Chipmakers got their $52 billion. It will now take years for American chipmaking to flourish.

After more than two years of Congressional debate, the chip industry is poised to receive $52 billion in manufacturing subsidies. There’s a long road ahead to generate a return on that investment.

US President Joe Biden reacts to a note given to him saying that the CHIPS-plus bill has passed the House during a meeting with CEOs about the economy in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House, in Washington, DC on July 28, 2022. - The $280 Billion Industrial Policy was passed in the Senate on Wednesday with rare bipartisan support and will boost domestic production of semiconductors, the in-demand microchips that power everything from smartphones to cars to weapons. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

It will take years to understand if this was money well spent.

Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

After more than two years of Congressional wrangling — and at least $100 million in lobbying expenditures — the chip industry is poised to receive tens of billions of dollars in federal tax breaks and subsidies to build more semiconductors inside the U.S. It will take years to understand if this was money well spent.

The $76 billion the industry will receive is aimed at jumpstarting domestic chip manufacturing in the name of national security, halting the chip shortage and returning the U.S. to its former leadership position. After the Senate approved the bill Wednesday, the legislation cleared the House on Thursday by a vote of 243-187, and is headed to President Biden, who is expected to sign it as early as next week. The funds were expected to be released from federal coffers this year.

The money is part of a total $280 billion package of legislation with far-flung objectives that range from directing federal research dollars toward AI and quantum computing to opening 20 regional tech hubs and a relatively small portion directed at developing an open wireless communications standard.

“We are in fierce competition with other countries,” Democratic House member Anna Eshoo, who worked on the legislation, told Protocol. “You can hardly point to a product that doesn't have chips in it, so we can win this global competition. Because American technology is the best in the world. But we have to have a plan for that. And that's what the legislation is.”

To much of the chip industry, Thursday’s vote represents a victory. Federal funding and tax breaks will ease the burden of building new factories, or fabs, that can cost more than $10 billion each. And even for fabless businesses such as AMD, Nvidia and Qualcomm that only design chips, it may create more advanced manufacturing options — where today there are arguably only three (TSMC, Samsung, Intel).

“By passing the CHIPS Act, Congress has risen to a defining challenge of our time, seized an historic opportunity to fortify American semiconductor manufacturing, design, and research, and delivered a big win for our country,” Semiconductor Industry Association President and CEO John Neuffer said in a statement.

Nearly $40 billion of the total $52 billion is marked for chip manufacturing incentives that will almost certainly benefit the likes of Intel, GlobalFoundries, Samsung and TSMC. Notably, $2 billion of the federal cash is set aside to specifically fund manufacturing and other aspects of chips made with older technology that are vital to automaters and various weapon systems and other military applications. A further $24 billion in tax breaks for factory construction rounds out the package.

“The U.S. doesn't want to see itself in a situation where it is hostage to Chinese control of such a critical industry and we've been delinquent and we've been remiss in letting our capacity and capability decline like that over the past couple of decades,” Harvard Business school professor Willy Shih said.

The subsidy money itself will largely be allocated by the Commerce Department, which has been working for more than a year to build up the personnel and other infrastructure necessary to do so, Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology Laurie Locascio said in a recent interview. “We have a very well-developed plan,” she said.

Chip manufacturers lobbied hard to get the bill passed into law. Chipmakers based outside the U.S. and their domestic counterparts steadily increased their lobbying expenditures as lawmakers debated the measure, and some foreign companies such as TSMC and MediaTek launched lobbying operations when they previously had none.

At one point when the bill appeared to teeter Intel — which potentially has the most to gain — claimed it would delay a groundbreaking ceremony for a multibillion-dollar investment in new factory construction in Ohio, but at the same time acknowledged that its construction plans would go ahead unhindered. But other chipmakers had threatened to move forthcoming construction to outposts in Europe or Asia if Congress didn’t agree to use U.S. taxpayer money to help finance their operations here.

“[Intel’s] lobbying activities around the legislation have run the gamut from lobbying to begging to blackmail to get it done,” Bernstein chip analyst Stacy Rasgon wrote in a report last week.

Rasgon vocalized an inconvenient truth about the legislative package at a recent San Francisco chipmaking conference: For an industry that expects gross profit of more than 50% and now routinely plans new fab complexes that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars, $52 billion isn’t a lot of cash.

“I don’t know if this is politically correct in this audience, but I’m going to say it anyway,” Rasgon said. “The kind of numbers that they are talking about for the Chips Act at $52 billion over five years. For the entire U.S. semiconductor industry this is a rounding error. Who cares?”

To some industry watchers, the focus on the legislation also misses some of the nuance and complex supply chain around chips. There are provisions included that ensure some of the subsidy money goes toward producing the raw materials and equipment needed for chip manufacturing.

But thousands of inputs are needed to make chips. For example, the tools required to make the most-advanced chips are exclusively produced in Holland; the chemicals and gases needed are made elsewhere in Europe or Ukraine; and other crucial components are made in Japan.

