Entrepreneurs take notice: Uncle Sam wants a piece of your startup

The federal government signaled a new direction in federal funding this week when it announced plans to put as much as $150 million into a private semiconductor startup. Instead of a grant or a loan, the government would take an equity stake.

It’s a meaningful departure from how federal funding has traditionally operated. For years, federal R&D support came structured as non-dilutive grants and Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) awards that didn’t require equity concessions. An early-stage company proves its idea with federal support, investors wait for validation, and the company grows. If the government begins converting grants into equity stakes, that calculus changes fundamentally.

A quiet shift

The semiconductor deal is the latest in what has otherwise been a relatively quiet shift taking place inside the federal funding system as the Trump administration considers treating some grants like venture investments.

For founders, this creates genuine uncertainty. The government has not yet defined the rules of engagement for what ownership in a startup means. There are no clear answers about how much equity might be taken, how dilution would work over time, when the government expects a return, or who would manage these positions.

Startups already struggle to keep their capitalization tables clean enough for private investment. Adding a federal agency to the picture introduces new friction. While experienced investors routinely ask about investor composition before committing capital, even seasoned ones may hesitate if the answer includes “the United States government.”

History lessons

There is instructive history here. Twenty years ago, the state of Texas launched the Emerging Technology Fund with the goal of supporting high-growth technology companies through a venture model. The fund encountered structural problems—including non-dilution clauses that prevented it from being fairly diluted alongside other investors—that ultimately undermined its portfolio companies’ growth. New investors wouldn’t fund them because the risk was not shared fairly.

The lesson is clear: Public capital can be valuable, but if it ignores downstream market dynamics and investor expectations, it can choke off the very growth it intends to catalyze.

The timing of this equity push is particularly concerning given that SBIR and STTR programs—historically the backbone of non-dilutive federal support for early-stage companies—expired on September 30, 2025, and remain unauthorized. With traditional grant pathways frozen and equity stakes emerging as the new model, founders face unprecedented uncertainty about federal funding structures. The scale of this disruption is significant: These programs typically distributed approximately $4.73 billion annually to support scientific progress and early company formation.

That scale alone makes it essential to understand how any replacement federal support structure would function.

Program officers are experts in research evaluation and scientific merit. They are not trained to make venture-style assessments about valuation, equity terms, or long-horizon return timing. Asking them to perform both roles simultaneously creates tension. Conversely, finance-oriented staff who understand investment models are not necessarily equipped to evaluate frontier science. These programs do not operate like traditional venture funds.

Ripple effects

If the federal government proceeds with equity investments, it must understand the implications for early-stage companies and the ripple effects that follow. If federal agencies become equity holders, they will need to establish clear standards: How are positions structured? Who holds them? When is liquidity expected? How does the relationship evolve as companies raise capital? How are equity percentages, dilution rights, and board representation determined? These decisions cannot be improvised. They determine whether private investors engage or walk away.

Startups also need to reconsider their assumptions about federal programs. If equity or royalty components begin appearing, founders must decide what they are prepared to trade for early capital. They’ll need to understand how those terms affect later fundraising rounds and how private investors react to a federal stakeholder at the ownership table.

Digital health and medtech founders already have to navigate a complex landscape of regulatory pathways and clinical validation procedures. Having to decipher unclear investment rules from an early funder is more likely to stymie growth than accelerate it.

Eyes wide open

That’s not to say startups should avoid federal funding if equity is introduced. They may simply need to approach it with clear-eyed expectations about the long-term implications.

There is opportunity here if the federal government establishes clear rules. Beyond Texas, other states have experimented with public venture approaches—some that helped companies grow, others that created lasting complications. If policymakers systematically study both categories, they can avoid repeatable mistakes.

The worst outcome would be moving forward without a framework and discovering too late that the system discourages private capital, slows company formation, or generates new burdens on innovators, investors, and taxpayers.

Policymakers have a responsibility to design federal equity participation that is predictable enough that companies aren’t blindsided by unclear terms, and transparent enough that private investors understand the government’s expectations and governance role. Otherwise, having Uncle Sam on your capitalization table may come with complications no one is prepared to manage.