Trump’s transgender-based attack on the CHIPS Act is his most unhinged yet
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Trump’s fabricated accusation about a transgender provision in the CHIPS Act raises questions about his industrial policies
Given the difficulty of identifying the most egregious assertions from President Trump’s latest outbursts of pique and petulance, it’s unsurprising that perhaps his weirdest and most despicable diatribe has gone under the radar.
It came on July 15, at a “Defense and Innovation Summit” in Pennsylvania hosted by Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.). Trump chose this occasion to carry on about the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, which authorized $280 billion in government funding for semiconductor research and manufacturing.
For some largely inexplicable reason, Trump has been railing against the CHIPS Act for years. This time around, he combined his general critique of the act with a flight of fancy aimed at another of his favorite targets, transgender people.
We had this ridiculous CHIPS Act....Of course the standards were so high. If you weren’t transgender, as an example, you didn’t qualify
— President Trump, attacking the bipartisan CHIPS Act
“We had this ridiculous CHIPS Act. ... Of course the standards were so high. If you weren’t transgender, as an example, you didn’t qualify [for funding]. So, they get the money that hired to look all over for transgender people to run the company. Large portions. They couldn’t find them. They weren’t into the chip-making business, I guess, right? They had other things on their mind. But this was the Biden fools, those idiots that almost destroyed our country.”
There’s more, but that will do for now. Let’s make something clear: There is absolutely nothing in the CHIPS Act about transgender persons. No mention at all. Nothing about transgender management being a prerequisite for funding.
Nor is there any government policy implementing the act that mandates transgender management. I asked the White House to identify any language in the act or in its implementation that Trump could have been citing. The White House didn’t provide me with any.
Instead, spokesman Kush Desai responded, “President Trump is right: the Biden administration infused left-wing, DEI priorities in the CHIPS program through non-statutory policies that mandated creating construction jobs for women, adding day-care facilities at construction sites, using costly renewable energy sources at manufacturing facilities, and other ideological provisions.”
A couple of things about this. First, the CHIPS Act passed with bipartisan support — 24 House Republicans and 17 Senate Republicans in favor. In other words, whatever “left-wing, DEI priorities” were in the bill could hardly have been the exclusive handiwork of the Biden administration.
At the Supreme Court, the unfounded fear of boys masquerading as girls in youth sports rolled the clock back on gender equality.
Second, it’s unclear what Desai meant by “non-statutory” policies and provisions. If it’s non-statutory, it’s not in the law. When I asked Desai to identify the specific policies and provisions he mentioned, he told me to go hunt them down myself.
That said, let’s unpack Trump’s spiel.
First, the transgender bit. This is part and parcel of Trump’s long campaign against transgender rights, which I’ve reported on before. His July 15 remark is part and parcel of another excursion into fantasyland he embarked on during his 2024 presidential campaign, when he spun a yarn at an event sponsored by the book-banning group Moms for Liberty conference about schoolchildren being kidnapped and subjected to gender-changing surgeries.
“Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation,” he said. “The school decides what’s gonna happen with your child. And you know, many of these childs [sic] 15 years later say, ‘What the hell happened? Who did this to me?’ They say, ‘Who did this to me?’”
None of that existed in the real world, either.
Since coming into office, Trump’s attacks on transgender rights have been unrelenting. In an executive order issued the day of his inauguration last year, he declared an end to what he called “gender ideology extremism” and said that the U.S. recognizes only “two sexes, male and female.”
He has ejected transgender service members from the armed forces. His secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., threatened to terminate Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provided gender-affirming care for minors.
A federal judge blocked that effort, and other federal judges have pushed back on many of Trump’s anti-transgender initiatives. Sadly, however, the Supreme Court has waved some through.
What about the CHIPS Act itself? What makes Trump’s distaste for it hard to fathom is that its purpose is specifically to shore up America’s semiconductor manufacturing capabilities and foster research in artificial intelligence, both of which goals Trump supports — indeed, he cites them as essential for national security.
Hiltzik: Trump’s all-out assault on transgender rights isn’t a sign of strength, but cowardice
Trump’s talent for attacking the most vulnerable targets has brought him to attack transgender rights, because he knows his victims are the most powerless Americans
Yet in his 2025 State of the Union address, Trump called the CHIPS Act “a horrible, horrible thing,” and advised House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to “get rid” of it. He asserted that the government doles out “hundreds of billions of dollars, under the act. ... They take our money, and they don’t spend it.”
