Intel shares leap after Trump announces chip deal with Apple

Intel’s stock experienced a significant surge following a statement made by former President Donald Trump, who claimed that Apple had reached an agreement to collaborate with Intel on the design and production of chips within the United States. This announcement sent shockwaves through financial markets, with Intel’s shares jumping nearly 10.5% in pre-market trading on Thursday. The development marks another milestone in a series of high-profile partnerships for Intel, which has increasingly positioned itself as a leading foundry in the global semiconductor industry.

The claim by Trump came via his social media platform, where he stated that Apple would be working alongside Intel to develop and manufacture chips domestically. This assertion was quickly reflected in the market, with Intel’s stock price rising to $133.82, up $12.72 from its previous close. While the exact nature of the partnership remains unclear, the implications for both companies—and the broader U.S. technology sector—are considerable. Analysts suggest that such a collaboration could allow Apple to further diversify its manufacturing base, reducing reliance on overseas suppliers like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).

The timing of Trump’s announcement appears to be strategically chosen, coming just days after reports surfaced that Apple intended to increase product prices to offset rising costs associated with memory and storage chips. These costs have been driven largely by increased demand from artificial intelligence firms. However, the connection between these two developments remains speculative, as Apple has yet to officially confirm the alleged partnership with Intel.

Trump’s recent comments come amid ongoing scrutiny regarding his prior involvement with Intel. In August of the previous year, the U.S. government secured a 10% equity stake in the semiconductor giant, a move that raised eyebrows among critics. The Cato Institute, a prominent libertarian think tank, criticized the arrangement as “an unprecedented government ownership of private enterprise.” Now, with Intel’s valuation having grown from approximately $100 billion to around $600 billion, the U.S. government’s stake has ballooned to over $60 billion, making it the largest single shareholder in the company.

This newfound influence has placed Intel in a unique position, with the U.S. government holding more shares than major institutional investors such as Vanguard and BlackRock. According to data from FactSet, the government’s stake surpasses the combined holdings of these two investment giants, which currently sit at about 6% each. Trump himself took to social media to highlight the growth in value, emphasizing how the government’s investment has yielded substantial returns.

Analysts believe that the proposed partnership between Apple and Intel could represent a long-awaited step in Apple’s efforts to reduce dependency on foreign manufacturing. Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives noted that the deal, if confirmed, would follow more than a year of discussions and could signal a shift in Apple’s strategy toward greater domestic production. He suggested that this move aligns with Apple’s broader goal of distributing its manufacturing operations across multiple regions, including Vietnam, India, and the U.S.

Despite the apparent enthusiasm surrounding the potential partnership, neither Apple nor Intel has publicly commented on the matter. Apple’s silence is notable, especially given the company’s history of being cautious about unconfirmed reports involving its supply chain. Meanwhile, Intel has declined to address the allegations, stating it would not provide commentary on “a potential Apple–Intel agreement.”

As the situation unfolds, the tech industry and financial markets remain watchful. If the claims prove true, the partnership could reshape the landscape of semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S., potentially influencing future policies and investments in the sector. For now, however, the full extent of the agreement—and its impact—remains uncertain, leaving many questions unanswered.