The future of the United States’ geopoliticality is increasingly dependent on private technology, and the influence of the company was once reserved for the nation-state. Few cases better illustrate that outdated governance standards are at risk than Intel, a national champion, now at the center of a global high-risk global competition. But with this impact, an unsettling trend: strategic decisions on company boards prioritize short-term profits and international entanglement over long-term national security.
Intel’s recent trajectory, focus by Senator Tom Cotton Letter to the chairman of the company’s board of directors Earlier this week, CEO Lip-bu Tan’s ties to China and the government’s subsequent call for removal were a clear example. The company’s legal but extensive investment in China highlights how U.S. corporate governance standards have failed to adapt to the modern era.
Intel’s strategic mistakes and board of directors’ accomplices
Intel was once the leader of the US semiconductor industry, Bargaining chips and scientific methoda plan aimed at revitalizing domestic chip manufacturing. In 1990, almost production in the United States 40% of the world’s semiconductors. Today, this number has dropped below 12%, and No state-of-the-art chips It is made in the country. Manufactured in Taiwan 60% of global supply And more than 90% of cutting-edge chips. Intel has the ability to reverse this trend, but a series of strategic mistakes have exacerbated this potential by deepening ties with China.
Although Chips Act’s guidance has hindered such activities, Intel’s venture capital brings capital to at least 43 Chinese artificial intelligence and semiconductor startupsAs the Future Union first reported, there are more than any other American company. Meanwhile, Intel invested more than Entering Tsinghua University for $1.5 billionA top-ranked technical university is considered to be the MIT in Beijing, closely related to the People’s Liberation Army and the Communist Party of China, and counts alumni including Chairman XI. Despite the risks of technology transfer and IP theft, Intel maintains its relationship with Tsinghua, realizing its role in advancing China’s military capabilities. Its subsidiary Intel China Research, Continue to operate AI projects in Shenzhena known military technology hub.
These decisions are not supervision. They are a board-approved strategy. Intel’s board includes figures such as Lip-Bu Tan and Jim Goetz related to venture capital firms Walden International and Sequoia Capitalnamed by the House Selection Committee of the Communist Party of China, is a facilitator of technology transfer to China, many of which are adjacent to China’s military ambitions. Another director, Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, leads the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 55 investments linked to Chinaaccording to the Rubicon report of the Future Union. Reuters investigation into future unions found that Intel’s board member and CEO lip-bu tan has A few investments in more than 600 Chinese startups Between 2012 and 2024, 40 control levels of interests are included, with 8 of them linked to the People’s Liberation Force. It is unclear whether the shares have been revealed to Intel or its board of directors, but they highlighted the need for clearer rules and standards around conflicts between board members.
Intel’s business dependence on China further illustrates the risks. In 2024, the company will 29% of China’s global revenueand Computer manufacturer Lenovo Accounting 12%. same year, Intel fires 15,000 employeessuspend dividends and lobby for Congress Easily investing restrictions. According to Politico, this lobbying work finds Allies of the Ministry of Finance– Seen as a barrier to difficult control, Secretary Janet Yellen’s chief of staff married Intel’s head of government affairs. The result is taxpayer-funded businesses using their influence to resist protections designed to strengthen the U.S. industry. This is not market-driven adventure. This is a subsidy surrender.
Delaware’s Trust Responsibilities: Short-term Focus
The company committee is designed to maintain long-term value, but it depends on its independence. Among many major tech companies, including letters, CrowdStrike, Lyft, Meta and Zoom, Supermahodity voting rules, and a dual-level stake structure concentrate power in the hands of the CEO and limit the board’s ability to provide meaningful oversight. This includes the power to remove leadership. These realities undermine confidence in the board’s role as a check on execution of power. Intel’s decision reflects how this weakness in corporate governance erodes American technology leadership.
For example, 39% Fortune 500 CEOs have served for less than 5 yearsAccording to recruitment company Spencer Stuart, the average C-Suite term is 4.6 years. This reinforces a culture of “short termism” in which decisions are guided by immediate financial outcomes and incentives for execution of bonuses rather than long-term value. When leadership changes frequently, the consequences of a technical recession or strategic mistakes succumb to their successors. The tenure of the board often reflects the CEO’s tenure and operates under a dual-level share structure and a super-respect voting rule, often lacking independence or motivation to intervene. The result is no substantial facade of real board independence.
Delaware laws that govern most U.S. public companies support this dynamic. Trust tax is a narrow definition: the board is expected to maximize shareholder value, usually within the shortest time frame, while long-term competitiveness is the long-term competitiveness of short-term profits. The Revarone doctrine covers this standard, requiring directors to prioritize immediate returns, regardless of long-term risks. Directors have no clear obligation to consider national security or protect U.S. strategic technology.
