In Federalist No. 47, James Madison warned that “the accumulation of all powers” in the same hands may be called “the very definition of tyranny.” He was writing about constitutional government, but it also applies to political economy.
In the rush to secure a domestic source of semiconductor chips, Washington has unleashed circular incentives tying business to politics.
Beginning in 2024, Intel, Washington’s chosen American semiconductor champion, received a reported $7.86 billion in direct funding under the CHIPS and Science Act. The line was crossed more clearly in 2025, when the federal government acquired a 9.9 percent stake in Intel for $8.9 billion, acquiring roughly 433 million shares at $20.47 per share. This was not merely a grant, loan, or tax credit. It made the federal government a shareholder in a private semiconductor company.
The conflict deepens when private financial exposure enters the picture.
Trump’s financial disclosures listed Intel holdings in 2025, and 2026 transaction reports showed additional purchases of Intel securities valued between $15,001 and $50,000 before Intel’s stock surged. Indeed, in March 2026, Trump bought Intel when the share price was roughly $40. Within months, Intel’s share price had more than doubled, and by early June it traded above $110.
With Intel’s astronomical rise, Yahoo Finance reported, “Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) has been on an astounding run on the stock market over the past year. Shares of the semiconductor giant have gained a whopping 427 percent during this period.” The rally raises a harder question. To what extent, if any, does Intel’s stock reflect underlying performance versus policy-driven tailwinds and political exposure?
Once the government becomes shareholder, regulator, subsidizer, and patron of a strategic industry, its power does not stop at the factory gate. It travels through customers, contractors, procurement channels, and politically favored firms. That is where Dell enters the picture.
On May 27, 2026, Dell Federal Systems was awarded a single-award, firm-fixed-price blanket purchase agreement under the Department of War Enterprise Software Initiative. The agreement, valued at a reported $9.7 billion, was scheduled to begin on June 1 and run for five years. Its purpose is to consolidate Microsoft software licenses such as Microsoft 365, cloud subscriptions, Software Assurance, and related enterprise technology needs across the Department of War, the Intelligence Community, and the US Coast Guard.
Kirsten A. Davies, the Department of War’s chief information officer, said the agreement would deliver “unprecedented scale and cost efficiency” and save an initial $422 million annually. In short, Dell was awarded the federal channel for one of the largest Microsoft services procurement agreements in the government.
This deal comes after President Trump urged on February 19, 2026 and May 8, 2026, “to go out and buy Dell.” In addition to this, Trump owns Dell securities in valuation up to positions valued at up to $5 million. Since the beginning of the year, Dell’s stock price has more than tripled, rising from about $126 to nearly $400.
The Pentagon deal is only the latest tightening of politics and business. Michael Dell, chairman and CEO of Dell Technologies, sits on President Trump’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology alongside Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, AMD CEO Lisa Su, and many other tech titans. In December 2025, Michael and Susan Dell pledged $6.25 billion to Trump Accounts, one of the administration’s signature family-investment programs, with contributions scheduled to begin on July 4, 2026.
While others warned about direct government investment in Intel, Michael Dell endorsed the arrangement, calling Intel “the most important company to a strong and resilient US semiconductor industry.”
The Dell-Intel connection matters because it is commercial, not merely political. In 2024, Dell accounted for 19 percent of Intel’s revenue, followed by Lenovo at 11 percent and HP at 10 percent. The relationship runs in both directions: Intel accounts for roughly two-thirds of Dell’s US laptop, desktop, and all-in-one processor-brand offerings.
The political layer became even more visible when Trump publicly called for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign. According to Semafor, Michael Dell, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella were among the executives who reached out to Trump or senior aides to defend Tan before his August 11 White House meeting. Trump later softened his position, praising Tan’s “amazing story.”
In other words, executives tied to the same technology network were not merely selling products to the government. They were also participating in shaping the boundaries of acceptable leadership at the head of a government-backed semiconductor champion. The White House ballroom donor list points in the same direction. Roughly one-third of the listed White House ballroom donors came from technology, chip, and artificial intelligence firms.
Put plainly, the circle is closing. Michael Dell supported the government-backed Intel strategy, helping protect one of Dell’s most important semiconductor suppliers. Dell then appeared not as a distant observer or neutral player in the market, but as a major federal technology contractor through the Pentagon’s nearly $9.7 billion Microsoft-services agreement. Washington backs Intel, Intel depends heavily on Dell, and Dell receives major federal technology business.
Lord Acton’s warning that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” feels less like a slogan here than a diagnosis. Public power protects private firms. Private firms return as contractors, advisers, donors, and political allies. The same circle feeds itself again. The snake is eating itself, and taxpayers are asked to call it industrial policy.
