On a 1,200-acre plot of land in a small town 30 miles north of Austin, Texas, South Korean giant Samsung is spending $17 billion to build a semiconductor fabrication plant.
Four hours north by car, in the city of Sherman, Texas Instruments is at the early stages of a $30 billion project, the largest new chip investment in Texas.
related investing news
14 hours ago
It’s not by accident.
As geopolitical tension between China and Taiwan drives chipmakers to turn to the U.S. for manufacturing, Texas has emerged as the place to do business, thanks to a combination of low taxes and new subsidies.
Since the $52 billion CHIPS and Science Act was first introduced in 2020, more than 50 new U.S. semiconductor projects have been announced totaling over $210 billion. More than $61 billion of that’s in Texas, with six projects expected to create more than 8,000 jobs.
“Because we have ports, because we have access to materials, because of our low cost of doing business, we are best situated to lead this next generation of chip manufacturing,” Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told CNBC in an interview in April.
In June, Abbott signed the Texas CHIPS Act into law. It set aside $1.4 billion for chip companies to manufacture in the Lone Star State and for universities willing to build related research and development centers.
When it comes to new chip investments, Arizona leads with a $20 billion fab coming from Intel and a $40 billion site from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., the world’s top advanced chipmaker. However, Texas has the highest number of total fabs and is a close second for new investments.
CNBC visited Texas for a rare look inside the clean rooms of three huge chip fabs, getting a glimpse of the manufacturing heart of the plant, where workers don special suits to protect the tiny microchips from skin particles and dust.
Melissa Hebert, Infineon’s senior manager of Austin site projects shows CNBC’s Katie Tarasov around inside the Infineon chip fabrication plant in Austin, Texas, on June 14, 2023.
Andrew Evers
We also toured the two biggest new projects under construction in the state.
Samsung’s new plant in the town of Taylor is scheduled to come online next year. It will be the location of Samsung’s first advanced chips produced in the U.S, but it’s not the company’s first foray in the state.
Samsung came to Texas in 1996, breaking ground on a big fab in Austin that’s now used entirely for foundry, making logic chips for outside customers. The company opened a second fab there in 2007.
“Our customers love to come to Texas,” said Jon Taylor, Samsung’s corporate vice president of fab engineering. “It’s equidistant from either coast and we know that some of the world’s most prominent fabless companies are actually in the United States.”
With the new facility near Austin, it will “increase their ability to source their chips domestically and not have to go into areas of the world where they may have some discomfort,” Taylor said.
Texas Instruments’ fab in Sherman, a town of 45,000 people 60 miles north of Dallas, is an even bigger investment. And it adds to the company’s legacy in Sherman, which dates back to a separate facility in 1966.
“Texas Instruments went a long way in putting Sherman on the map,” said David Plyler, the city’s mayor, adding that the new fab represents “a huge investment in our community.”
Plyler said Sherman’s “entire tax base was around $4 billion.”
Texas Instruments was founded in 1930 as Geophysical Service Inc., adopting its current name in 1951. Seven years after that, an engineer at the company named Jack Kilby filed for a patent for the integrated circuit. That invention opened up the possibility of miniaturizing chips by creating the entire circuit, not just the transistors, out of silicon.
Texas Instruments went on to design products like the first handheld electronic calculator in 1967, and is still known for graphing calculators that are used in classrooms around the world.
“It is very much so the calculator company to much of the world, but we are so much more than that,” said Kyle Flessner, senior vice president of Texas Instruments’ technology and manufacturing group. “If you have an electronic device, you almost certainly have a TI semiconductor chip inside of it. So we have 80,000 products that ship out to 100,000 different customers.”
Flessner said the company’s technology is in “about anything that you can plug into a wall or that has a cord in it.”
CNBC interviewed Flessner at Texas Instruments’ RFAB2 fab in Richardson, Texas, a suburb just north of Dallas. The plant came online in September and marks the company’s second plant in Richardson, where Texas Instruments plans to manufacture a combined 100 million analog chips per day.
Water and power
Texas Instruments’ $17 billion chip fab project in Sherman, Texas, on June 15, 2023.
Andrew Evers
Flessner also took us to the construction site in Sherman. Among the major draws there, he said, were water and power. Local lawmakers in the past have purchased water rights at the nearby Lake Texoma, which hovers over the Texas-Oklahoma border and is one of the largest reservoirs in the country.
“We have plenty of water, which is gold currency for cities and economic development right now,” Plyler said.
Making chips takes billions of gallons of water each year. Texas Instruments isn’t the only company taking advantage of the area.
GlobalWafers, based in Taiwan, is expanding in Sherman, with plans to spend $5 billion on the biggest silicon wafer factory in the U.S., producing the bare discs on which chips are made.
Meanwhile, about a quarter of the state remains in drought, leaving businesses vulnerable to a rapidly changing climate.
