Core Viewpoint - The recent call by former President Donald Trump for Intel's CEO to resign due to alleged conflicts of interest has created additional turmoil for the company, which is already struggling to maintain its position in the AI era [1][2]. Group 1: CEO Controversy - Trump accused Intel's CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, of having serious conflicts of interest and demanded his immediate resignation without providing evidence [1]. - Senator Tom Cotton raised concerns about Tan's previous investments in China and his ties to Cadence, a company that admitted to violating U.S. export controls [2]. - Intel's board expressed support for Tan, emphasizing their commitment to U.S. national and economic security and ongoing significant investments aligned with the "America First" agenda [2]. Group 2: Market Reaction and Internal Disputes - Following Trump's comments, Intel's stock price fell by 3.1% to $19.77 [5]. - There are reported internal disagreements within Intel's board regarding Tan's strategies, particularly about whether to exit manufacturing and his attempts to raise funds for an AI acquisition [5]. - Tan, who took over as CEO in March, was expected to reverse Intel's recent decline but faces challenges due to the company's lagging position compared to competitors like Nvidia and TSMC [5]. Group 3: Industry Context and Political Implications - Intel is a significant beneficiary of the Chips and Science Act, having received nearly $8 billion in funding, but has delayed the opening of its Ohio chip manufacturing plant to at least the 2030s, which may contradict government goals [7]. - Trump's allies, including Senator Bernie Moreno, have also called for Tan's resignation, linking the situation to broader U.S. industrial policy [7]. - Analysts suggest that Tan's departure could create uncertainty regarding leadership succession, given his extensive industry knowledge and connections [6].

Group 1: U.S. Industrial Policy Types - U.S. industrial policy includes both domestic supportive policies and foreign restrictive policies aimed at enhancing competitiveness and protecting local industries[3] - Domestic supportive policies involve financial support, government procurement, and innovation incentives, while foreign restrictive policies include investment and trade protection measures[4] - The U.S. manufacturing value added share of global output decreased from 25.2% in 1980 to 17.6% in 2023, highlighting the need for competitive policies[5] Group 2: Implementation Motivations and Effects - The motivations for U.S. industrial policy include enhancing industrial competitiveness, reducing trade deficits, and maintaining technological leadership[6] - U.S. manufacturing jobs have decreased, with the Gini coefficient for household income rising from 0.4 in 1967 to 0.49 in 2023, indicating growing income inequality[6] - Innovation support policies have been the most successful, as they promote technology commercialization and job creation[8] Group 3: Policy Effectiveness - Government procurement and market opening pressure policies have shown effectiveness in early industrial development stages[8] - Fiscal and financial policies have been effective due to direct support to companies, with semiconductor firms potentially receiving nearly $10 billion in subsidies[8] - Trade protection policies have had limited effectiveness, as they do not sufficiently address the underlying cost differences between U.S. and foreign industries[9] Group 4: Strategic Recommendations for China - China should implement reciprocal measures against U.S. companies through anti-monopoly and anti-dumping investigations[11] - Protecting the legitimate rights of domestic companies in trade and investment with the U.S. is essential[11] - China's industrial policy should focus on technological competition and supply chain security, emphasizing innovation support[12]