“There isn’t a lot of investment in packaging technology; we will build all these fabs in the U.S., but will still fly the chips over to Asia for testing and packaging for a lot of them,” Shih said. “This is a good down payment for rebuilding the sector in the U.S. But we shouldn’t be confused, there’s not going to be a magic bullet.”

Building new chip factories is a years-long process, and it's unlikely the U.S. will experience a meaningful boost in capacity until the new fabs begin to operate. Intel has said it doesn’t expect its Ohio fab to begin producing chips until 2025; TSMC signaled it would begin volume production in 2024.

But chipmaking tools are in short supply to begin with, and it's difficult and complicated for toolmakers to ramp up production to suit the breakneck expansion the manufacturers are on. Chipmakers must also secure enough people to run the new factories, even though the U.S. has struggled to attract such talent for years.

The legislation is not perfect. But to Congresswoman Eshoo, that’s not the point.

Simply put, in her view, too many chips are needed for too many things — important or otherwise — to let the issue fall by the wayside. It tackles the national security issues she views as pressing, and sends a signal to the industry that the U.S. intends to be competitive with Europe, China and elsewhere when it comes to chip manufacturing and technology.

There is one outcome that Eshoo is going to measure the law’s success by: “More chips,” she said. “I should add: more chips made in America.”


Judge Zia Faruqui is trying to teach you crypto, one ‘SNL’ reference at a time

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. Strangelove." That’s because he wants you — yes, you — to read them.

The ways Zia Faruqui (right) has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster.

Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images

“Cryptocurrency and related software analytics tools are ‘The wave of the future, Dude. One hundred percent electronic.’”

That’s not a quote from "The Big Lebowski" — at least, not directly. It’s a quote from a Washington, D.C., district court memorandum opinion on the role cryptocurrency analytics tools can play in government investigations. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui.

Keep ReadingShow less
Veronica Irwin

Veronica Irwin (@vronirwin) is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms. Magazine and The Frisc.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Financial Technology Association (FTA) represents industry leaders shaping the future of finance. We champion the power of technology-centered financial services and advocate for the modernization of financial regulation to support inclusion and responsible innovation.

AWS CEO: The cloud isn’t just about technology

As AWS preps for its annual re:Invent conference, Adam Selipsky talks product strategy, support for hybrid environments, and the value of the cloud in uncertain economic times.

Photo: Noah Berger/Getty Images for Amazon Web Services

AWS is gearing up for re:Invent, its annual cloud computing conference where announcements this year are expected to focus on its end-to-end data strategy and delivering new industry-specific services.

It will be the second re:Invent with CEO Adam Selipsky as leader of the industry’s largest cloud provider after his return last year to AWS from data visualization company Tableau Software.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donna Goodison

Donna Goodison (@dgoodison) is Protocol's senior reporter focusing on enterprise infrastructure technology, from the 'Big 3' cloud computing providers to data centers. She previously covered the public cloud at CRN after 15 years as a business reporter for the Boston Herald. Based in Massachusetts, she also has worked as a Boston Globe freelancer, business reporter at the Boston Business Journal and real estate reporter at Banker & Tradesman after toiling at weekly newspapers.

Image: Protocol

We launched Protocol in February 2020 to cover the evolving power center of tech. It is with deep sadness that just under three years later, we are winding down the publication.

As of today, we will not publish any more stories. All of our newsletters, apart from our flagship, Source Code, will no longer be sent. Source Code will be published and sent for the next few weeks, but it will also close down in December.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bennett Richardson

Bennett Richardson ( @bennettrich) is the president of Protocol. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, Bennett was executive director of global strategic partnerships at POLITICO, where he led strategic growth efforts including POLITICO's European expansion in Brussels and POLITICO's creative agency POLITICO Focus during his six years with the company. Prior to POLITICO, Bennett was co-founder and CMO of Hinge, the mobile dating company recently acquired by Match Group. Bennett began his career in digital and social brand marketing working with major brands across tech, energy, and health care at leading marketing and communications agencies including Edelman and GMMB. Bennett is originally from Portland, Maine, and received his bachelor's degree from Colgate University.


Why large enterprises struggle to find suitable platforms for MLops

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, and as larger enterprises go from deploying hundreds of models to thousands and even millions of models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

As companies expand their use of AI beyond running just a few machine learning models, ML practitioners say that they have yet to find what they need from prepackaged MLops systems.

Photo: artpartner-images via Getty Images

On any given day, Lily AI runs hundreds of machine learning models using computer vision and natural language processing that are customized for its retail and ecommerce clients to make website product recommendations, forecast demand, and plan merchandising. But this spring when the company was in the market for a machine learning operations platform to manage its expanding model roster, it wasn’t easy to find a suitable off-the-shelf system that could handle such a large number of models in deployment while also meeting other criteria.

Some MLops platforms are not well-suited for maintaining even more than 10 machine learning models when it comes to keeping track of data, navigating their user interfaces, or reporting capabilities, Matthew Nokleby, machine learning manager for Lily AI’s product intelligence team, told Protocol earlier this year. “The duct tape starts to show,” he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories