Why $50 billion in chip funding has stalled in Congress

Passing the law could help make the U.S. a plausible competitor when companies consider where to build new plants. At the moment, it is not.

The capitol building behind a fence

Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo urged the House of Representatives last week during a stop in Detroit to pass roughly $50 billion worth of chip-making subsidies.

Photo: Ian Hutchinson/Unsplash

Legislation is sort of like fish: If it lies around too long, lawmakers can start to lose interest.

The billions of funding for much-needed semiconductor manufacturing under consideration by Congress hasn’t quite passed any reasonable expiration date. But the package of legislation it’s tied to, called the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act or USICA, remains just an idea nearly a half year after it was passed by the Senate in June.

To resuscitate efforts, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo urged the House of Representatives last week during a stop in Detroit to pass roughly $50 billion worth of subsidies. Two days later, 59 corporate executives, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, General Motors top boss Mary Barra and Intel chief executive Pat Gelsinger, sent a letter to Congressional leadership with a similar plea: It needs to act—fast—to restore American competitiveness in chip manufacturing.

The $52 billion in funding, known as the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors, or CHIPS, isn’t controversial in Washington D.C. Most of the money would be earmarked for distribution by the Commerce Department, and it is meant to encourage chip companies to produce more fabrication sites in the U.S. and increase research and development.

As one semiconductor executive put it: Passing the law, coupled with tax incentives tied to fab construction, would help make the U.S. a plausible competitor when companies consider where to build new plants. At the moment, it is not.

“The first thing you have to do is to get someone interested, to entice Samsung, TSMC or Intel to build more foundries here,” Whitman School of Management Professor Patrick Penfield told Protocol. “The ideal situation is to get the really high-end manufacturing of chips here.”

There is broad bipartisan support to pass the legislation, with only a minority in the extreme flank of either party voicing opposition. The supply-chain issues experienced by consumers have presented one compelling reason, as has an increasingly adversarial relationship with China.

“Upping our R&D game to out-innovate China is one of the few truly bipartisan areas of agreement in modern Washington, and I’d expect USICA to pass with full CHIPS funding in the first quarter of 2022,” said Bruce Mehlman, founding partner at Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas.

The delay appears to be a matter of priority setting. At the moment lawmakers in Washington are focused on ensuring the government remains funded—the Senate passed a spending bill late Thursday—and the administration’s agenda to help the country recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, in the form of the Build Back Better Act. Funding for semiconductor subsidies is likely now second or third on the agenda after COVID-19 recovery and a defense spending bill.

There have been several reports that China is working to block chip manufacturing subsidies too, which may have further complicated the process. But, two people familiar with lobbying efforts around the bill said such activity was unlikely to persuade lawmakers to slow their efforts. In fact, China’s interest in halting the chip funding would likely only further serve as encouragement.

For House members, there may be an additional policy roadblock. Tucked inside the Innovation and Competition Act alongside the chip subsidy funding is a plan to overhaul how the federal government funds research and development. The bill would increase the funding, but also reorganize the way the cash is doled out and by which agencies, which is a problem for some lawmakers. There is appetite for modernization, but resistance to changing the existing structure.

Part of the objection also lies in the fact that House committee staffers have put a lot of work into their own research and development bills, and don’t want their work to get lost in the Senate’s efforts, according to one person familiar with legislative activity in the House.

It’s possible Congress could broker a deal at the eleventh hour and pass some form of the manufacturing subsidies this calendar year but it appears unlikely, with every day making a last-minute effort even less possible, according to five people familiar with the legislative activity. Those people think passage is more realistic within the first three months of the new year.

But for some people, optimism may be unavoidable. Carl Holshouser, an executive at industry lobby group TechNet, expects that Congress will find a way to squeeze semiconductor manufacturing funding before it returns home for the holidays.

“We have received, in the last week, a high level of confidence and inspiring feedback from the administration and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that they believe that this will get done, and that it will get done this year,” he said.


