I fully don't agree. It appears as the exact opposite of what the rational use of market forces should be.
Republic of China is a big target of People's Republic of China. Sure, there shouldn't be a war, but in the worst case scenario, USA is kinda screwed by having all their chip manufacturing there. Notice that the new TSMC factory is with big emphasis on military contracts.
Nobody should have any illusion: "in the worst case scenario" this "where" any chips are manufactured will be simply totally irrelevant. It's obviously a wrong model to plan for anything. The realistic model is the scenario which is not the "worst case." And then, the question is just is the "aid" reasonable or is it better compared to other existing or possible market forces.
Why giving away money "to spur the construction of chip factories in America" when
1) the U.S. is anyway an immensely big customer and simply deciding on how it buys what it needs can already influence the markets
2) the existing companies already have "chip factories" in America.
As the article talked about, relying on chips that can only be sourced from allies that are not defensible from your primary potential adversary is a major risk.
Why do you think Boeing et al are on the government defense teat? It's not just as a disguised socialist job program and Congressional slush fund. There are some legitimate reasons for government funding.
It's not "aid", it's government spending on national defense infrastructure and manufacturing capability.
I don't see that claim supported by the text:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-la...
"A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill to provide more than $22.8 billion in aid for semiconductor manufacturers, aiming to spur the construction of chip factories in America"
Do you have some quote to support your claim?
It doesn't look as such. As far as I see it's mostly additional tax breaks for the companies that would anyway be awarded taxpayer's money through the defense contracts, and the "security" is a magical excuse for that.
The contracts could already have the desired conditions, but this is a way to avoid showing the real cost of them.