In a candid interview that has sent ripples through Silicon Valley, former Intel Corp. chief executive Pat Gelsinger didn’t mince words about the company’s current state. “We don’t know how to engineer anymore,” he declared, pointing to what he sees as a profound decay in the chip giant’s core competencies. Gelsinger, who stepped down abruptly in December 2024 after a tumultuous tenure, attributed Intel’s woes to a combination of strategic missteps, leadership failures, and an inability to adapt to the rapid evolution of semiconductor technology. His remarks, delivered in a recent Financial Times Q&A, highlight a company once synonymous with innovation now struggling to regain its footing.

Gelsinger’s critique goes beyond surface-level complaints, delving into the erosion of Intel’s engineering prowess. He argued that years of prioritizing short-term financial gains over long-term technical investment have hollowed out the company’s ability to design and manufacture cutting-edge chips. This isn’t just about missed market opportunities, like Intel’s lag in AI accelerators dominated by rivals such as Nvidia Corp.; it’s a systemic failure, according to Gelsinger, where bureaucratic inertia has stifled the bold engineering that defined Intel’s heyday under leaders like Andy Grove. He pointed to specific examples, including delays in process technology advancements that left Intel trailing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) by generations.

The former CEO also lambasted the execution of the U.S. government’s CHIPS Act, calling it a “terrible” rollout that failed to deliver on promises of revitalizing domestic chip production. Despite billions in subsidies aimed at bolstering companies like Intel, Gelsinger noted that bureaucratic hurdles and mismatched priorities have undermined the initiative’s impact. His comments echo broader industry frustrations, where federal support has been slow to translate into tangible manufacturing gains, leaving American firms vulnerable in a global race increasingly dominated by Asian foundries.

Echoes from Intel’s Past Leadership

Adding weight to Gelsinger’s assessment are voices from Intel’s storied past. Craig Barrett, who served as CEO from 1998 to 2005, has outlined a rescue plan emphasizing massive cash infusions—around $40 billion—to keep Intel at the forefront of advanced chipmaking. In an exclusive with Fortune, Barrett stressed that while government aid is helpful, the real saviors must be cash-rich customers like Nvidia, Apple Inc., and Alphabet Inc.’s Google, who could invest directly to secure supply chains. Barrett’s plan underscores a recurring theme: Intel’s decline isn’t sudden but the result of decades-long complacency.

Barrett’s perspective aligns with analyses tracing Intel’s fall from grace. A Reuters timeline details how Intel, once the undisputed leader in microprocessors, faltered through a series of missteps, including underinvestment in mobile chips and a failure to pivot to foundry services. By 2025, these errors culminated in Nvidia’s $5 billion investment in Intel, a lifeline that highlighted the company’s desperation rather than strength. Posts on X (formerly Twitter) from industry watchers, such as those from semiconductor analyst accounts, amplify this narrative, with users decrying Intel’s board for “systematically destroying” the company over a decade of poor decisions.

Gelsinger himself acknowledged Intel’s tardiness in the AI boom during his tenure. In a post-resignation interview reported by Business Insider, he described the AI market as a “bubble” that won’t burst for several years, but one where businesses haven’t yet seen material benefits. This admission points to Intel’s internal struggles, including the departure of key AI leaders like Sachin Katti, as detailed in a memo obtained by CRN. The AI group’s “considerable change” reflects broader organizational churn, with Intel scrambling to catch up in a field where it once held promise through acquisitions like Habana Labs.

Strategic Shifts Under New Management

Enter Lip-Bu Tan, Intel’s current CEO, who took the helm in early 2025 amid mounting crises. Tan, a veteran venture capitalist with deep semiconductor roots, has plotted an overhaul of manufacturing and AI operations, as revealed in a Reuters exclusive. His strategy includes significant changes to chip fabrication methods and a renewed focus on AI, aiming to revive the ailing giant. Ironically, Gelsinger noted in his Financial Times discussion that Tan is broadly following the playbook he laid out, including the ambitious “IDM 2.0” model that sought to integrate design and manufacturing more tightly.

Yet Tan’s tenure has been marked by aggressive cost-cutting. In July 2025, Intel announced plans to slash 25,000 jobs, with Tan warning employees in a memo covered by Fortune that “there are no more blank checks.” This restructuring, including leadership shuffles like appointing a new data center head from Arm Holdings Plc, as reported by Data Center Dynamics, signals a shift toward efficiency over expansion. X posts from the time, including those from tech analysts, expressed shock at Gelsinger’s ousting, with some labeling it a “bad omen” for Intel’s 18A process node, crucial for future competitiveness.

The broader implications extend to national security. An analysis in the American Affairs Journal frames Intel’s innovation shortfall as a defense crisis, with global ramifications. Gelsinger’s truncated push for IDM 2.0, thwarted by board impatience, left unresolved questions about whether his vision or the board’s shortsightedness is to blame. This uncertainty has fueled speculation on X, where users debate Intel’s “decay” and point to historical parallels, like the company’s missed opportunities in the smartphone era.

AI Ambitions and Market Realities

Gelsinger’s post-Intel pursuits add an intriguing layer to his critique. Now at Gloo, a faith-based tech platform, he’s working on AI to “accelerate the coming of Christ,” as noted in a dev.ua report. This eccentric pivot contrasts sharply with his warnings about the AI bubble, reiterated in a CTech interview where he stressed that America’s semiconductor revival must lead to actual manufacturing, not just subsidies. He admitted Intel’s “bad decisions over 15 years,” including being “late on AI,” underscoring a pattern of reactive rather than proactive strategy.

Current market dynamics amplify these concerns. A Fortune piece on Intel’s 20-year decline highlights how the company, despite its unique U.S.-based leading-edge chip capabilities, has lost its edge to TSMC. Stock prices have plummeted, and a New York Times article describes Intel’s journey from icon to a “government project,” including a 10% stake sale to the Trump administration. X sentiment, from posts by users like those analyzing board negligence, reflects frustration, with some calling for shareholder action against the “spineless” board that forced Gelsinger out.

Tan’s leadership faces scrutiny amid these headwinds. A Medium post by Derick David, titled “Intel Is Dead,” quotes Tan admitting it’s “too late” for certain recoveries, though the piece’s dramatic tone has sparked debate on X. Intel’s recent moves, such as splitting the Data Center and AI Group, aim to streamline operations, but insiders question if this addresses the engineering decay Gelsinger decried.

Pathways to Revival or Further Decline

Looking ahead, Intel’s challenges intersect with geopolitical tensions. The CHIPS Act’s flaws, as Gelsinger critiqued, have left domestic production lagging, exacerbating vulnerabilities in critical sectors like defense and AI. Barrett’s call for private investment echoes this, suggesting partnerships with tech behemoths could provide the scale needed for fabs in Arizona and Ohio.

Industry observers on X note that Intel’s board frustrations, detailed in posts about Gelsinger’s resignation, stem from slow progress on turnaround efforts. Yet, as a StartupHub.ai summary of Gelsinger’s bubble comments indicates, the AI hype may sustain Intel’s relevance if it can deliver on next-gen products like Lunar Lake processors.

Ultimately, Gelsinger’s blunt assessment serves as a wake-up call. Referencing his Financial Times interview, he urged a return to engineering fundamentals, warning that without it, Intel risks irrelevance. As Tan navigates layoffs and restructurings, the company’s fate hinges on recapturing that lost ingenuity, amid a global arena where innovation waits for no one. For industry insiders, this saga underscores the fragility of tech dominance, where even giants can falter if they forget how to build the future.