As Donald Trump bulldozes through longtime precedents restraining presidential power over private enterprise, the leaders of Silicon Valley remain quiet.

Just last month, the president extracted equity from Intel and export taxes from Nvidia and AMD after on-and-off-again threats to cripple Apple with tariffs and imprison Meta’s CEO for life.

The reaction from Big Tech? Crickets.

Silence of the lambs

When asked, the CEOs of Intel, Nvidia, AMD, Apple, Meta and Alphabet had no comment about the federal government becoming the largest shareholder of a historic chipmaker, Trump’s demands for a piece of the action on sales to China, or the possibility of him leveraging the presidency to extract equity or profits from another American tech company.

But valley leaders know there are reasons for concern.

If Trump’s federal government owns Intel, or any other company, what will it do to protect its investment? Will Trump threaten Apple to buy Intel’s chips over Nvidia’s or AMD’s? For that matter, how can Nvidia or AMD, even if their technology is superior, compete against a company owned by the government? And what happens when Intel starts making decisions to appease its government masters not its shareholders, stakeholders and consumers?

Blurred lines

The silence from the Silicon Valley’s C-suite has not gone unnoticed.

“It’s striking to see that an administration that undermines the things that built this valley — like the national labs and R&D and overseas talent — isn’t getting any pushback from tech. Like, none,” said Russell Hancock, CEO of think tank Joint Venture Silicon Valley, who calls the government’s recent “deals” and acquisition of equity a “historic blurring of previous lines between the market and the state.”

The two Democratic congressmen who represent the biggest swaths of Silicon Valley say they know why business leaders are so buttoned up.

“We have someone using the power of the state to bully them,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, whose district stretches from Cupertino through part of San Jose to Fremont.

“They’re ducking under the table for survival so their businesses can make it through these three extra years. They’re worried about punitive tariffs or that (Trump) restricts their abilities to sell overseas or cancels the grants they need or that (he) goes on social media and rants against them and calls to fire them.”

With business leaders nationwide, “we’re seeing capitulation wrought by fear,” said Rep. Sam Liccardo, the former mayor of San Jose whose congressional district also includes Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the global HQ of venture capitalism. “I know lots of C-Suite occupants who are deeply troubled … but unwilling to speak up.”

“Limited exceptions”

On Aug. 22 — just 15 days after Trump demanded Intel fire its CEO “immediately” for unsubstantiated conflicts — the Santa Clara chipmaker announced it struck a “historic agreement” with the president.

The CEO wasn’t fired. Instead, in exchange for a total investment of $11.1 billion, the government acquired a 9.9% stake, Intel announced. However, the government will only be a “passive” owner and “agrees to vote with the company’s board of directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.”

Wait, what? What “limited exceptions”?

Turns out that there’s a Levi’s Stadium-size loophole disclosed in Intel’s SEC filing. If Trump asserts Intel’s decisions affect “the US Government’s interests,” then Uncle Sam goes from a passive shareholder to an active one — that, also, now owns the most shares.

Trump’s idea of “US Government’s interests” is anything he wants it to be, says Mark Lemley, professor at Stanford Law School, where he directs its Law, Science and Technology program.

Lest anyone think Trump would be a passive shareholder, the way he described the deal should clear that up: “The United States of America,” he wrote on Aug. 22, “now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL.”

The rest of Intel’s regulatory filing reads like a hostage memo written by securities lawyers, whose message is clear: This deal poses massive potential problems for shareholders. For starters, they write, “The US government’s interests in the company may not be the same as those of other stockholders.” Further, federal ownership could scare partners and alienate foreign buyers, who provide 76% of Intel’s revenues.

Within days of the Trump-Intel news, it already appeared like there was one definite loser in the deal: young Black lawyers.

Intel will no longer be renewing the program its own executives created in 2021 to train new lawyers at North Carolina Central University, a historically Black college, Bloomberg Law reported on Aug. 28.

Neither Intel nor North Carolina Central University would discuss the timing of that decision.

However, given this administration’s obsessive “war on woke” and the explicit pressure it has already put on other American businesses, including SkyDance Media, Verizon and T-Mobile, to scale back their diversity policies in exchange for greenlighting their acquisitions, you’d be a fool not to suspect Trump’s MAGA culture agenda is already influencing Intel executives’ decision-making.

“All day long”

Intel wasn’t the only South Bay chipmaker Trump extorted.

In April, the administration blocked Nvidia and AMD from selling their advanced chips to China, citing national security fears. Nvidia stood to lose $15 billion in sales; AMD, $800 million.

Now that he had them right where he wanted them, Trump was ready to make a deal. When spring turned into summer, Nvidia and AMD chips became his bargaining chips. To recoup those huge projected losses, which had their investors panicking, the two hardware companies agreed to pay the U.S. 15% of their Chinese chips sales.

“This is the same playbook over and over again,” said Stanford Law’s Lemley, who has represented many of the valley’s largest companies, including chipmakers. “These are very Trump-like shakedowns.”

Even the head of the county GOP has concerns.

“The Intel deal doesn’t pass the smell test,” said Dave Johnson, chairman of the Santa Clara County Republican Party, who refused to go much further into the deal because he said he didn’t know enough about it.

When asked whether he would be OK with the federal government taking ownership of any other American companies, Johnson said, “You’re asking me a question I’m not comfortable answering. Do I like the idea of the federal government owning anything? No.”

Then he said: “I could be swayed.”

Well, buckle up because Trump has signaled he’s going to take equity in more American companies.

“I PAID ZERO FOR INTEL, IT IS WORTH APPROXIMATELY 11 BILLION DOLLARS. All goes to the USA,” wrote Trump on Truth Social last month. “Why are ‘stupid’ people unhappy with that? I will make deals like that for our Country all day long.”

Say something. Anything.

For Khanna, whose district includes Apple, Intel, Nvidia and AMD, “It’s time for Silicon Valley leaders to show moral clarity and speak up against this president.”

He’s hoping for a unified message.

“This is the moment … .  There’s safety in numbers.”

But, so far, there’s only silence.

Reach Deputy Opinion Editor Max Taves at mtaves@bayareanewsgroup.com.