The appointment of Lip‑Bu Tan as Intel’s CEO has prompted U.S. Senator Tom Cotton to scrutinize his past business ties to Chinese tech firms—and whether those connections threaten Intel’s role in American defense-linked supply chains. As reported on by Reuters, in a letter to board chair Frank Yeary, Cotton questioned whether the board vetted Tan’s involvement in companies with ties to the Chinese military and if he sufficiently divested from them prior to leading Intel.
Intel is actively involved in the federal Secure Enclave initiative, which aims to secure microelectronics for U.S. defense use, and holds a roughly $3 billion contract with the Department of Defense. Cotton’s letter asks whether Tan’s investment history could compromise Intel’s obligations under such programs. Intel has landed in hot water surrounding national security concerns multiple times before, too.
As background, a Reuters investigation in April revealed that Tan invested at least $200 million in over 600 Chinese firms through his venture firm Walden International and related entities. Several firms were tied to the People’s Liberation Army, including early investments in SMIC and partnerships with state-linked companies such as China Electronics Corporation. Although divestiture was claimed, Chinese databases still listed many of those firms as active holdings, raising compliance questions.
Tan also led Cadence Design until 2023. Cadence recently agreed to plead guilty and pay over $140 million after selling chip-design tools to a Chinese military university involved in nuclear simulation work while under Tan's leadership. Cotton also specifically asked whether the Intel board was aware of the subpoenas received by Cadence while Tan was CEO, and what measures were taken to address concerns.
Intel has responded, stating that both the company and Tan are committed to national security and will cooperate with the board inquiry. It also stated both Intel and Tan were "deeply committed to the national security of the United States."
This scrutiny isn’t merely political theater as Intel’s fate is closely tied to global tech policy and its foundry ambitions. Under new leadership, Intel also faced industry speculation about whether its foundry roadmaps (for customers) could shift, leaving behind its 18A process in favor of future nodes like 14A to woo major clients such as Apple and Nvidia — a scenario Intel has since rejected, reaffirming its commitment to 18A as a cornerstone of its strategy. Such strategic shifts (or lack thereof) underscore why trust and compliance are critical.
Tan’s credentials as a seasoned investor who helped build China’s early semiconductor ecosystem are praised by analysts as key for Intel’s turnaround. However, the same legacy also opens the door to concerns about conflict of interest, especially given Tan’s deep involvement in firms now subject to export controls and sanctions.
Earlier this year, reports hinted that Intel could undergo structural changes, including since-debunked facility divestitures, amid ongoing struggles to catch up to TSMC. That being said, the company has consistently highlighted its commitment to the foundry business, recently calling it central to its long-term strategy. In this context, the CEO’s personal ties may carry real implications—not just optics—potentially affecting investor confidence, regulatory scrutiny, and how globally connected talent is evaluated in U.S. tech firms with defense significance.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
