July, 11 2024, 07:16am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Olivia Alperstein, olivia@ips-dc.org
Carter Dougherty, carter@ourfinancialsecurity.org
New Report Shows Need for Buyback Restrictions in CHIPS Program
Guardrails would protect taxpayers dollars from wasteful stock buybacks and excessive CEO pay and keep focus on long-term innovation.
Computer chip companies currently in line for $30 billion in subsidies spent more than $41 billion on stock buybacks between 2019 and 2023, underscoring the need for stringent rules that ensure new subsidies improve the semiconductor manufacturing base and do not merely enrich shareholders and CEOs, according to a new study.
The report from the Institute for Policy Studies and the Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, Maximizing the Benefits of the CHIPS Program, analyzes the distribution of the $39 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. It also examines the Biden administration’s initial steps to stop taxpayer money from going to share buybacks by granting preferential treatment to firms that agree to forgo all stock buybacks for five years.
While welcome, this policy is incomplete. With such strong pressure from Wall Street to use stock buybacks to boost share prices, the federal government must lay down a firm line against potential abuse. The authors urge the administration to put real teeth into that effort by inserting explicit restrictions on all stock buyback spending in the final CHIPS subsidy contracts.
“The Biden administration has taken important steps to use the power of the public purse to encourage corporations to focus on creating good jobs and long-term value rather than the all-too-common fixation on inflating CEO paychecks,” said Sarah Anderson, the report’s lead author and the Global Economy Program Director at the Institute for Policy Studies. “Strong stock buyback restrictions in CHIPS contracts would reinforce this goal, since every dollar spent on buybacks is a dollar not spent on innovation for long-term competitiveness – the main goal of the law – or employee child care subsidies, worker wages and training.”
The new report is the first to provide detailed data on stock buybacks and CEO pay at the first 11 corporations to sign preliminary CHIPS agreements with the Department of Commerce. These companies are in line for subsidies totaling nearly $30 billion.
The analysis focuses on the $39 billion in subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing in the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, and specifically on the Biden administration’s decision to grant preferential treatment in the awarding of these subsidies to firms that agree to forgo all stock buybacks for five years.
The report commends Biden administration officials for their strong commitment to ensuring that public investments benefit working families and the broader economy instead of further enriching corporate executives and wealthy shareholders. The authors urge the administration to put real teeth into that effort by inserting explicit restrictions on all stock buyback spending in the final CHIPS subsidy contracts.
Key findings:
- The 11 companies with preliminary CHIPS agreements spent more than $41 billion on stock buybacks between 2019 and 2023 — enough to provide 300,000 employees a $27,541 bonus every year for five years.
- Intel had the largest outlay. With the $30.2 billion the firm spent on buybacks from 2019 to 2023, the chipmaker could’ve given each of their 124,800 employees a $48,000 bonus every year. Intel is in line to receive as much as $8.5 billion in CHIPS subsidies – the most of any firm.
- None of the companies in line for these subsidies have publicly committed to suspend existing share repurchase plans (which currently authorize $14.3 billion in buyback spending) or to refrain from adopting new plans during the grant period.
- CEOs with preliminary CHIPS agreements are sitting on company stock holdings worth more than $2.7 billion ($306 million on average), reflecting the enormous potential for executives to cash in on future buyback-related bumps in share prices.
- Among the 8 CHIPS grantees for which pay data are available, CEO compensation averaged $13.6 million in 2023 and the average gap between CEO and median worker pay stood at 200 to 1.
- Micron Technology’s CEO was the highest paid, with total compensation valued at $25.3 million in 2023. Half of Micron employees made less than $54,570.
- Microchip Technology’s median wage was the lowest, at just $51,229. The firm’s CEO made nearly $12.3 million last year amidst declining revenue that has led to two unpaid worker furloughs this year.
In a July 1 letter to Commerce Secretary Raimondo, Senator Elizabeth Warren and House members Pramila Jayapal, Sean Casten, and Bill Foster noted that the federal agency has the “statutory authority to fully ban CHIPS grant recipients from engaging in stock buybacks as a condition of award.” The lawmakers expressed concern that unless the administration asserts this authority, they will “leave the door open for semiconductor companies to take millions or even billions in CHIPS grants, move some money around, and then engage in more stock buybacks.”
“Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act and President Biden signed it into law to bolster semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S. – not to waste public dollars in stock buybacks that make rich executives richer and exacerbate economic and racial inequality,” said Natalia Renta, Senior Policy Counsel for Corporate Governance and Power at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund. “Commerce Secretary Raimondo must finalize CHIPS contracts with strong stock buyback restrictions to make sure public money serves the public good, as intended, not narrow, private interests.”