He made a similar claim in his July 15 tirade. Yet his administration has made numerous announcements of corporate grants of CHIPS Act funds totaling more than $5 billion, according to a list published by the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology, including a $225-million grant to Bosch Semiconductor announced just two days before Trump’s talk.
Since its enactment, the CHIPS Act has been the target of anti-DEI campaigners in the far right. (The initials stand for “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”) In March 2024, for example, two officers of Strive Asset Management, a firm with an explicit anti-DEI pedigree co-founded by conservative politician Vivek Ramaswamy, called the act “a jobs program for favored minorities” in an op-ed in The Hill.
The act, they wrote, forced applicants “to recruit heavily from every population except white and Asian men already trained in the field.” (Ramaswamy, who mounted a stillborn presidential campaign in 2023, is currently the Republican nominee for governor of Ohio.)
This assertion was a typical misrepresentation of diversity efforts. It’s true that the act contains numerous provisions aimed at opening access to STEM education and training (that is, science, technology, engineering and math) that have been relatively inaccessible to women and minorities. It established the post of chief diversity officer for the National Science Foundation, something that would be almost tailor-made to rule the anti-woke camp.
But that officer’s mission was saddled with bureaucratic ambiguity. He or she was to “implement and study innovative approaches for building research capacity in order to engage and retain students from a range of institutions and diverse backgrounds in STEM.” These efforts were to be aimed at historically Black colleges or universities, tribal higher educational institutions and “minority-serving institutions.”
Hiltzik: Trump’s remarks about school transgender policies are his most deranged and despicable yet
Donald Trump claims that schools are subjecting pupils to gender-changing surgery without their consent, which is his exclusive fantasy.
The CHIPS Act requires grant applicants to set forth the outreach they plan to do. But it sets no quotas and doesn’t forbid the recruitment of “white and Asian men already trained in the field.”
Rather, it aims to expand the pool of scientists, technical experts, engineers and mathematicians beyond the traditional candidates. DEI critics have never explained what’s wrong with that, other than increasing competition for white and Asian males in the workplace.
The most common complaint heard from high-tech corporate executives is that they can’t find enough trained candidates to fulfill their needs. So why not train more people?
As for Desai’s parade of horribles, the act doesn’t mandate construction jobs for women. Its only mention of anything resembling “day-care facilities at construction sites” is a provision requiring federal research agencies to establish policies to accommodate researchers and trainees who have “caregiving responsibilities, including care for a newborn or newly adopted child.”
Renewable energy? Sure, the CHIPS Act authorized nearly $6 billion in appropriations for research into renewable power. But no language in the act mandates that manufacturing facilities operate with renewable energy — manufacturers don’t need to be goaded into using renewables, because they can see that it’s cheaper than fossil-based sources such as oil and coal. Desai’s labeling such energy sources as “costly” is just Trumpian sloganeering.
The CHIPS Act hasn’t been an unalloyed success. Even under Biden, Congress failed to appropriate all the funding authorized by the act, falling short by some $3 billion in fiscal 2025 and $5 billion last year. With Trump’s all-out assault on U.S. scientific research, it’s certain to have fallen further behind.
