Repealing the CHIPS Act risks US national security
62 comments
·March 18, 2025jcfrei
quesera
Easier: Make some trivial amendment to it (does not need to be ratified), and then just start calling it something else.
"It was a disaster, but We Fixed It because I'm your favorite."
malfist
Isn't that how they "fixed ACA" last time around? Failed to have the votes to repeal it, so they "saved" it
blitzar
They got rid of the much hated, terrible, corrupt, illegal Obamacare and replaced it with the much loved and wonderful Affordable Care Act.
null
2OEH8eoCRo0
Hero John McCain saved it
ttyprintk
“Only I can fix it. Tortilla chips (those are gang chips) taking up too much room on the table. Don’t know why you’d stick up for gang chips. Potato chips belong. ”
nodoll
>Seems to be the most likely procedure with the current administration.
For example?
Also please show that the major current on-going efforts, like ongoing negotiations, measures in the border etc, were worked upon as intensive as it is now, in the previous administration.
selectodude
> For example?
USMCA
nodoll
Not sure if you are the same person. But anyway, I cannot read your mind. Please explain your justifications for the claim or please share an article that does it.
alistairSH
Trump replaced NAFTA with USMCA during his first term. He claimed it was the best deal ever.
This term, he's claiming the deal is terrible and starting a trade war (which is likely not winnable and probably ends up settling for something approximating NAFTA again).
Which is it? Best deal ever, or crap? He's lying about one.
JohnTHaller
As part of it, Trump signed the "deal" that had Canada supplying power to 3 states. The same thing he later railed against and wanted to know who could have possibly done it. It was him.
nodoll
So I searched for "NAFTA USMCA difference" and there are a lot of articles that describe the differences.
I agree that Trump sometimes exaggerate stuff, but that does not mean that there is nothing is there.
I think It is very dishonest to claim that all the current administration is doing is just continuing what the previous ones did, but with changed names.
zoobab
Public money, public factories?
There is nothing public, just free money for the private sector.
2OEH8eoCRo0
It's strategically important
preisschild
You could also help defend Taiwan against illegal annexation and then you wouldn't need to have those facilities on-shore.
2OEH8eoCRo0
Bad things happen in war- why risk it? We can both defend Taiwan and build fabs in the US.
esbranson
Trump's SOTU for reference:
> Your CHIPS Act is a horrible, horrible thing. We give hundreds of billions of dollars and it doesn’t mean a thing. They take our money and they don’t spend it. All that meant to them. We’re giving them no money. All that was important to them was they didn’t want to pay the tariffs. So they came and they’re building. And many other companies are coming. We don’t have to give them money, we just want to protect our businesses and our people, and they will come because they won’t have to pay tariffs if they build in America. So it’s very amazing. You should get rid of the CHIPS Act and whatever’s left over, Mr. Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt or any other reason you want to.
9283409232
Trump supporters tell me Trump isn't aiding China but then everything Trump does has a weird way of aiding China. Why would we repeal the CHIPS act and remove our ability to secure a domestic supply of chips?
eagleislandsong
> everything Trump does has a weird way of aiding China
This is also why Chinese netizens commonly refer to Trump as 川建國同志 (literally "Nation-Building Comrade Trump").
jaza
Much of the money has already been spent, the new fabs are already operational slash well into construction, so repealing it now shouldn't do that much damage. But it'll still do some damage, and it's still a stupid move, but hey, them's the times we live in.
2OEH8eoCRo0
Repealing it requires congress.
almostgotcaught
pepperidge farm remembers when the same thing could be said of closing departments like Department of Education and USAID lol.
sanderjd
It still can, at least so far. But courts are slow.
almostgotcaught
> But courts are slow.
You ever heard the thing about how if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water it'll jump out but if you put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat it'll cook? That's us. We are cooked.
Trasmatta
The US President is motivated entirely by spite and personal benefits vendettas. The only reason to repair the CHIPS act is because it was one of Biden's bigger accomplishments, and Trump can't stand that. That's literally all it is.
actionfromafar
Not only spite. Also what his handlers tell him.
BiteCode_dev
Paywalled, so how did it go to the frontpage if most people can't read it?
1over137
See the archive.is link that someone also provides.
re-thc
> if most people can't read it?
By reading the headline
lapcat
This.
Many HN users don't read the articles. Some are even unapologetic about it, explicitly admitting that they're here only for the comments.
AnimalMuppet
Some of us rarely read the articles. They're often, frankly, a waste of time. And it's hard to tell just by the headline whether it's worth reading or not. The comments often tell me whether the article is worth reading faster than the article would. (And some of the time the article is paywalled, and some of the time it's a video, which makes it harder to skim.)
And often I learn more from the comments than I would from the article.
quesera
Most paywalls are easy to bypass. Most HN readers know this.
Some of us also have FT subscriptions though.
That'd be an interesting poll. What % of HN readers (poll participants) subscribe to the big paywalled story sources? NYT, FT, The Economist, ...
WithinReason
Clicking the link hits a paywall, but copy-pasting it gets me the article.
curtisszmania
[dead]
rayiner
Was national security impaired four years ago before the CHIPS Act?
That said I like the CHIPS Act in principle. We should have real industrial policy.
blitzar
Yes. Not been able to build the things required for national security within your own boarders represents a risk to national security.
Having them all manufactured at the same place, a risk to national security. Having a single supplier, a risk to national security. Day of the week ending in y, a risk to national security.
CharlieDigital
Yes? Because during COVID, the supply of microchips became a really big issue.
I bought a 2024 Prius last year in Feb and didn't get my second key fob until this year, Feb, because of supply chain issues with microchips.
Now imagine an actual war where China takes Taiwan.
sanderjd
I mean, that was the theory of passing the bill, yes. You can question that theory, but it's not like some new explanation for the purpose of the law.
Just cancel it, make a new Act with a different name and equal purpose, claim victory. Seems to be the most likely procedure with the current administration.