Editorials of The Times

President Donald Trump’s decision to block a foreign company’s proposed takeover of Qualcomm, which makes chips for smartphones and other devices, before the deal had even been signed, was extraordinary. It was also the right move, given the series of mergers that has left the semiconductor industry already dominated by a few large companies.

Singapore-based Broadcom was trying to acquire Qualcomm, headquartered in San Diego, for $117 billion — which would have made it the largest technology deal in history — in a hostile takeover. Trump pre-emptively blocked the purchase on Monday, citing national security concerns. While the president did not provide a detailed rationale, a March 5 letter from the Treasury Department calling for a review of the deal said that the administration was concerned about Broadcom’s relationships with other foreign companies.

The letter strongly hinted that those companies of interest are based in China. It also noted that Broadcom has reduced spending on research and development at the businesses it acquires, a practice that could make Qualcomm less innovative. That, in turn, would give Chinese businesses a leg up in the race to develop the technology for the next generation of cellphones, known as 5G, which is expected to provide faster internet access and generate billions of dollars in profits for the wireless industry in the coming years.

Seen against the backdrop of the president’s protectionist statements and policies, this decision is unnerving. He recently used another national security law to announce tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, arguing that he was seeking to force China to reduce excess production of those metals. In reality those tariffs will not hurt China much, landing a heavier blow on American allies like the European Union, Brazil and South Korea and possibly starting a wider trade war as other countries retaliate against the United States.

That is why some experts fear that by blocking the Broadcom-Qualcomm deal, Trump could further rattle the global economy and international norms. Other countries might now feel emboldened to block as a security threat inbound foreign investment that they consider significant, justifiably or not. France and other countries have a history of protecting companies they consider “national champions,” but the United States has been reluctant to do so. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is made up of representatives from across the executive branch, looks at acquisitions that could represent a national security problem, but its reviews typically end up scuttling only a few deals annually, though the number has increased in recent years.

Because the committee does most of its work in secret, it is hard to know if it is making the right calls. But in this case, the ultimate outcome was correct because the potential takeover raised serious antitrust concerns.

There are good reasons to worry about the growing concentration of power — and lack of competition — in the semiconductor business, which supplies chips used in everything from phones and computers to cars and fighter jets. If the Broadcom-Qualcomm merger had gone through, just three companies — Samsung, Intel and Broadcom — would have controlled more than 36 percent of the global market for chips, according to Gartner. And the concentration would have been far greater in certain fields, like telecommunications.

As the number of players in the industry shrinks, innovation tends to decline because companies have less reason to worry about losing business to competitors. And they have a bigger incentive to milk profits by raising prices on existing products, which are often protected by patents that in the United States typically give inventors a 20-year monopoly over their creations. Such arguments would typically arise during antitrust reviews by the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, but they are also important to national security. That’s because the government is heavily dependent on private companies like Qualcomm, which got its start in the 1980s by developing communications systems for the military.

Broadcom being based in Singapore provided the Trump administration an easy way to block this deal. But even if it had been an American company, this acquisition would have been a hard sell.

In a "Meet the Press” interview on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin shrugged off questions about President Donald Trump’s incendiary tweets, personal insults and vulgar language. Mnuchin suggested that he was above riffraff talk. “I think you should be focused on what the policies are,” he told the show’s host, Chuck Todd.

His words sounded high-minded, but they rang hollow. Mnuchin, who has milked taxpayers so that he and his wife can travel in style, might benefit from a refresher course in the axiom that character is destiny. It’s an idea that has been around for a couple of thousand years, and for good reason: It’s inherently true.

This brings us to Eliot Spitzer, the former New York governor, who also once seemed to give that concept short shrift. “I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals,” he said. “It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the state of New York.” That was on March 10, 2008, a few days before Spitzer was forced to resign as governor amid revelations that he’d been a frequent patron of a prostitution ring. His hypocrisy was manifest, given how he had proclaimed himself an implacable foe of the sex trade because it exploited women. Character, meet your destiny.

This week, the 10th anniversary of his resignation, news organizations have resurrected the scandal, exploring how it rapidly unfolded and offering where-are-they-now profiles of key figures. Spitzer, now 58, has taken control of his family’s real-estate business. After an unsuccessful run for city comptroller five years ago, he’s not through with politics so much as politics is through with him.

Few New Yorkers shed tears over his demise because, in the course of fewer than 15 months as governor, he had alienated many voters and fellow politicians alike with his heedless manner. His fate is worth noting in light of present-day national politics.

Spitzer, a Democrat, warned a Republican assemblyman that he was a “steamroller” who’d run over opponents, modifying that word with a well-worn Anglo-Saxonism. He described Joseph Bruno, the State Senate Republican leader and a man 30 years his senior, as “old” and “senile,” throwing in vulgar language to show his own toughness. He gracelessly likened the governorship of his predecessor, George Pataki, to Rip Van Winkle, sleeping the years away — this in his inaugural speech, with Pataki sitting right there. During an argument, one state senator said, Spitzer threatened to cut his head off.

In essence, the governor warned he was prepared to inflict fire and fury. His use of scatology was intended to belittle others. He had no doubt that he was always the smartest man in the room.

In the end, no one wanted to have his back.

Bruno, hardly a sympathetic figure himself, returned the Spitzer tirades by describing the governor with words like “bully,” “meanspirited” and an “overgrown kid” prone to “tantrums."

The next time Mnuchin goes on a Sunday show, the host might ask if he knows anyone in the upper reaches of national politics to whom all those words apply. And then ask if policies are really all that count and if character is not the ultimate shaper of destiny.