Read the full report: https://ips-dc.org/report-maximizing-the-benefits-of-the-chips-program
The Institute for Policy Studies, a multi-issue research center, has been conducting path-breaking research on executive compensation for nearly three decades. IPS’s Inequality.org website provides an online portal into all things related to the income and wealth gaps that divide us, in the United States and throughout the world. Sign up for our weekly newsletter at: Inequality.org/subscribe.
Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund is a nonpartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 200 civil rights, community-based, consumer, labor, small business, and other groups. Formed in the wake of the 2008 crisis, AFREF works to lay the foundation for a strong, stable, and ethical financial system – one that serves the economy and the nation as a whole and contributes to shared prosperity for all families and communities.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
LATEST NEWS
With Food Aid Suspended for Millions of Families, Trump Brags of 'Statuary Marble' Bathroom Makeover
"He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself," one critic said of Trump.
Oct 31, 2025
As millions of families across the US are about to lose their access to food aid over the weekend, President Donald Trump on Friday decided to show off photos of a White House bathroom that he boasted had been refurbished in "highly polished, statuary marble."
Trump posted photos of the bathroom on his Truth Social platform, and he explained that he decided to remodel it because he was dissatisfied with the "art deco green tile style" that had been implemented during a previous renovation, which he described as "totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era."
"I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble," Trump continued. "This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!"
Trump's critics were quick to pan the remodeled bathroom, especially since it came at a time when Americans are suffering from numerous policies the president and the Republican Party are enacting, including tariffs that are raising the cost of food and clothing; expiring subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act exchanges; and cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) programs in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
"Sure, you might not be able to eat or go to the doctor, but check out how nice Trump's new marble shitter is," remarked independent journalist Aaron Rupar on Bluesky.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who has become a critic of Trump, ripped the president for displaying such tone deafness in the middle of a federal government shutdown.
"Government still shutdown, Americans not getting paid, food assistance for low-income families and children about to be cut off, and this is what he cares about," he wrote on X. "He’s a psychopath, humanly incapable of caring about anyone or anything but himself."
Don Moynihan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, expressed extreme skepticism that the White House bathroom during Abraham Lincoln's tenure was decked out in marble and gold.
"Fact check based on no research but with a high degree of confidence: This is not the marble that was originally in the Lincoln Bedroom," he wrote. "It is more likely to the be retrieved from a Trump casino before it was demolished."
Fashion critic Derek Guy, meanwhile, mostly left politics out of his criticisms of the remodeled bathroom, instead simply observing that "White House renovations are currently being spearheaded by someone with famously bad interior design taste."
Earlier this month, Trump sparked outrage when he demolished the entire East Wing of the White House to make way for a massive White House ballroom financed by donations from some of America’s wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Khanna Warns Any Trump Attack on Venezuela Would Be 'Blatantly Unconstitutional'
"Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war," said Democratic US Rep. Ro Khanna.
Oct 31, 2025
US Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday demanded urgent congressional action to avert "another endless, regime-change war" amid reports that President Donald Trump is weighing military strikes inside Venezuela.
Such strikes, warned Khanna (D-Calif.), would be "blatantly unconstitutional."
"The United States Congress must speak up and stop this," Khanna said in a video posted to social media. "No president, according to the Constitution, has the authority to strike another country without Congress' approval. And the American people have voted against regime change and endless wars."
Watch:
Trump is getting ready to launch strikes inside Venezuela per the @WSJ & @MiamiHerald.
This is blatantly unconstitutional.
Congress must speak up now to stop another endless, regime-change war. @RepThomasMassie @RandPaul. pic.twitter.com/LrnPPUVZaU
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) October 31, 2025
Khanna's remarks came in response to reporting by the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal on internal Trump administration discussions regarding possible airstrike targets inside Venezuela.
The Herald reported early Friday that the administration "has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment." The Journal, in a story published Thursday, was more reserved, reporting that the administration "has identified targets in Venezuela that include military facilities used to smuggle drugs," but adding that "the president hasn't made a final decision on ordering land strikes."
Citing unnamed US officials familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that "the targets would send a clear message to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro that it is time to step down."
Following the reports, the White House denied that Trump has finalized plans for a military strike on Venezuela. Trump himself told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday that he has not made a final decision, signaling his belief he has the authority to do so if he chooses.
Last week, the president said publicly that land strikes are "going to be next" following his illegal, deadly strikes on boats in waters off Central and South America.
Trump has said he would not seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela directly.
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period."
A potentially imminent, unauthorized US attack on Venezuela and the administration's accelerating military buildup in the Caribbean have thus far drawn vocal opposition from just a fraction of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, currently embroiled in a shutdown fight.
