US President Donald Trump has called on lawmakers to repeal a 2022 law that provides $52.7 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing, arguing that the funds should instead be used to reduce national debt.
Speaking before Congress, Trump criticized the CHIPS and Science Act, a bipartisan measure signed into law by former President Joe Biden.
The act was designed to boost domestic semiconductor production and reduce reliance on foreign-made chips.
"Your CHIPS Act is a horrible, horrible thing," Trump said. "We give hundreds of billions of dollars, and it doesn’t mean a thing. They take our money and they don’t spend it." He urged lawmakers to eliminate the subsidies and redirect any remaining funds toward debt reduction.
The CHIPS Act includes $39 billion in subsidies for US semiconductor manufacturing and $75 billion in government-backed loans to support the industry. Under the Biden administration, the Commerce Department approved over $33 billion in grants to major semiconductor companies, including Samsung, Intel, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), and Micron.
Trump argued that government subsidies are unnecessary, suggesting that offering trade incentives—such as lower tariffs—would be enough to encourage chip manufacturers to build factories in the US.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who oversees the program under Trump, has praised the initiative but indicated he would review deals finalized during Biden’s tenure. Some officials worry that Trump could seek to overturn existing grant agreements.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul defended the CHIPS Act, highlighting its economic impact. She noted that semiconductor giant Micron’s planned $100 billion investment in Central New York—expected to create 50,000 jobs—was made possible by the law.
Trump’s remarks signal a potential shift in US policy on semiconductor manufacturing, raising questions about the future of federal support for the industry.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