All fair points. I was kind of shocked that the initial TSMC AZ plants are going to be 5N, I really expected them to be 3N** at least. With Intel, so much depends on getting enough EUV lithographs from ASML. Apparently, they managed the first of the new line of high NA machines. Hopefully it's not just a one off. I guess Swan was a bit more than a care taker.Unfortunately it is a distinct possibility that Gelsinger will only have 5 years as CEO. I sure wouldn't bet on it though since it's an arbitrary board decision and the only potential historical application of it would have been with Craig Barret who transitioned from CEO to chairman of the board at age 65. While perhaps not quite on the same level as those that preceded him, I'd say Craig Barret was still a solid Intel CEO. Far better than the trio that followed that ran Intel like any generic big business.
I would note that there is one reason for Intel to receive preferential treatment on US subsidies - Intel's leading edge process is developed and deployed in the US first. TSMC's Arizona site is scheduled to start production in 2024... with a 5nm class process that'll be what, 3-4 years old at that point? Meanwhile Samsung is intentionally neglecting to mention what process their new fab in Texas is targeting. (Their existing Austin fab "primarily focuses on the production of 14nm and 28/32nm technologies".) I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Taiwan and South Korea are imposing IP export restrictions in order to keep the most lucrative investments by TSMC and Samsung in country. So the real choice might be subsidizing Intel to keep US semiconductor production as close to the leading edge as Intel can manage, or subsidize the table scraps from TSMC and Samsung.
Export restrictions on TSMC make allot of sense given the strategic importance to Taiwan. South Korea, while it could be true, they really need to get into the US and Europe to bolster to get more device wins and bolster their manufactured product portfolio.