest musicians and songwriters of all time, or if you want to debate me on that, or if you just want to share some music back and forth, I would love to do that. So feel free to write me at John Everytangle.com. I'm always looking for good music to listen to and love having discussions on it. We'll be right back here tomorrow.

For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Lull. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Hunter Asperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saw, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com.

This episode is sponsored by the OCS summer pre-roll sale. Sometimes when you roll your own joint, things can turn out a little differently than what you expect it. Maybe it's a little too loose. Maybe it's a little too flimsy. Or maybe it's a little too covered in dirt because your best friend distracted you and you dropped it on the ground. There's a million ways to roll a joint wrong. But there's one role that's always perfect, the pre-roll. Shop the summer pre-roll and infuse pre-roll sale today at OCS.ca and participating retailers.

The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox is an eight-episode Hulu Original Limited series that blends gripping pacing with emotional complexity, offering a dramatized look as it revisits the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox for the tragic murder of Meredith Kircher and the relentless media storm that followed. The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox is now streaming only on Disney Plus. Say hello savings and goodbye worries with Freedom Mobile. Get 60 gigs to use in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico for just $39 a month. Plus get a one-time use of five gigs of roam beyond data.

Conditions apply, details at freedommobile.com.