Intel board in a bind as CEO’s China ties face Trump heat

In a move that has shaken the semiconductor industry and unsettled corporate boardrooms, former US President Donald Trump has called for the resignation of Intel’s CEO Lip-Bu Tan, citing alleged conflicts of interest due to his ties with Chinese technology firms.

The unusually direct statement was posted on Truth Social, Trump’s preferred platform, where he wrote: “The CEO of Intel is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem.”

This public rebuke follows Republican Senator Tom Cotton’s recent red-flagging of Tan’s associations with Chinese firms, adding fuel to an already sensitive topic. While Trump has a history of provocative declarations, his intervention into the corporate affairs of a publicly traded semiconductor giant marks new territory—even for him.

Unpacking the Political Trigger

Lip-Bu Tan, who replaced Pat Gelsinger earlier this year, has previously served on the boards of multiple Chinese technology companies, including some with links to China’s semiconductor and artificial intelligence ecosystem. These affiliations are not new but have resurfaced amid growing scrutiny over foreign ties in strategic industries.

While Trump’s post lacked specifics, his call appears rooted in fears that Tan’s background could compromise Intel’s strategic position, particularly as the company plays a critical role in US chip self-sufficiency.

Critics argue that Tan’s business history presents a conflict of interest, while supporters view it as a reflection of the globally interconnected nature of the semiconductor industry. Tan, widely credited with revitalising Intel’s roadmap, is also known for decades of experience in chip design and venture investments, including founding Walden International.

Markets React, But Intel Holds Ground

The fallout was immediate. Intel’s stock fell more than 3% in early trading, underlining investor anxiety about political interference in board-level decision-making. Social media platforms, particularly those frequented by tech investors and policy wonks, have since been abuzz with speculation.

Despite the market jitters, Intel has not issued an official statement. Sources suggest the board is standing behind Tan for now, interpreting Trump’s move as political grandstanding. The semiconductor industry is no stranger to geopolitics, but few expected a direct challenge to a sitting CEO from a former president.

Where Power Ends and Pressure Begins

The US president—current or former—does not have the legal authority to dismiss the CEO of a publicly traded firm. That power resides with the board of directors and, in some cases, the shareholders. However, indirect influence can be exerted through various legal and regulatory channels.

If deemed a national security issue, entities such as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) can investigate and even block deals involving foreign connections. Laws such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allow the President to impose sanctions and restrictions.

Beyond legal levers, the so-called bully pulpit remains potent. Trump has used public platforms before to pressure companies into changing their positions, often with market-moving consequences. Intel’s share dip after Trump's Truth Social post is a case in point.

Regulatory scrutiny, too, can be brought into play. Agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Commerce all fall under executive influence, though any action must be based on due process, not personal opinion.

A Complex Political Undercurrent

This episode sits at the intersection of technology leadership, political posturing, and national security. Trump’s statement also comes close on the heels of his proposal to impose a 100% tariff on computer chips—an idea that would significantly disrupt global semiconductor supply chains.

These developments beg the question: Is the business world entering a phase where global experience becomes a liability in tech leadership roles? In Tan’s case, his career straddles both American and Asian ecosystems—a strength in times of collaboration, but potentially a weakness in times of confrontation.

As the CHIPS Act under the Biden administration continues to incentivise onshore chip manufacturing, Trump appears to be taking that policy battle deeper into executive suites and boardrooms. His call for Tan’s ouster can be read as an extension of that agenda.

The Road Ahead for Intel

Intel’s board now faces a defining moment. Backing Tan signals corporate independence and a bet on experience over politics. Asking for his resignation would mark a capitulation to political pressure with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for talent recruitment in strategic industries.

Meanwhile, this episode underscores a new layer of complexity in US–China tech tensions: leadership nationality, affiliations, and perception are becoming as important as policy and investment. And the message is clear—CEOs with international ties may soon have to walk a much narrower path.

For Intel and others in the semiconductor value chain, the choice is not just about technology or talent anymore. It is about how far politics will go in shaping leadership decisions in boardrooms across the globe.