I’m the VC researcher who helped uncover Intel’s close ties to China. Its nationalization just exposes a corporate governance crisis

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that Intel's decline is not due to competition but rather a failure of corporate governance, highlighting the need for a reevaluation of board responsibilities in the context of national security and technological competition with China [5][10][18] Group 1: Government and Corporate Relations - Despite receiving $19.5 billion from the CHIPS and Science Act aimed at restoring U.S. semiconductor leadership, Intel chose to invest heavily in China instead of rebuilding its domestic capabilities [6][9] - The U.S. government has a passive role in Intel's governance, agreeing to vote with the board on shareholder matters, which limits its ability to exert control [9][16] - Intel's board members have significant ties to China, raising concerns about their commitment to U.S. national interests [8][12] Group 2: Investment in China - Intel Capital has invested in at least 43 Chinese AI and semiconductor startups, more than any other U.S. corporate venture arm, and has funneled $1.5 billion into Tsinghua University, which has connections to the Chinese military [7][8] - A Reuters investigation revealed that Lip-Bu Tan, an Intel board member, has minority investments in over 600 Chinese startups, some with direct ties to the People's Liberation Army [8][9] Group 3: Corporate Governance Issues - The article criticizes the short-term focus of U.S. corporate governance, which prioritizes immediate shareholder returns over long-term competitiveness and security [11][14] - The current governance structure allows directors with deep ties to adversarial nations to remain insulated from consequences, undermining U.S. technological leadership [12][17] - There is a call for a new fiduciary duty that prioritizes national security and requires oversight of foreign partnerships and technology transfers [15][17]