Just three senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—are listed as official backers of a resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization. Other senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), have spoken out against Trump's belligerence toward Venezuela.
"Trump is illegally threatening war with Venezuela—after killing more than 50 people in unauthorized strikes at sea," Sanders wrote in a social media post on Friday. "The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must defend the law and end Trump's militarism."
Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Friday that "most Americans oppose overthrowing Venezuela's leaders by force—and an even larger majority oppose invading."
"Call your senators and tell them to vote for S.J.Res.90 to block Trump's unauthorized use of military force," Williams added. "The Capitol switchboard can connect you to your senators' offices at 202-224-3121."
A similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) in the US House has just over 30 cosponsors.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) announced his support for the House resolution on Thursday, saying in a statement that "Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress."
"I am deeply troubled by reports that suggest this administration believes otherwise," said Neguse. "Any unilateral directive to send Americans into war is not only reckless, but illegal and an affront to the House of Representatives' powers under Article I of our Constitution."
"The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period," Neguse added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Question' More People Will End Up With Fake Insurance If ACA Subsidies Expire: Expert
"This is what happens when we design systems for insurance companies instead of humans."
Oct 31, 2025
Time on Thursday published reporting about "how fake health insurance is luring people in," and along with sharing stories of Americans tricked into paying for plans that aren't compliant with the Affordable Care Act, the article features an expert's warning that more could be fooled if Congress lets ACA subsidies expire.
The ongoing federal government shutdown stems from congressional Democrats' efforts to reverse recent GOP cuts to Medicaid and extend the ACA tax credits, which set to expire at the end of the year. Open enrollment for 2026 plans sold on ACA marketplaces starts Saturday, and Americans who buy insurance through these platforms now face the looming end of subsidies and substantial monthly premium hikes.
"Confusion about navigating insurance writ large and the Affordable Care Act marketplace in particular has led many people to end up with plans that they think are health insurance which in fact are not health insurance," Time reported. "They mistakenly click away from healthcare.gov, the website where people are supposed to sign up for ACA-compliant plans, and end up on a site with a misleading name."
ACA plans are required to cover 10 essential benefits, the outlet detailed, but consumers who leave the official website may instead sign up for short-term plans that don't span the full year, fixed indemnity plans that pay a small amount for certain services, or "healthcare sharing ministries, in which people pitch in for other peoples' medical costs, but which sometimes do not cover preexisting conditions."
Claire Heyison, senior policy analyst for health insurance and marketplace policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Time that "there's no question that more people will end up with these kinds of plans if the premium tax credits are not extended."
According to the outlet:
These non-insurance products "have increasingly been marketed in ways that make them look similar to health insurance," Heyison says. To stir further confusion, some even deploy common insurance terms like PPO (preferred provider organization) or co-pay in their terms and conditions. But people will pay a price for using them, Heyison says, because they can charge higher premiums than ACA-compliant plans, deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and exclude benefits like prescription drug coverage or maternity care.
Often, the websites where people end up buying non-ACA compliant insurance have the names and logos of insurers on them. Sometimes, they are lead-generation sites... that ask for a person's name and phone number and then share that information with brokers who get a commission for signing up people for plans, whether they are health insurance or not.
To avoid paying for misleading plans, Heyison advised spending a few days researching before buying anything, steering clear of companies that offer a gift for signing up, and asking for documents detailing coverage to review before payment.
On the heels of Time's reporting and the eve of open enrollment, Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative published polling that makes clear Americans across the political spectrum are worried about skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
The pollsters found that 75% of voters are "somewhat" or "very" concerned about the spikes, including 83% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 66% of Republicans. While the overall figure was the same as last week, the share who said they were very concerned rose from 45% to 47%.
As the second-longest shutdown ever drags on, 57% of respondents said they don't believe that President Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress are focused on lowering healthcare costs for people like them and their families. More broadly, 52% also did not agree that Trump and GOP lawmakers "are fighting on behalf of" people like them.
A plurality of voters (42%) said that Trump and congressional Republicans deserve most of the blame for rising premiums, while 27% blamed both parties equally, and just a quarter put most of the responsibility on elected Democrats.
"While President Trump focuses on the moodboard for his gilded ballroom and House Republicans refuse to show up for work in Washington, a ticking time bomb is strapped to working families’ pocketbooks," said Elizabeth Pancotti, Groundwork Collaborative's managing director of policy and advocacy, in a Friday statement.
Pointing to the Trump administration's legally dubious decision not to keep funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the shutdown, she added that "healthcare premiums are set to double and food assistance benefits are on the brink of collapse in a matter of hours, and voters know exactly who's to blame."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