But its goal of supporting research and development in advanced technology remains crucial for America’s national security, as Trump would know if he only paid attention and stopped obsessing about transgender individuals.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The column contends that Trump’s July 15 claim that companies seeking CHIPS and Science Act funding had to be run by transgender executives is entirely fabricated, noting that neither the statute nor its implementation contains any requirement relating to transgender status, and that the law’s focus is on boosting U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and research rather than regulating gender identity.[4][7]
The article argues that Trump’s comments fit a long-running pattern of using transgender people as political scapegoats, pointing to broader Republican efforts to restrict gender‑affirming care in federal programs such as Medicaid and CHIP, including recent proposals and bills that would prohibit coverage of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for transgender people.[9][10][12][13][15]
The piece suggests that this latest attack is designed to inflame public opinion and distract from the substantive goals of the CHIPS Act, echoing critics who say Trump is “spewing disinformation to incite hatred and divide Americans” by falsely linking a semiconductor funding program to transgender hiring mandates.[7]
The column emphasizes that the CHIPS and Science Act was a bipartisan measure aimed at strengthening national security by investing tens of billions of dollars in domestic chip manufacturing, R&D, and regional innovation hubs, goals that align with Trump’s stated concerns about supply chains and competition with China, making his hostility toward the program particularly contradictory.[4]
The article notes that Trump’s assertion that CHIPS funding is not being spent is contradicted by federal reporting showing that major semiconductor companies have received substantial awards under the program, with funding decisions based on manufacturing capacity, workforce plans, and supply‑chain resilience rather than any transgender‑specific criteria.[4][8][14]
The piece explains that the CHIPS Act and related guidance do include diversity, equity, and inclusion components—such as requirements to broaden participation of economically disadvantaged individuals and support minority‑ and women‑owned businesses—but presents these as efforts to expand the talent pipeline in STEM fields, not as exclusionary quotas against white or Asian men.[1][8][11]
The column pushes back on conservative claims that Biden “infused left‑wing DEI priorities” into CHIPS through non‑statutory policies, arguing that while program notices and guidance encourage child care access, workforce diversity, and climate planning, the statute itself does not mandate transgender leadership, women‑only construction crews, or exclusive reliance on renewable energy, and instead focuses on semiconductors and advanced technology investment.[2][4][6][8]
The article acknowledges that CHIPS has faced implementation challenges, including funding shortfalls relative to its original authorization, but maintains that sustained investment in advanced technology and scientific research remains crucial to U.S. economic and national security interests, warning that broader attacks on federal DEI and science‑support infrastructure risk undermining those goals.[3][4][8]
Different views on the topic
In public remarks at events such as the Pennsylvania “Defense and Innovation Summit,” Trump has repeatedly claimed that companies seeking CHIPS Act funding faced standards so strict that “if you weren’t transgender… you didn’t qualify,” describing firms supposedly “looking all over for transgender people to run the company” and suggesting that the program privileged transgender executives over other candidates.[7][14][16][17][18]
Building on this rhetoric, some conservative commentators treat Trump’s claim as emblematic of what they view as a broader problem: that Biden‑era industrial policy allegedly elevates transgender and other minority groups through preferential hiring rules, turning a semiconductor initiative into what critics call an ideologically driven social‑engineering project rather than a neutral economic program.[2][11]
Echoing the statement cited in the article from White House spokesman Kush Desai, right‑leaning analysts argue that the administration layered “left‑wing, DEI priorities” onto the CHIPS program through guidance and funding notices, pointing to requirements that applicants devise equity strategies, expand hiring of women and other underrepresented groups in construction, employ people with limited English proficiency or criminal records, and contract with women‑ and minority‑owned suppliers.[2][8][11]
Some Republican lawmakers and legal advocates contend that CHIPS guidance crosses constitutional lines by encouraging race‑based preferences, with a letter from Senators Ted Cruz, Cynthia Lummis, and J.D. Vance asserting that the program’s Opportunity and Inclusion framework violates the Fifth Amendment because it allegedly pushes applicants to discriminate based on race in pursuit of federal subsidies.[5][8]
Conservative media and policy voices highlight provisions and guidance requiring large CHIPS recipients to guarantee “affordable, accessible, reliable, and high quality” child care for workers and to submit climate and environmental justice plans that account for long‑term climate risks, arguing that such conditions force companies to adopt costly progressive priorities—such as preferred use of green energy—that they say should not be tied to industrial subsidies.[2][6]
In parallel, Trump’s broader agenda includes executive actions aimed at dismantling DEI and environmental‑justice infrastructure across the federal government, with a 2025 order directing agencies to terminate DEI offices, equity action plans, and “environmental justice” positions and to end diversity‑related performance requirements, a move supporters applaud as necessary to stop what they describe as discriminatory and wasteful government programs.[3]
Many opponents of transgender rights use the debate over CHIPS and other federal initiatives to reinforce claims that government should not endorse or subsidize gender‑affirming care, backing legislation and proposed rules that would bar Medicaid and CHIP from covering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for transgender people; these measures are often framed by supporters as protecting children, safeguarding religious or moral norms, and preventing taxpayer funds from supporting treatments they oppose.[9][10][12][13][15]
Free‑market critics of industrial policy argue more broadly that large subsidy programs like the CHIPS Act distort competition, let government “pick winners and losers,” and saddle firms with social‑policy conditions unrelated to chip production, contending that diversity mandates, child‑care guarantees, and climate plans complicate and delay projects while doing little to address immediate supply‑chain and manufacturing challenges.[2][5][6][11]
