<div id="readability-page-1"><div><div>On Monday, Kevin O'Leary delivered a blistering critique of President Donald Trump's $11 billion government investment in Intel Corporation INTC, arguing that taxpayer money should not be used to prop up a company he believes has failed to innovate.<h2>O'Leary Rips Government Stake In Intel</h2>O'Leary, the &#34;Shark Tank&#34; investor and entrepreneur, blasted the Trump administration's decision to acquire a 10% stake in Intel, funded through CHIPS Act grants and other federal programs.The investment, announced Friday, marks one of the most aggressive U.S. equity moves in a tech company in decades.In a fiery CNBC interview, O'Leary said Intel has &#34;performed so miserably&#34; that it doesn't deserve taxpayer backing.&#34;Intel should have been sold for car parts three years ago. I do not want to invest in it as an investor, and I have no interest in taking my tax dollars and giving it to a company that has performed so miserably,&#34; he stated.<h2>Trump Calls It A ‘Great Deal For America'</h2>President Trump previously said that the $11 billion package—which includes $8.9 billion in newly purchased shares—will cement America's leadership in advanced chip manufacturing.Intel confirmed all proceeds will go directly toward U.S. production capacity and R&amp;D, not debt repayment or shareholder payouts.Trump said on Truth Social that the deal was a strategic investment.<h2>Critics Warn Of A Dangerous Precedent</h2>O'Leary isn't alone in his criticism. Economist Peter Schiff called the move &#34;unconstitutional&#34; and warned it would drag the country further from free-market principles.Previously, O'Leary said that Washington should focus on tax incentives to stimulate private investment rather than &#34;picking winners&#34; with taxpayer money. <h2>Supporters See It As ‘Existential' For US Tech</h2>Not all analysts agree. Futurum Group CEO Daniel Newman called U.S.-based chip production &#34;existential,&#34; warning that dependence on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. TSM poses national security risks.Meanwhile, TF Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo said the investment raises Intel's valuation floor and signals it is &#34;too big to fail,&#34; while the no-voting-rights structure is designed to avoid political interference.<h2>Intel Continues To Face Competition And Challenges</h2>Last year, Intel faced $18.8 billion in foundry losses. It also battles with technology delays and rising competition from TSMC, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. AMD and Arm Holdings, Inc. ARM.The company recorded $12.86 billion in revenue for the second quarter, marginally surpassing projections, but posted an adjusted per-share loss of $0.10.Price Action: Intel shares slipped 0.37% in after-hours trading, according to Benzinga Pro data.Benzinga’s Edge Stock Rankings show INTC maintaining solid trend across short, medium and long-term periods. More performance insights are available here.<ul> <li>Cathie Wood Dumps Palantir As Stock Touches Peak Prices, Bails On Soaring Flying-Taxi Maker Archer Aviation</li> </ul>Photo Courtesy: Tada Images via Shutterstock.com</div></div></div>

INTC

Kevin O'Leary criticized President Trump's $11 billion investment in Intel, arguing taxpayer money should not support a company that has failed to innovate. He stated Intel should have been sold for parts three years ago. Trump defended the investment as crucial for U.S. chip manufacturing. Critics, including economist Peter Schiff, warned it sets a dangerous precedent, while supporters see it as vital for national security. Intel continues to face challenges, including competition and financial losses, with shares slipping 0.37% in after-hours trading.

- Kevin O'Leary criticized President Trump's $11 billion investment in Intel, arguing taxpayer money should not support a company he views as failing to innovate.  
- Trump defended the investment as essential for U.S. leadership in chip manufacturing, with Intel stating funds will enhance production capacity and R&D.  
- Critics, including economist Peter Schiff, warn this move sets a dangerous precedent, while some analysts argue it is crucial for national security amid rising competition.

Kevin O'Leary Says Intel Should Have Been 'Sold For Car Parts' 3 years Ago: Shark Slams Trump's $11 Billion Investment Move