From Watchdog to Shareholder: The Government Goes Corporate

SpaceX, Nvidia, Intel — all under Uncle Sam’s gaze (and wallet). When the capitalist cradle turns interventionist, the rules get weird.

Sep 18, 2025

I’m trying to keep a planned rhythm to these newsletters, one that ChatGPT kindly laid out for me ;) Each week I bring forward either a short update, deep dive, short commentary or feature essay. Today, I have lots of topics that I would love to cover more deeply, but there are so many interesting things happening at the same time that a brief update will have to do. The red thread throughout is government control over private businesses.

I may come back to these in more detail later on. Let me know what you think.

Before you go into the articles, here’s a good interview I did with Dan Roche, the author of The Total Beginner’s Handbook for Doing Business with the Government.

Maybe now could be a good time for the CEOs in this story to read this book.

SpaceX buys wireless spectrum from EchoStar - listen to my Interview with EchoStar

This month SpaceX struck a landmark $17 billion deal to acquire wireless spectrum licenses from EchoStar, a move designed to supercharge Starlink’s direct-to-cell service and expand its role in U.S. 5G connectivity. The agreement also gives EchoStar’s Boost Mobile customers access to Starlink satellites, extending coverage to areas without traditional service.

For SpaceX, owning spectrum outright marks a turning point. The company has already launched more than 8,000 Starlink satellites—roughly 600 of which are configured as “cell towers in space” for its nascent direct-to-cell network. With exclusive spectrum, SpaceX can deploy upgraded, laser-linked satellites that promise to boost capacity by “more than 100 times,” according to President Gwynne Shotwell.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) looms large in the story. Earlier this year, the agency questioned EchoStar’s spectrum use and raised concerns over unmet 5G deployment obligations. The FCC now suggests the Starlink-EchoStar tie-up could “supercharge competition, extend innovative services to millions of Americans, and boost U.S. leadership in next-gen connectivity.”

The financial terms are complex: SpaceX will pay up to $8.5 billion in cash, another $8.5 billion in stock, and cover about $2 billion in EchoStar debt payments. In return, SpaceX secures critical mid-band spectrum—long viewed as underused—and greater independence from leasing deals with U.S. carriers.

I spoke to EchoStar’s Jennifer Manner in 2024 about the Spectrum Wars and the evolving international spectrum regulatory landscape.

In the broader picture, the deal underscores how spectrum policy, FCC oversight, and private investment intersect to define America’s competitive edge in space-enabled telecommunications.

Share Deep Policy

Copyright Fight Over AI Training Data Stalls as Judge Presses Anthropic on $1.5B Settlement

The first major copyright settlement in the AI industry is already facing turbulence. Last week, Anthropic announced a $1.5 billion agreement to resolve a class-action lawsuit brought by authors who accused the company of training its Claude AI on pirated books. But on Monday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco declined to approve the deal, citing unanswered questions and demanding more details.

At the heart of the proposed settlement is a $3,000 payment for each of 500,000 downloaded works, with the possibility of expanding the fund if additional titles are identified. Judge Alsup ordered both Anthropic and the plaintiffs to produce fuller lists of the affected works and authors by September 15, and additional clarifications by September 22.

The case has drawn sharp responses from industry groups. Maria Pallante, president of the Association of American Publishers, said the judge demonstrated “a lack of understanding of how the publishing industry works” and warned that the court’s suggested claims process could mire authors in “collateral litigation for years to come.” Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger added that she was “shocked” by the judge’s suggestion that her group might pressure authors, saying the Guild’s role is purely advisory.

Some authors see the settlement, despite its hurdles, as a symbolic breakthrough. Plaintiff Andi Bartz called it “an initial, corrective step in a critical battle” against AI companies, while fellow author Kirk Johnson described it as “the beginning of a fight on behalf of humans that don’t believe we have to sacrifice everything on the altar of AI.”

Backed by Amazon and Alphabet, Anthropic has yet to comment on the court’s pushback. The outcome will shape not just this deal but also a wave of ongoing copyright lawsuits against other AI leaders, including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta.

Export Controls or Export Tax? U.S. Strikes 15% Deal on Nvidia, AMD China Sales

In a move that blurs the line between export control and taxation, Nvidia and AMD have agreed to share 15% of their revenues from semiconductor sales to China with the U.S. government. The deal comes after the Trump administration halted chip exports in April, citing national security concerns, before granting the companies conditional licenses in July.

President Trump confirmed the arrangement at a press conference, describing it as a “little deal” negotiated down from an initial demand of 20%. While the administration frames the revenue share as a condition for access to export licenses, critics across the political spectrum argue it sets a dangerous precedent. “Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities,” said Rep. John Moolenaar, chair of the House Select Committee on China.

