Politics and big tech usually collide behind closed doors, but occasionally, the friction gets so hot it spills onto social media for everyone to see. That’s exactly what happened when Donald Trump took to Truth Social to demand the immediate resignation of Intel’s CEO. It wasn't Pat Gelsinger he was targeting—Gelsinger had already stepped down in late 2024—but rather his successor, industry veteran Lip-Bu Tan.
The post was blunt. "The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately," Trump wrote. He claimed there was "no other solution."
Markets don't like that kind of talk. Intel shares, which had been showing signs of a pulse in early 2025, promptly dipped nearly 4% as investors tried to figure out if the company was about to lose its primary political cheerleader. This wasn't just a random jab; it was the start of a wild saga that eventually led to the U.S. government becoming one of Intel’s biggest shareholders.
Why the White House Went After Lip-Bu Tan
To understand why Trump called for the Intel CEO to resign, you have to look at Senator Tom Cotton. Right before Trump’s post, Cotton had been making the rounds on Fox News, sounding the alarm about Tan’s past.
The beef basically came down to China.
Before taking the top job at Intel in March 2025, Lip-Bu Tan spent over a decade as the CEO of Cadence Design Systems. Under his watch, Cadence had some legal trouble, eventually pleading guilty to violating U.S. export controls. They had sold hardware and software to a Chinese military university that was already on a "no-fly" list for U.S. tech.
📖 Related: Witmer Public Safety Group: What Most People Get Wrong About How First Responders Get Their Gear
Cotton’s letter to the Intel board was a laundry list of concerns:
- Tan’s venture capital firm, Walden International, had reportedly invested in hundreds of Chinese tech firms.
- At least eight of those companies were allegedly linked to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
- The Senator questioned how a guy with these ties could oversee billions in CHIPS Act taxpayer money.
It’s a valid question, honestly. If the whole point of the CHIPS Act is to win a tech war with China, having a CEO with deep roots in the Chinese semiconductor ecosystem looks... messy.
The Pivot from Conflict to "National Champion"
Most people thought this would be the end for Tan. Usually, when the President of the United States publicly calls for your head, you start packing your desk. But Tan didn't quit. Instead, he and the Intel board leaned into the "America First" narrative.
Intel released a statement saying they were "deeply committed" to national security. They basically told the administration, "We hear you, and we’re going to prove we’re on your side."
By the time we hit early 2026, the vibe had shifted completely. In a move that felt more like something out of a 1980s corporate thriller than modern fiscal policy, the Trump administration didn't fire Tan. They bought into him.
Through a creative restructuring of those CHIPS Act grants, the U.S. government took a 10% passive stake in Intel. By January 2026, Trump was singing a different tune on Truth Social, calling Tan "very successful" and praising the "tens of billions of dollars" the government had made on its Intel shares.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Resignation Call
A lot of folks think the resignation call was just about a personal grudge. It wasn't. It was leverage.
By threatening Tan’s job, the administration forced Intel to the negotiating table. They wanted Intel to be more than just a chip company; they wanted it to be a "national champion"—a state-backed powerhouse that could guarantee a domestic supply of AI chips.
🔗 Read more: Hudson Bread Division of Prestige Bread Co: Why Your Favorite Local Bistro Probably Uses Them
Intel’s current 18A process node is the fruit of that pressure. It’s the first time in years Intel has actually beaten TSMC to a major feature, specifically "backside power delivery." This technical win allowed them to snag Apple as a foundry customer in early 2026, a move that would have been unthinkable two years ago.
The Realities of Intel in 2026
If you're looking at Intel today, the landscape is unrecognizable from the Gelsinger era.
- Government Ownership: The U.S. government owns roughly 433 million shares. This creates a "structural floor" for the stock price.
- Foundry Independence: The manufacturing side is now a separate entity, making chips for rivals like Microsoft and potentially even Amazon.
- The China Tightrope: Despite the "conflicted" labels, Intel still has to sell to China to stay profitable, but now they do it under a strict "U.S. supply first" rule.
Actionable Insights for the "Silicon Renaissance"
If you're trying to make sense of the Intel turnaround or the impact of political interference in tech, here’s how to look at the next few months.
First, watch the 18A yield rates. Reports suggest they are hovering around 60-70%. If those numbers stay steady, Intel is actually a viable alternative to TSMC. If they dip, the "national champion" narrative starts to look like a taxpayer-funded bailout.
Second, pay attention to the 25% tariffs Trump just imposed on high-end AI chips like Nvidia’s H200. These tariffs are designed to push companies to use Intel's domestic fabs. If Nvidia starts moving production to Intel’s Oregon or Arizona plants to avoid those fees, the gamble on Lip-Bu Tan will have officially paid off for the White House.
👉 See also: 85 000 dollars in rupees: What You’ll Actually Take Home After Fees and Taxes
The lesson here is simple: in the world of semiconductors, "conflicts of interest" are often just the opening bid in a high-stakes game of economic nationalism.
Keep an eye on the Q1 2026 earnings report coming up on January 22nd. That will be the first real look at whether the Apple deal and the government stake are actually translating into bottom-line profits or if it's all just political theater.