When the history of 21st-century tech is written, this week may stand out — not for a breakthrough in semiconductors, but for a breakdown in how we treat business leaders in a time of political hysteria.
Intel, once one of the crown jewels of American technology, is once again in crisis. But this time, the issue isn’t yield rates, manufacturing delays, or a missed innovation cycle. It’s an accusation — unproven, politically charged, and weaponized — against its recently appointed CEO, Lip-Bu Tan.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas fired the first salvo, releasing a letter suggesting that Tan has “alarming ties” to companies with connections to the Chinese Communist Party. Within hours, President Trump amplified the charge via a social media post, publicly demanding Tan’s immediate resignation.
Intel’s stock promptly nosedived.
And just like that, a man’s reputation — and a company’s leadership, if not its very existence — are hanging by a thread.
Trading Due Process for Political Points
Let me be clear: If credible evidence exists that Lip-Bu Tan is a national security risk, it should be investigated thoroughly and transparently. But to demand someone’s resignation based on a letter and innuendo, without giving him a chance to respond or defend himself? That’s not American justice — that’s a show trial without the trial.
This isn’t just about Tan. This is about our values.
We don’t get to throw out presumption of innocence just because someone is successful, foreign-born, or operating in a geopolitically tense space. Doing business in China — as Intel, Apple, Tesla, and countless other U.S. firms do — inevitably means navigating a landscape that involves the CCP. That’s not new. That’s the cost of global commerce. It doesn’t make someone a traitor. It makes them a participant in modern capitalism.
So why the rush to judgment?
Would This Be Happening If His Name Was Smith or Jones?
It’s a fair question — one I hesitate to ask, but feel compelled to.
If Lip-Bu Tan’s name were John Smith, would there be this immediate presumption of guilt? Would we see a public call for resignation before the ink on the accusation was dry? Would the market have reacted so violently? Would the White House have weighed in without a single hearing?
It smells bad. It smells like scapegoating. And it smells like a double standard based on race, origin, or both.
We need to be vigilant — not just against foreign threats, but against domestic panic masquerading as patriotism.
Intel at a Crossroads
Let’s not forget the broader context here.
Intel is in the fight of its life. After years of market share loss and losing ground to other semi companies like AMD and NVIDIA, the company has committed to a massive turnaround. But with Lip-Bu Tan brought in to help steer the ship, the company is in the delicate phase of rebuilding.
Yank the new CEO out now — without proof, without due process — and you’re not just removing a man. You’re destabilizing a company. You’re threatening tens of thousands of jobs. You’re shaking investor confidence at a time when we need Intel to compete — not collapse.
Whether you think Intel’s survival is vital to national security, economic competitiveness, or technological leadership or not, this is not the time for political theater.
The Bigger Picture: Who Runs American Companies?
This moment isn’t just about Intel, either. It’s about who decides who gets to lead a company in America.
Do we want politicians — from either party — dictating who private companies can hire, what policies they can implement (like DEI initiatives), or which international markets they’re allowed to operate in?
I, for one, am not comfortable with that.
We are skating dangerously close to a place where political pressure replaces boardroom governance — where a tweet or a press release does more damage than an earnings miss.
That’s not capitalism. That’s not democracy. That’s something else entirely.
Let the Man Speak
Let me be clear: I don’t know if Lip-Bu Tan has ties to the CCP. But here’s what I do know — we shouldn’t destroy a man’s reputation, or upend a vital company, without a fair process.
Call a hearing. Present the evidence. Let him respond.
That’s not weakness. That’s strength. That’s what makes us different from authoritarian regimes we claim to oppose and that we claim we are different and better than.
Because if we let mob politics decide who leads our companies, then we’ve already lost the fight — no matter how many semiconductors we produce.
