In his address to Congress last week, US President Donald J. Trump renewed his criticism of the CHIPS Act, the initiative aimed at reshoring the semiconductor industry, calling it horrible. He also called for any remaining funds to be returned to taxpayers.Instead, Trump wants to use tariffs on foreign chipmakers to force companies to build new research and fabrication facilities on US shores.This CHIPS Act, however, relies on tax breaks and grants to incentivize TSMC, Intel, Micron, Texas Instruments, Samsung and others to expand or build new facilities around the country. Many of those projects are already well under way.The legislation, passed in 2022 un then-President Joseph R. Biden Jr., also provided financial support to smaller semiconductor R&D companies, and highlighted the need to rebuild the industry to secure the US supply chain, reduce geopolitical risks, and maintain technological and military superiority.Headquartered near the rusted skeletal remains of Bethlehem Steel Works in Pennsylvania, nine-year-old iDEAL Semiconductor is a fabless semiconductor company specializing in the development of energy-efficient chips. The companys technology process involves engineering at the atomic level to deliver higher efficiency and voltage performance using standard silicon materials versus more expensive silicon carbide.iDEAL Semiconductor CEO and Co-founder Mark Granahan, in this Q&A, explains his concerns about the potential dissolution of the CHIPS Act and the critical lack of worker talent needed to rebuild a US semiconductor workforce.Mark GranahanWhat happens if the CHIPS Act goes away? Does it really stop the expansion of semiconductor development and production in the United States. Or do you expect it will happen with or without it? This is going to make it a little tougher. We spent a lot of time in 2018 and 2019 in DC, lobbying for and taking meetings with anybody who would take a meeting to discuss the criticality of semiconductors and the fact that all the advanced semiconductors were being done in one fab on one island, 60 miles away from China.And so we personally felt, and continue to feel, that the CHIPS Act has raised the stake on semiconductors overall. And the premier reason for the CHIPS Act was to de-risk the economic and defense impacts of these types of technologies being manufactured outside the US, companies like Apple and Broadcom, Nvidia, Qualcomm, and AMD. All of these companies use very advanced [semiconductor] nodes. And so, if anything were to happen [overseas], it would be nothing short of a crisis.The CHIPS Act, as envisioned, has certainly brought to light and made very visible to the whole country the criticality of semiconductors. And I think thats been a good thing.The fact that TSMC and, I guess, Samsung are investing heavily now in the US (although not with the most advanced nodes), are a result of that. And so, the CHIPS Act has accomplished, or is on the way to accomplishing [an end to] this economic and defense-related risk the country faced.Other than wafer and chip manufacturing, what other processes are important and have been bolstered by the CHIPS Act? While everybody talks about single nanometer technology and the most advanced [processor] nodes, all of that needs to be packaged and tested. And so theyre bringing that capability here.Having that capability for what is turning out to be heterogeneous packaging, chiplets and wafer types of packages is also super critical. The third piece of the pie, as far as were concerned, is innovation and a pipeline for future innovation and raising the visibility of semiconductors, which has created more demand for semiconductor jobs, as well as for semiconductor talent.Since the CHIPS Act and all the publicity around semiconductors, we as a start-up company have gotten a lot of renewed interest out of kids that are looking for internships in the semiconductor space, as well as looking for roles in the semiconductor space.I havent seen enrollment data, but I wouldnt be surprised if [the CHIPS Act] hasnt actually increased the enrollment in some of the technology related fields, whether it be chemistry, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and other semiconductor-related fields. We do see an improvement there.What more should the US government do to ensure a reshoring of the industry? I think we need to do more as a nation, in terms of innovation. Its unfortunate that we are in the position we are in due to the fact that Intel kind of dropped the ball over the last 10 to 15 years. We have lost the leadership position. So the question is, what can we do as a nation to recover from that? And I think, once again, the CHIPS Act could be helpful there. It certainly does bring more wafer fabrication into the country. I think that will naturally demand more highly educated technical individuals. From that, I would expect some, some level of innovation will happen.For instance, the engineers that are going to be running the TSMC facilities, my expectation is that some of those people are very innovative, novel people that are very bright. And from that there should come some level of innovation. The question then is, are we prepared as a nation to be able to support that? Do we have basically the venture capital thats required to support these types of innovations that these individuals will hopefully be coming up with? And I think the answer there is, not so much.If you look at the number of new company formation in the technology space, and semiconductors in particular, in China thats in the hundreds if not thousands on an annual basis. In the US, not so much. And so, we definitely need to think about that as the third leg of the CHIPS Act, and what the CHIPS Act really needs to accomplish, whether it be in its current form or some other form that that the current administration envisions.We need to put in place a culture to support innovation such that we can regain our leadership position in technology.How did TSMC claim such a dominant roll, while Intel is struggling to regain its former lead? I think you know people that are experts and that have grown up in the industry and have huge amounts of experience in whatever it is youre doing. They are the individuals that should be running companies and manage a large industry workforce. I mean, that goes without saying.So, what went wrong? I think the wrong guy was running the company and making very poor decisions. And I think the board is accountable to that. And, I think certainly its not the talent within Intel. Theyre incredibly talented people who do very good work, but they do need to be managed well and given good goals.I think it was great Intel brought [former CEO Pat] Gelsinger in, but I think its just a tragedy that they cut his legs out from under him. They took him out too quickly. It took Intel 15 years to break something. Youre not going to fix something like this in a short period of time. I mean, a lot of the equipment that you need to help turn this company around has procurement lead times that were two years. So, how can you legitimately expect somebody to do something in three years? I mean, its nonsensical.What makes TSMC so