When the Market Meets the State: Intel, the National Guard, and the Boundaries of Freedom
A Moment That Should Make Us Pause
When the U.S. government became the largest shareholder of Intel this summer, it quietly crossed a boundary Americans once assumed would never move. By converting CHIPS Act subsidies into stock, Washington now owns almost ten percent of what has historically been one of the most important companies in the nation.
We are told the arrangement is passive. No federal appointees will sit on Intel’s board. No one in Washington will direct day-to-day decisions. On paper, the government is a silent partner.
Yet the symbolism is impossible to ignore. For decades, Americans believed free enterprise meant government set the rules but did not step onto the playing field. That assumption no longer holds.
Why National Security Matters
The case for action is real. Semiconductors are not just another product. They are the backbone of modern life, found in cars, phones, hospitals, satellites, and defense systems. Right now, the most advanced chips are produced in East Asia, especially Taiwan.
That dependency is a national security risk. The CHIPS Act was a bipartisan attempt to rebuild domestic manufacturing. Intel, with its history and capacity, was the natural partner. Seen in this light, government ownership looks like a safeguard. Public dollars become long-term equity, and America regains some control over its supply chain.
The Hidden Costs of Ownership
But ownership always carries consequences. Private investors measure success by growth, returns, and competitiveness. Government investors often measure success in political terms: stability, jobs, optics. Those priorities do not always align.
There is also the issue of precedent. Once government owns stock in one company, the door is open to do the same again. What begins as an exception can quickly become a habit.
History reminds us what is at stake. In 2008, the government bailed out banks and General Motors. Supporters said letting them fail would have collapsed the economy. Critics warned that shielding them from failure weakened market discipline. Both were partly right. Jobs were saved, but the idea of “too big to fail” left its mark. Free enterprise only works if success and failure are both real.
A Parallel Case: The National Guard in Our Cities
The Intel story is not the only place where boundaries are shifting. In recent weeks, National Guard units were deployed in Washington, D.C., with plans to extend to other cities. This happened even as crime in those places declined.
The Guard has always had a dual role. Under governors, it responds to disasters and unrest. Under federal command, it supplements the armed forces. Using it as a semi-permanent presence in civilian life is unusual. It blurs the line between local policing and federal power.
The pattern is familiar. In both cases, government steps into spaces once assumed to be outside its normal reach. Each move is justified as necessary, but together they point to expansion.
Why Blurred Boundaries Matter
When boundaries fade, institutions weaken. Free markets thrive when companies know their future depends on performance, not politics. Civic life thrives when citizens know their police answer to local authority, not distant federal command.
The immediate risks may seem manageable. The deeper danger lies in precedent. If Intel becomes comfortable with government as a shareholder, what comes next? If Guard deployments become routine, how easily will future leaders reach for that tool? What begins as a temporary measure can quietly become the new normal.
The Principles That Protect Balance
Government has a role, but it must stay within limits. Strategic industries may need partnership, and emergencies may need intervention. But balance requires clear principles.
Transparency. Citizens and investors deserve clarity about what government owns and why.
Temporariness. Exceptional steps must come with an end date. Ownership and deployments should not drift into permanence.
Accountability. Oversight must be real. Without it, power expands until boundaries are meaningless.
Lessons From History
In World War II, civilian factories built tanks and planes. When the war ended, they returned to cars and appliances. In 1979, Chrysler received federal loan guarantees but repaid them and resumed private life. Even the 2008 bank and auto bailouts eventually unwound.
These moments prove that extraordinary measures can be justified. What matters is whether they remain extraordinary.
Principle at Stake
Free enterprise disperses power across millions of participants. Democracy restrains authority through law and accountability. Both systems work because neither allows unchecked control. When government stretches too far into either, freedom is weakened.
The Way Forward
The Intel stake may remain a temporary safeguard. The Guard deployments may be rolled back. But they may also linger. If citizens stop asking questions, today’s exceptions could become tomorrow’s norms.
America’s strength has never come from government control. It has come from free people building, creating, and competing. It has come from institutions that respect boundaries and leaders who accept accountability.
The challenge of our time is to guard those boundaries. We need security, but not at the expense of liberty. We need government, but never without limits. We need balance, because balance is the only way to preserve both freedom and strength.
Closing Call
The stories of Intel and the Guard are not just about one company or one city. They are about the kind of nation we are becoming. The question is not whether government can act. The question is whether we will insist that its actions stay temporary, transparent, and accountable.
That is the only way freedom endures. And that is the vision worth defending.