1. Yes, the USA NEEDS INTEL, as Intel is the only U.S. company capable of providing state of the art logic manufacturing.
2. Neither Samsung or TSMC plan to bring their state of the art manufacturing to the U.S. in the near term.
3. U.S. customers like Nvidia, Apple, Google, etc needs and should understand they NEED a second source for their lead product manufacturing due to pricing, geographic stability and supply line security reasons.
4. Intel is cash poor and can’t afford to invest in the capacity needed in the future to replace TSMC or even a reasonable fraction of TSMC capacity. They probably need a cash infusion of $40B or so to be competitive. Realistically that investment is 100% of the Chip Act Capital grants so unlikely the USG is the savior.
5. The only place the cash can come from is the customers. They are all cash rich and if 8 of them were willing to invest $5B each then Intel would have a chance.
6. The current Intel CEO’s comments about not investing in new technology (14A) until customers sign up is a joke. To win in this space you need to be the leader in technology not the follower. It takes multiple years to create one of these technologies and no customer wants to sign up for something that is second best.
7. Fortunately Intel has good technology to work with (high NA EUV, backside power, etc) so they have a realistic shot at leadership IF THEY INVEST NOW. They just need the money.
8. Where does the money come from? The customers invest for a piece of Intel and guaranteed supply. Why should they invest? Domestic supply, second source, national security, leverage in negotiating with TSMC, etc. AND IF THE USG GETS ITS ACT TOGETHER, they catalyze the action with a 50% (or whatever number Trump picks) tariff on state of the art semi imports. If we can support domestic steel and aluminum, surely we can support domestic semiconductors.
9. The FFWBMs (four former wise board members) of Intel continue to claim you have to break Intel into two pieces before any customer will invest in Intel. Be serious. There are many company interactions that involve both supply and competition. It is also extremely hard to imagine Intel really competing with the likes of Nvidia, Apple, Meta, Google, Dell, etc in their well established product lines. By all means, if you want to complicate the problem, then take the time to split up Intel and make the FFWBMs happy but if you’re in the business of saving Intel and its core manufacturing strength for the USA then solve the real problem – immediate investment in Intel, committed customers, national security, etc.
10. POTUS and DoC can set the stage, the customers can make the necessary investments, the Intel Board can finally do something positive for the company, and we stop writing opinion pieces on the topic.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
Read more Fortune coverage of Intel’s crisis:
How once-iconic Intel fell into a 20-year decline
The day after Trump called Intel’s chief ‘conflicted,’ former directors call for a new company, a new board, and a new CEO
Trump accuses Intel CEO of being ‘highly conflicted,’ demands resignation as Tom Cotton highlights reporting into China ties