successful? I think they are single-minded in purpose. They wanted to be the leaders, and they were going to do everything possible to become the leaders. And they work day and night tirelessly to do it.Their equipment is no different than the equipment that Intel has. Their material sets are no different than the material sets that Intel has. And so, at the end of the day, they fundamentally have become more innovative and been able to turn innovation into something thats manufacturable, whereas Intel has not. And I dont think their people are any better.I think it boils down to that fundamental focus and commitment and leadership to deliver the best, and we somehow, weve got to reclaim that. I mean, thats the bottom line. If you look at companies like Texas Instruments and Analog Devices up in your neck of the woods [Massachusetts], for instance. These are great, mixed-signal types of companies that have huge investments in research and development and that have huge investments in in manufacturing infrastructure right here in the US. Theyre doing very well and delivering the worlds best solutions in the space.Unfortunately, on the on the memory side of things, all thats hot is about AI solutions. Samsung, in particular, has really taken the lead there. And TSMC with their nanometer node solutions clearly claimed the AI space.Whats changed since the CHIPS Act was passed in 2022? For the last three quarters, North America has become the largest market for semiconductors. World Semiconductor Trade Statistics data shows the US is now the largest market for semiconductors, and that would be due to AI processors and high bandwidth memory for AI processing applications.So, its just amazing to me that after literally more than 20 years where Asia, specifically China, has been the leading destination for first for semiconductors, now America is.Do you believe the financial incentives under the CHIPS Act will work better than Trumps tariffs in bringing back semiconductor manufacturing and research? I dont believe the tariff thing will support the innovation.The CHIPS Act was actually envisioned under [Trumps] administration. Early on, we were there [in Washington] as part of that process, trying to put forth some ideas in terms of what matching funds could provide and things along those lines. I think incentives around innovation and having the capital formation infrastructure thats required [for new projects] is really important. So, Im hoping the current administration, much like the last administration, will see the criticality of US technology.And so Im hoping that they can put together incentive programs as a third leg of a CHIPS Act a CHIPS Act 2.0, or whatever you want to call it in order to incentivize infrastructure capitalization, and also closing the critical [talent] gap by potentially drawing more focus on these advanced degrees, perhaps even underwriting some of the expense of these degrees if individuals are willing to go into those fields in exchange.In his address to Congress, Trump also mentioned immigration in terms of bringing more talent into this nation. Is that critical as well, and how would that be achieved? From an immigration perspective, our nation needs the worlds best and brightest to enable us to achieve the innovation that is required to lead in this kind of space, as well as other technology spaces.So, I would hope that our immigration policies would recognize that and incentivize that. Quite frankly, we do need to open up more university seats for foreign-born nationals and then provide a fast track to a job here in the US. I cant tell you how many people that weve talked to that have advanced degrees that are looking for jobs in the US, but they are forestalled due to the immigration system. And to me, thats at odds with what the national objective should be, which is bringing in the best and brightest.Can you describe the talent gap in the semiconductor industry? I dont think its a single thing. Its not just that theres not enough electrical engineers, theres not enough design engineers, theres not enough layout engineers, theres not enough technicians, theres not enough process development engineers, theres not enough process improvement engineers. Its the sum total of all of those. Theres just not enough of them.And as you start to add infrastructure, as companies are doing now, like TSMC, Samsung and Intel are doing with new plants, youre seeing the [talent gap] may now be stopping them or slowing them down. Texas Instruments has invested in three new 300 millimeter [fabs in Lehi, UT]. Filling those plants with the appropriate talent, whether it be for construction of the buildings or outfitting them with the equipmentmaintaining it, and running it all of those projects and tasks require a lot of very skilled and educated individuals. We need more of them.STEM is a field that requires more and more highly educated individuals as time goes on. I dont think anyone can dispute that. We dont have enough of them.Has the publicity around the CHIPS Act and reshoring the semiconductor industry increased interest in the industry and education for that? Yes. Because of our need to focus on semiconductors, theres going to be a lot more unfilled roles, which means theres opportunity for advancement in those careers.But the other thing that people havent talked about is the fact that we have an aging semiconductor workforce in the United States, and that has to be replaced if we literally, want to lead and innovate. And so, not only is it true that were trying to expand, which requires more people, [but] that in turn creates great career opportunity. But theres a bit of a vacuum above [entry-level roles] in terms of great leadership and management. Thats because we as a nation have exported an awful lot of that over the course of time.So, I think theres kind of a double bang for your buck if you get into the into the semiconductor field, as far as opportunity goes. And I also think theres are some sexy aspects to it. I mean, whos the worlds richest man in the world right now? Hes someone in the technology space. And so we need to be able to point to more of those examples of people who are hugely successful, not as much for manipulating money, but simply for developing and innovating and bringing incredible new technology to the to the world.So, is the current semiconductor talent gap going to have a significant impact on all these reshoring initiatives, both the private ones and the federal ones, i.e., the CHIPS Act? Absolutely. And I live it day-in and day-out, every day. Im a startup company. Im looking for talent, and its talent that I need up and down my organization, whether it be upper leadership, mid-level management, or individual contributors like technicians.Go and try to find an electronics technician today. They are really hard to find. And the good ones are even harder to find.So, at the end of the day, up and down my organization, theres a lack of lack of availability of individuals, and thats hampering my company. And, Im just a startup company. You know, 100 people. Now go scale that out to 10,000 people [at a large chip maker]. It becomes rather, rather challenging.