In the high-stakes world of semiconductors, where national security intersects with corporate strategy, Intel Corp.’s new chief executive, Lip-Bu Tan, finds himself under intense scrutiny for his extensive history of investments and board roles in China. Appointed in March 2025 amid Intel’s staggering $19 billion loss the previous year, Tan’s background as a venture capitalist has sparked controversy, with critics questioning whether his ties to Chinese firms compromise U.S. interests. According to a recent report from Bloomberg, Tan has invested in hundreds of Chinese companies over three decades, including some with links to the People’s Liberation Army, raising alarms in Washington.

Tan’s journey began in the 1980s, when he capitalized on China’s economic rise through Walden International, the firm he founded. He poured funds into startups that became pillars of China’s tech ecosystem, such as Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC), where he served as a seed investor and board member until 2018. This involvement, detailed in reports from The Financial Express, has drawn fire as SMIC advances China’s chipmaking ambitions, directly challenging U.S. dominance in the sector.

The Shadow of Military Ties and National Security Concerns

The concerns escalated when Reuters revealed in April 2025 that at least eight of Tan’s investments involved entities with military connections, as reported in Reuters. This comes at a time when Intel holds multibillion-dollar defense contracts with the U.S. government, making any perceived conflicts a flashpoint. Senator Tom Cotton, a vocal critic, penned a letter to Intel’s board chair on August 6, 2025, expressing worries about national security, according to Reuters. Cotton highlighted Tan’s control over dozens of Chinese advanced manufacturing firms, urging the board to address potential risks.

Posts on X, formerly Twitter, have amplified the debate, with users like Mario Nawfal noting Tan’s “deep investment roots in China” and ties to military-linked companies, reflecting widespread public sentiment that views these affiliations as red flags amid U.S.-China tech tensions. Even President Donald Trump has weighed in, calling for Tan’s resignation in a statement covered by Fortune, which also described Tan as “actively devoted” to Chinese markets in state media portrayals.

Intel’s Internal Struggles and Tan’s Restructuring Efforts

Inside Intel, Tan has moved swiftly to overhaul the company, pushing for an AI-focused transformation and aggressive cost-cutting, including potential layoffs and divestitures of its fabrication plants. However, his China history has complicated these plans. A report from Tom’s Hardware in March 2025 noted the announcement of Tan’s appointment spurred fears of broader restructuring, while recent coverage in The Straits Times detailed how U.S. lawmakers continue to hold his past against him.

Tan’s efforts to distance himself from these investments accelerated upon his CEO appointment, as outlined in Free Malaysia Today. He stepped down from several Chinese boards and divested stakes, but skeptics argue it’s too little, too late. The Cadence Design Systems scandal, where Tan previously served as CEO, adds another layer: his former company pleaded guilty to selling tools to a Chinese military university, prompting Senator Cotton to probe Intel’s board on whether Tan was aware, per Tom’s Hardware.

Broader Implications for U.S. Tech Leadership

The controversy underscores the broader challenges facing American chipmakers in a geopolitically charged environment. With China phasing out U.S. chips from government systems—as reported in X posts citing Financial Times—and Intel’s stock tumbling 5% amid the backlash, Tan’s leadership is a litmus test for balancing global business with domestic priorities. Industry insiders whisper that Intel’s board is internally divided, with some supporting Tan’s vision for revival through acquisitions and AI pivots, while others fear regulatory blowback.

As the U.S. pours billions into the CHIPS Act to bolster domestic manufacturing, Tan’s case highlights the risks of intertwined global supply chains. Whether he can navigate this storm will determine not just Intel’s fate, but the trajectory of U.S. semiconductor resilience against rising Chinese competition. For now, the scrutiny shows no signs of abating, with ongoing investigations and public discourse keeping the pressure on.