Earlier quoted context omitted.
Add to this the fact that given the government is now propping up a poor performing company there's no possible reason to try to create a new domestic competitor. If you do and you start becoming successful, the government can just increase their "investment" in your chief competitor and shut you down. It's ludicrous.
The point of the article was that there's never going to be a new domestic competitor. It would take hundreds of billions in investment to get off the ground and build a fab from scratch, and they'd be in an even worse position than Intel is currently. No external customer would want to risk using them, and they don't have the internal demand of x86 to keep going on their own.
There are other alterntives to the US Gov taking a 10% stake (and it must be noted that this is for money already distributed to Intel via the CHIPS act, so it's tough to say how the gov having a 10% stake is really helping Intel here, there's no new investment involved and Intel needs ca$h). I agree with the article that there's a significant geopolitical risk to the status quo. I think it would've been better for the president & his economic staff to arrange a meeting of US companies that need foundry services and try to get them to a "come to Jesus" moment re the geopolitical risk to their current operations relying so heavily on Taiwan. The government role here shouldn't be to own Intel (or other companies) but to incentivize those large fab customers (Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, etc) to make a significant investment into Intel foundry services. Not sure what those incentives would look like - perhaps tax incentives. There's also the possibility that some kind of 3rd party consortium could be setup to run Intel. This way they're not trying to start from scratch (which would take too long and too much capital), but also allows those other investing companies to have some kind of control at a distance.