Policy

The great onshoring: Inside the transcontinental chip race

The second annual Trade and Technology Council emphasized the centrality of semiconductor onshoring to U.S.-EU military objectives.

Flags of EU, U.S. and China on chips.

For chip manufacturers, free-flowing subsidies for now might come at the cost of a potential overcapacity problem in the longer term.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

The prospect of global conflict permeated the room at this year’s Trade and Technology Council, which concluded in France earlier this week. The second annual gathering of U.S. and EU officials yielded a joint statement that mentioned some form of “Russia” or “Ukraine” more frequently than “technology,” “regulation,” “investment,” “security” or “competition.”

The conflict in Ukraine, having already escalated into a U.S. proxy war, seemingly convinced the EU to fall in line with the American tech policy agenda.

“When it was launched, different people had different aspirations for [the TTC],” Christopher Padilla, the leader of IBM’s global government and regulatory affairs team, told Protocol.

“Some people felt like it would be mostly to talk about disputes with the Europeans over how to regulate the tech sector,” Padilla said. But after Russia invaded Ukraine, “people on both sides of the Atlantic got reminded that the U.S.-European relationship is the essential partnership — economically, politically and now militarily — in the world.”

Those officials clearly felt a shared sense of urgency to onshore semiconductor manufacturing. At the TTC, they agreed to collaborate more closely on supply chain transparency and subsidy programs. The strong language contained in those clauses affirmed their commitment to an already aggressive onshoring strategy. The meeting also revealed the centrality of semiconductor manufacturing to U.S.-centric military objectives. For chip manufacturers, that means free-flowing subsidies for now, but at the cost of a potential overcapacity problem in the longer term.

National security “freak out”

“You have to understand that these fabrication facilities, they are not being propped up because of pure economics concerns. They’re being propped up because of national security — people freaking out, really, that’s what it is,” Adi Rao, a PhD candidate in The Department of Government at Cornell, explained to Protocol.

“The level of urgency that we’re seeing from government leaders in the U.S., Europe and Japan is driven mostly by the national security concern,” echoed Padilla. The pandemic-related supply chain crunch helped government officials realize their economies were entirely too dependent on Taiwan for semiconductors, he said. “Every government meeting I have, almost the first thing an official says is, ‘We cannot rely on just Taiwan for chips.’”

Chart: Protocol and Datawrapper

China holds an estimated 89% of global rare earth separation capacity, the TCC statement pointed out. Those rare earth metals are critical to semiconductor manufacturing, and the entire industry worldwide is still entirely reliant on China in that sense.

“If something were to happen between China and Taiwan, that would be catastrophic for the semiconductor industry,” Patrick Penfield, a professor of supply chain practice at Syracuse University, told Protocol. “If we were to do what we're doing to Russia, to China — you would talk about massive supply chain issues throughout the world.”

Chart: Protocol and Datawrapper

The continued fallout of the war in Ukraine put this potential supply chain disaster in sharp relief.

“The world is still waking up to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” said Willy Shih, a professor at Harvard Business School. “We keep discovering more and more collateral impacts as a result of that,” he told Protocol. To illustrate this point, Shih pointed to Indonesia’s recent ban on palm oil exports, which came in response to plunging sunflower oil exports from Ukraine. Ukraine was the top producer of sunflower oil prior to the invasion; now there’s a global shortage.

Fabricating our way into World War III?

Political economists have long theorized that great powers are less likely to go to war if they rely on one another for trade. The so-called “capitalist peace theory” is a core tenet of classical liberalism — one of the many reasons scholars say we should embrace globalization, even if it comes with quite a few nasty side effects. Install a McDonald’s in your capital city, Thomas Friedman posited in 1996, and no other McCountry will invade. (Russia has since served as the counterpoint to this theory, though McDonald’s is now leaving Russia.)

If the capitalist peace theory holds, then reshoring chips would have considerable geopolitical ramifications, according to Rao. In this sense, he added, China poses a greater threat: “The Chinese can’t actually threaten Taiwan currently, or at least not so easily, because they need the chips.” To secure that supply, China is expected to pour well over $100 billion dollars into developing its domestic semiconductor industry. “The way to frame this is whether or not China requires Taiwan — and in the future, they may not,” Rao said.

Chart: Protocol and Datawrapper

China’s stated aim is to reunite with Taiwan, not demolish it. So in theory, Taiwanese manufacturing shouldn’t be at risk. But Rao said delicate chip fabrication facilities could be damaged in the event of an invasion, and that would be a supply risk China would likely not want to take.

There’s an even more direct way that semiconductors enable war: Advanced weaponry is packed with chips. A single Javelin missile launching system contains around 250 semiconductors. The U.S. has already shipped well over 5,500 Javelin anti-armor systems to Ukraine since the invasion. Shih pointed out that Ukraine is consuming those missiles much faster than the U.S. can produce them, which raises concerns over U.S. manufacturing capacity given this is “one really regional conflict between Russia and Ukraine.”

“Back in the 1940s, the U.S. manufacturing industry had a lot of slack capacity, so that it could respond and pivot and be the arsenal of democracy,” said Shih, referring to the term coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the U.S. mobilized for war in 1940. Though he doesn’t currently anticipate a broader conflict, Shih said the central question is whether the U.S. could replicate its earlier industrial prowess after offshoring “so much basic capacity in basic industrial goods.”

Boeing versus Airbus: Chip edition

The TCC joint statement spells out the shared U.S.-EU goal to “incentivize increased production while avoiding subsidy races.” In particular, government officials agreed to share information on the purpose, budget, form and recipient of semiconductor subsidies.