“We have the Texas Water Board that’s working on that and legislation that we’re working on this session to make sure that with a growing population in Texas, we will be able to provide for the water needs, not just of businesses, but also for our growing population,” said Abbott.
Texas Instruments and Samsung are both increasing water reuse goals at their new facilities.
Then there’s the power requirements. Each of the advanced chip-etching extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines that Samsung will use in Taylor is rated to consume about 1 megawatt of electricity, or 10% more than the previous generation.
“I already signed 12 laws to make the power grid more reliable, more resilient and more secure,” Abbott said. “We can definitely assure any business moving here they will have access to the power they need, but also at a low cost.”
Samsung, Infineon and NXP were forced to shut down their Austin fabs temporarily during the blackout in February 2021. Samsung, Infineon and others have since switched entirely to renewable power.
‘Texas is spacious’
Samsung is building a $17 billion chip fab on 1,200 acres in Taylor, Texas, 30 miles north of Austin. Construction site shown here on April 21, 2023.
Katie Brigham
Since the early days of Silicon Valley, the cost of making smaller and smaller transistors has skyrocketed, along with the size of the machines and amount of land needed for manufacturing. Texas has long been famous for plentiful land and policies that are favorable to new businesses.
“Texas is spacious, it’s huge, and then it has great support for ease of business,” said Jinman Han, the head of Samsung’s U.S. chip business. “At the same time we are having great support from our local governments in Texas, even from the Texas governor himself.”
Germany’s Infineon, one of the world’s biggest providers of automotive chips, has been in the U.S. for 25 years and makes many of its semiconductors in Austin.
“The number of chips in an automotive, in an EV, in automotive in general is drastically increasing,” said Melissa Hebert, Infineon’s senior manager of Austin site projects. “And all the connectivity, everything communicating within the car, around the car is increasing the chip content in every vehicle.”
In 2020, Infineon expanded manufacturing in Texas, buying Cypress Semiconductor for about $10 billion.
“With the support we’ve had from the state legislature and then also the federal support in this industry, Texas continues to be a hub for where we can build this manufacturing,” said Hebert, before taking us inside Infineon’s clean room.
NXP Semiconductors, which is based in the Netherlands, also has two fabs in Austin and recently made plans for a $2.6 billion expansion that would add an additional four-story fab.
X-FAB, a chip company that’s been in Texas for more than two decades, recently announced a $200 million expansion of its silicon carbide fab in north Texas.
Suppliers are following.
“When you start bringing in a fab like that, you need to build the ecosystem,” said Samsung’s Taylor. “There’s a lot of discussion these days about onshoring supply chains.”
Of the $17 billion price tag for Samsung’s fab in Taylor, $11 billion is going to machinery and equipment. Texas Instruments said such tools will account for at least 65% of its new fab costs in Sherman, including the $200 million EUV lithography machines made by ASML, which has offices in Dallas and Austin.
The world’s next biggest provider of semiconductor equipment, Applied Materials, has been in Austin since 1992.
Samsung reported dismal first-quarter earnings in April and cut production of memory chips in response to falling prices. But it’s pouring more money into the foundry side of its business, making logic chips in Texas, and has plans to expand at its new facility near Austin.
“We have 1,200 acres and that first factory is taking up about 250 acres of it,” Taylor said. “So we have room to expand.”
Similarly, Texas Instruments is going big on fabs even after earlier this year reporting its first sales decline since 2020.
“We’re in the relatively early stages, but we are making tremendous progress towards having production out of this facility in 2025,” Flessner said.
Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX.
Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.
Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit.
“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.
To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.
Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform.
The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much.
The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms.
“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.
“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”
It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.
Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively.
X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.
Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.
Artificial intelligence training
X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.
“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.
Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually.
X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.
“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.
Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different.
The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center.
Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.
Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training.
“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.
Liquidated damages
Another unusual aspect of X’s new terms is its “liquidated damages” clause. The terms state that if users request, view or access more than 1 million posts – including replies, videos, images and others – in any 24-hour period they are liable for damages of $15,000.
While most individual users won’t easily approach that threshold, the clause is concerning for some, including digital researchers. They rely on the analysis of larger numbers of public posts from services like X to do their work.
X’s new terms of service are a “disturbing move that the company should reverse,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in an October statement.
“The public relies on journalists and researchers to understand whether and how the platforms are shaping public discourse, affecting our elections, and warping our relationships,” Abdo wrote. “One effect of X Corp.’s new terms of service will be to stifle that research when we need it most.”
Neither Threads nor Bluesky have anything similar to X’s liquidated damages clause.
Meta and X did not respond to requests for comment.
A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”
The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.
“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.
The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.
Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.
Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.
Concern with Congress and a changing White House
The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.
As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.
Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.
Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.
Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military
John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.
Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.
In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.
Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.
Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.
Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.
Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.
“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.
He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.
Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.