In 2016, AMD established a joint venture to transfer its state-of-the-art semiconductors to China. Escape CFIUS Commentsin exchange for upfront payment. In the case of legality, the transaction was given China’s strategic foothold In the bargaining industry, at the expense of American leadership. Directors have no clear obligation to protect U.S. strategic technology from the confrontational regime. This legal loophole enables the company committee to pursue quarterly revenues, thereby effectively crafting economic self-destruction.
Therefore, Intel’s case is not the only one. These dynamics reward stopgap and self-interest. This will remain without new trust considerations.
Examples of wider technology transfer under stress
China has long used the global capital market, not only to generate financial returns, but also a strategic tool for obtaining foreign intellectual property rights. Although many Chinese investors are business-motivated, many cases have raised concerns about the unauthorized transfer of sensitive technologies. During due diligence or partnership discussions, smaller companies and startups often have no idea of geopolitical implications, which is particularly vulnerable to such strategies, which contributes to the decline of businesses that have ever been there.
The challenges faced by large publicly traded technology companies take different forms. China has exploited structural weaknesses in corporate governance, especially the pressure to provide short-term results on executives. Through joint ventures or market entry requirements, U.S. companies sometimes agree to share proprietary technology in exchange for continuing to enter the Chinese market. This practice is often called “forced technology transfer.” Criticized by the U.S. Trade Representative European industrial groups reported that companies operating in China were already facing “irreparable harm”.
This approach is a standard feature of China’s industrial policy scripts. In the industry behind the industry – Biotech, cloud computing, semiconductors – the company’s company Recognized terms that many believe are endangering national competitiveness. This model is consistent: under pressure from a green light agreement between board and executives, it erodes long-term technological advantages and expands national security interests.
And it’s not limited to Intel. A large number of U.S. technology companies from Apple and IBM to Ford, Tesla, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Qualcomm, and AMD are facing the same authorization: Sharing core IP or losing market access. In many cases, the choice is clear and compliance is based on strategic costs.
Case of the new governance paradigm
The judiciary has set out the outdated Revlon censorship standards in the United States in another era, ignoring today’s geopolitical reality. Multinational corporations in the fields of semiconductors, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and biotechnology are inherent geopolitical players, and their decisions shape national power. The new governance paradigm will require:
- Incorporating national security into trust responsibility: When evaluating foreign partnerships and technology transfers, boards of strategic departments such as semiconductors, AI, quantum computing and biotechnology should be required to consider geopolitical risks, especially when it comes to public funding.
- Restrict conflicting board membership: The board of directors of companies that conduct business in key industries should be prohibited from serving, with large investments or institutional affiliations against the national board of directors, ideally eliminating conflicts of interest.
- Strengthen supervision of federally subsidized companies: Companies that receive substantial federal subsidies above a certain threshold should be subject to independent national security audits and pre-existing foreign partnerships. Foreign partnerships should be disclosed and reviewed before signing.
- Establish personal responsibility for directors: Similar to the current standards of cybersecurity responsibility, directors should face the consequences of decisions that endanger technical sovereignty. If negligence or intentional supervision results in huge IP losses, the director can lose stock rewards or bonuses.
- Establishing a Technology and Safety Commission: Companies should establish a standing subcommittee or list of stock exchanges in major industries similar to those required by the SEC, focusing on cybersecurity, intellectual property protection, national security exposure and foreign impact risks.
- Establish a government supervision agency: A permanent, nonpartisan oversight mechanism, influenced by political and corporate influence, can review corporate decisions with potential national security implications and ensure consistent implementation of trust standards.
During the Cold War, the secrets of the deal with opponents caused anger across the country. Today, boards like Intel can do something similar without breaking a law. This is exactly the problem: our corporate governance standards are not keeping up with reality. Critical loopholes have caused directors to ignore national security while chasing quarterly earnings.
These standards ignore the bets of modern technology competition, especially on the basis of basic “stack” technologies like AI, and downgrade long-term security to an afterthought. Intel’s recent decision represents a voluntary surrender to the US technological advantage, facilitated by an outdated governance framework designed for different eras.
Now we live in a world where capital moves faster than regulation, and private companies shape the fate of the nation. Intel’s leadership has made China the focus of its long-term strategy through support from U.S. taxpayers. That is not a policy failure. This is a failure of governance. Intel’s example shows the urgent need for modernizing fiduciary responsibilities. Patriotism cannot be legislated. But we can and must assume responsibility.