I wrote about the various ways governments use export controls for the Quantum Strategy Institute , but at the timing of writing that deep dive in July, it did not even cross my mind that a government would want to make money with company owned assets that have importance to their national security. I am not alone.

The legal footing of the deal is already under question. Derek Scissors, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, called the arrangement “effectively an unconstitutional export tax,” warning that it risks tying revenue generation to decisions about national security. Democrats voiced similar concerns. “Our export control regime must be based on genuine security considerations, not creative taxation schemes disguised as national security policy,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi.

For Nvidia and AMD, the agreement offers short-term relief. Both companies had warned that strict restrictions could cost billions in lost revenue and accelerate China’s push to develop its own AI chip ecosystem. “America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership,” Nvidia said in a statement, adding that export control rules must ensure U.S. technology remains competitive worldwide.

The arrangement highlights the uncomfortable trade-offs at the heart of tech geopolitics: balancing economic interests, security concerns, and industrial strategy. Whether this “15% rule” becomes a durable policy or a one-off deal remains uncertain — but for now, Washington has found a novel way to tie its national security policy directly to corporate sales in the global AI race.

U.S. Takes Rare 10% Stake in Intel to Boost Domestic Chipmaking

The Trump administration has taken an unusual step into the private sector, converting earlier CHIPS Act grants into equity and becoming Intel’s largest shareholder with a 10% stake. It’s a move that harks back to government interventions during the financial crisis, but this time the motivation is less about saving a failing firm and more about competing with China in advanced chipmaking.

Intel remains the only U.S. company capable of manufacturing cutting-edge chips at scale, but it has long trailed rivals Taiwan’s TSMC and South Korea’s Samsung. “If you fall behind a generation … you can almost never catch up. And that’s where Intel finds itself,” said Michael Malone, author of The Intel Trinity. Analysts argue that government backing could help Intel close the gap and reduce risks from supply shocks if tensions over Taiwan escalate.

Supporters see the stake as necessary for U.S. national security. “If we had zero capacity in semiconductors, it would be a big problem for our industry and defense,” said John Dallesasse of the University of Illinois. Others warn that direct government ownership could politicize Intel’s decisions. As Dartmouth’s Jennifer Lind put it: “Government backing can make a huge difference. But it can also stifle the very innovation we’re trying to protect.”

Not just the U.S. though

In a rare show of government intervention (to be fair the Finnish government owns and has owned plenty of businesses but the trend has been for them to sell ownership, not buy), Finland is now the majority owner of Valmet Automotive (79%) and battery spin-off Ioncor (70%).

The state justifies the move with the “geopolitical situation,” aiming to secure domestic industrial expertise and strengthen defense and battery production at home. Both companies will get state-backed cash injections, ensuring Ioncor anchors Finland’s battery supply chain while Valmet expands beyond cars. It’s another striking example of governments stepping into private industry—even in peacetime—when national security and geopolitics are at stake.

About Deep Policy

Stay relevant and connect the dots.

Hi, I’m Petra Söderling. Welcome to Deep Policy, a space where I help you understand how governments, technology, and innovation policy shape the world around us.

This newsletter and blog continue the conversation I began in my book Government and Innovation – the Economic Developer’s Guide to Our Future, and on my podcast Deep Pockets with Petra Soderling. If you’ve ever wondered why governments pour billions into quantum, AI, or biotech, or how geopolitics bends the path of technology, you’re in the right place.

Every week, I share a mix of deep-dive essays, timely analysis, and cultural reflections, always with an eye toward what matters for you: the choices being made now that will shape your future economy, your industry, and your society.

MORE REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE

Additional Resources

For more analysis, insight, maybe some entertainment, please feel free to explore these:

Petra Soderling & Co advisory services

Consulting governments, NGOs and companies on the economic and financial impact of deeptech. It’s not just me, it’s a whole team! Selected testimonials for my work from private clients can be found here. A banner with most notable public clients can be found here.

Deep Pockets Podcast

Every second week, more or less diligently, I bring forward a guest to discuss all things in the intersection of government and innovation.

The Book: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

My 2022 Amazon Hot New Release (editorial pick) is divided in three sections; the Tools that governments have to create new innovative industries, Examples from five countries who’ve done it right, and a How To section for implementation. Available in paperback or hard cover.

The audiobook: Government and Innovation - the Economic Developer’s Guide to our Future

Quantum Strategy Institute

In my role as the Head of Government and Consortium Relations at QSI, I’ve written many papers on how public quantum strategies support economic growth. Explore the full website or find my articles directly here.