Multiple sources pointed to the example of the longstanding U.S.-EU subsidy dispute surrounding Boeing and Airbus, an affair rife with accusations of market manipulation. The TTC sets out to avoid a similar conflict: It’s not that the U.S. and EU governments want to avoid propping up the semiconductor industries. Rather, they want to avoid creating an economic quagmire where high fixed costs and excess capacity doom an entire sector to lingering unprofitability.

“I always worry about the sustainability of the subsidies,” said Shih. “But the fact that the EU and the U.S. want to coordinate on that suggests they’re both very conscious of WTO rules.” By calling a truce on the subsidy race, Shih said the U.S. and EU could avoid a “race to the bottom.”

Avoiding such a conflict might be easier said than done. The race to onshore semiconductor facilities over national security concerns represents a long-term solution for a short-term problem, according to Rao.

“It’s too crowded,” Rao said. “Ten years from now, are we really going to require a fabricator in East Asia — at least two locations in East Asia — and America, and Europe?” he asked. (On Thursday, reports came out that TSMC might build a facility in Singapore.)

Even if the U.S. and EU are aware of these problems — and the TCC suggests they are — it’s not so easy to address the issue. “It’s hard sometimes to get away from subsidies,” said Penfield. “If you don’t offer subsidies, if you don’t offer those incentives — it’d be very difficult to attract a company to do what you want them to do in your particular country,” he added.

Given the current semiconductor supply crisis, worrying about excess capacity might seem indulgent and beside the point. And consumers might wonder if a theoretical excess in supply would usher in a wave of cheap consumer electronics. That’s not guaranteed, warned Rao, because moving production to the U.S. would come with additional costs that would actually raise prices, assuming a constant number of suppliers.

“The worst problem is how much it will cost the taxpayer to just keep these industries afloat,” Rao said. “These are industries that are here ‘unnaturally,’ so to speak — they're here because of national security reasons.”

“I’m not worried about the subsidy war,” said Padilla. “In fact, I think the bigger risk is that governments fail to do what they need to do to invest in this area, frankly.”

Climate

Sealed finds a market in home decarbonization

Sealed offers homeowners the chance to save money and help protect the planet.

Sealed is convincing homeowners to look at their HVAC systems and insulation in order to save energy and money.

Photo: Gabe Souza/Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

Shiny silver panels hug the walls of Andy Frank’s attic; they vaguely remind me of a child’s robot Halloween costume. A sticky-looking foam lines both the gaps in the attic’s floorboards and the roof, plugging up holes where squirrels could have once taken shelter.

The space is positively sweat-inducing, even for the mere minute I have my head poking above the trapdoor.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Now that most organizations are returning to the office, there are varying extremes – some leaders demand that employees return to the office, with some employees revolting and some rejoicing to be together again. On the other hand, some companies have closed physical offices and made remote work permanent; creating a sigh of relief for some employees and creating frustration for others.

Most of us are somewhere in between, trying our best to take a measured approach at building the right hybrid strategy tailored to company culture. Some seemingly have begun to crack the code, while the majority are grappling with the when, how, why, and who of this new hybrid work reality.

Keep Reading Show less
Nathan Coutinho

Nathan Coutinho leads Logitech's global conferencing business strategy and analyst relations. A Swiss company focused on innovation and quality, Logitech designs products and experiences that have an everyday place in people's lives.Coutinho leads strategy and execution of Logitech's video conferencing solutions, from personal solutions to highly-scalable conference rooms.Coutinho has more than 25 years of experience in the IT industry with various roles in executive leadership, consulting, engineering, marketing and technical sales.

Workplace

Experts say tech companies need to prepare for the next SCOTUS decision

HR experts said companies need to be proactive about protections for contraception, privacy and LGBTQ+ rights.

Experts say tech leaders need to start thinking about future Supreme Court rulings.

Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Tech companies are still trying to prepare for a post-Roe world. But it might already be time to think about what the Supreme Court is planning next.

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade Friday, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the court should also reconsider rulings protecting contraception and same-sex relationships, citing Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. If those decisions were ever overruled, it would have massive implications for everyone, but especially for employees living in states where same-sex marriage is at risk of becoming illegal without a federal shield.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Policy

What’s next for tech in a post-Roe world

From employee support to privacy concerns, tech companies play a critical role in what’s to come for abortion access in the U.S.

States banning abortion means that tech will play a critical role in what’s to come for abortion access in the U.S.

Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The end of Roe v. Wade has sent the world of tech scrambling. Many companies are now trying to quickly figure out how to protect workers in states where abortion will be banned, while also facing potential privacy and legal ramifications.


Here’s a look at tech companies’ roles and responses to the ruling. We will update this page as news and events change.

Keep Reading Show less
Alex Eichenstein

Alex Eichenstein (@alexeichenstein) is Protocol's social media editor. Previously, she managed social media and audience engagement efforts at the Center for Public Integrity. She earned an B.A. in English, women and gender studies and political science from the University of Delaware. She lives in Washington, D.C.

Fintech

You’re thinking about Apple Pay Later all wrong

Apple’s “buy now, pay later” product has a distinctly different distribution strategy that means it doesn’t directly threaten Affirm, Klarna and Afterpay.

Apple Pay Later emerges as a distinctly different product than what Klarna and Affirm offer.

Image: Apple; Protocol

Apple’s entry into the “buy now, pay later” market was one of its worst-kept secrets: Analysts had been predicting the company’s rollout of a pay-later service as early as 2020. The most common read on the move was predictable: Apple was here to smash the competition. The company has a track record of jumping into new sectors late and still managing to come out on top — the iPod came out when there were tons of MP3 players on the market.

But some analysts have a starkly different view. When you look at it under the hood, Apple Pay Later emerges as a distinctly different product than what Klarna and Affirm offer, they say — and one that isn’t much of a market predator.

Keep Reading Show 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.

Latest Stories
Bulletins