Upstart has a new plan to sell Wall Street on its loans

The AI-powered lender will hold some loans on its balance sheet as it seeks partners for long-term capital.

Despite the current struggles, Upstart views the marketplace model as the best way to write to keep its loan business growing.

Photo: Upstart

After a revenue drop its CEO called “unacceptable,” the leadership at fintech lender Upstart is making a bet on the strength of its ability to underwrite loans with AI.

The San Mateo company is planning to leave some loans on its balance sheet that investors do not want to buy, as concerns about the economy shift Wall Street away from backing riskier consumer debt. Rather than pull back on its lending in response, the company said it will hold some loans as it seeks longer-term capital partners.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at rdeffenbaugh@protocol.com.
Sponsored Content

How cybercrime is going small time

Blockbuster hacks are no longer the norm – causing problems for companies trying to track down small-scale crime

Cybercrime is often thought of on a relatively large scale. Massive breaches lead to painful financial losses, bankrupting companies and causing untold embarrassment, splashed across the front pages of news websites worldwide. That’s unsurprising: cyber events typically cost businesses around $200,000, according to cybersecurity firm the Cyentia Institute. One in 10 of those victims suffer losses of more than $20 million, with some reaching $100 million or more.

That’s big money – but there’s plenty of loot out there for cybercriminals willing to aim lower. In 2021, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) received 847,376 complaints – reports by cybercrime victims – totaling losses of $6.9 billion. Averaged out, each victim lost $8,143.

Keep Reading Show less
Chris Stokel-Walker

Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of "YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars." His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.


Does your boss sound a little funny? It might be an audio deepfake

Voice deepfake attacks against enterprises, often aimed at tricking corporate employees into transferring money to the attackers, are on the rise. And at least in some cases, they’re succeeding.

Audio deepfakes are a new spin on the impersonation tactics that have long been used in social engineering and phishing attacks, but most people aren’t trained to disbelieve their ears.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

As a cyberattack investigator, Nick Giacopuzzi’s work now includes responding to growing attacks against businesses that involve deepfaked voices — and has ultimately left him convinced that in today's world, "we need to question everything."

In particular, Giacopuzzi has investigated multiple incidents where an attacker deployed fabricated audio, created with the help of AI, that purported to be an executive or a manager at a company. You can guess how it went: The fake boss asked an employee to urgently transfer funds. And in some cases, it’s worked, he said.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.


Binance’s co-founder could remake its crypto deal-making

Yi He is overseeing a $7.5 billion portfolio, with more investments to come, making her one of the most powerful investors in the industry.

Binance co-founder Yi He will oversee $7.5 billion in assets.

Photo: Binance

Binance co-founder Yi He isn’t as well known as the crypto giant’s colorful and controversial CEO, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao.

That could soon change. The 35-year-old executive is taking on a new, higher-profile role at the world’s largest crypto exchange as head of Binance Labs, the company’s venture capital arm. With $7.5 billion in assets to oversee, that instantly makes her one of the most powerful VC investors in crypto.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.


Trump ordered social media visa screening. Biden's defending it.

The Knight First Amendment Institute just lost a battle to force the Biden administration to provide a report on the collection of social media handles from millions of visa applicants every year.

Visa applicants have to give up any of their social media handles from the past five years.

Photo: belterz/Getty Images

Would you feel comfortable if a U.S. immigration official reviewed all that you post on Facebook, Reddit, Snapchat, Twitter or even YouTube? Would it change what you decide to post or whom you talk to online? Perhaps you’ve said something critical of the U.S. government. Perhaps you’ve jokingly threatened to whack someone.

If you’ve applied for a U.S. visa, there’s a chance your online missives have been subjected to this kind of scrutiny, all in the name of keeping America safe. But three years after the Trump administration ordered enhanced vetting of visa applications, the Biden White House has not only continued the program, but is defending it — despite refusing to say if it’s had any impact.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

Latest Stories