Satya Nadella, Jensen Huang, and Michael Dell all urged Trump to keep Intel's Lip-Bu Tan

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,053   +60
Staff
The takeaway: For many chief executives, the outcome of Intel Chief Executive Lip-Bu Tan's ordeal offers a rare signal that pragmatic engagement can still yield results. President Donald Trump's willingness to reverse course after high-level industry appeals suggests that old patterns of transactional politics – rooted in persuasion rather than confrontation – may not have disappeared entirely. For Silicon Valley and Wall Street alike, that remains a small but notable opening in an unpredictable political landscape.

When Intel's new CEO Lip-Bu Tan faced growing pressure from the White House this summer, an unlikely network of allies across the tech industry quietly moved to his defense.

Several of Silicon Valley's most prominent executives, including Microsoft's Satya Nadella, Nvidia's Jensen Huang, and Dell founder Michael Dell, personally reached out to either President Trump or close aides to make the case for Tan's leadership and his loyalty to the United States, people familiar with the matter have told Semafor.

Their efforts came as Trump publicly questioned Tan's ties to Chinese technology firms and suggested that he should be removed.

The intervention, those people said, occurred in the days leading up to Tan's Aug. 11 meeting with Trump at the White House, a meeting widely viewed as pivotal for both Intel's future and its relationship with the administration.

Shortly afterward, the president's tone toward Tan shifted dramatically. Trump's earlier criticism, in which he called Tan "highly conflicted" for his past financial stakes in Chinese companies with dual-use technologies gave way to public praise.

"An amazing story," Trump said later on social media, shortly before the administration announced plans for the US government to take a 10 percent equity stake in Intel.

The investment, part of a broader initiative to strengthen America's domestic semiconductor manufacturing base, triggered a wave of confidence in private markets. Nvidia and other firms followed with strategic partnerships and capital infusions aimed at Intel's AI chip programs and contract foundry business. Those close to the company described it as an unexpected stabilizing moment for a firm that had been under Washington scrutiny for months over its global operations.

Spokespersons for Microsoft and Intel declined to comment on the outreach effort. Nvidia and Dell did not respond to repeated requests for comment. "President Trump and the Administration are in regular contact with business leaders," White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. "The only factor guiding President Trump's decision-making, however, is the best interest of the American people."

The lobbying around Tan's position revealed how elements of corporate America, particularly in the technology sector, have been trying to reestablish the kind of back-channel diplomacy that characterized Trump's first term.

During that period, executives often found that appeals to Trump's commercial instincts – whether through meetings, phone calls, or televised interviews – could influence policy outcomes. But since returning to office, Trump has shown less patience for negotiation and a greater emphasis on loyalty.

That shift has left major corporations uncertain about how to engage. The administration's trade strategies, including sweeping tariffs and a restrictive immigration approach, have challenged many of the same companies that benefited from earlier flexibility in Trump's policies. During his first term, several technology and manufacturing leaders said they were able to navigate unpredictable shifts in policy through direct contact with members of Trump's inner circle. Today, those lines of communication have narrowed, and the risks of intervention have grown.

In that context, Tan's case stands out. Industry figures familiar with the outreach described it as a calculated but risky effort to appeal to Trump's personal regard for high-profile entrepreneurs and his interest in domestic industrial strength.

The reassessment of Tan's leadership appears to have been driven by those factors more than by political calculation. The decision to invest in Intel positioned the company as a flagship in the administration's bid to expand US chipmaking capacity and reduce reliance on Chinese supply chains, a goal with bipartisan appeal.

Permalink to story:

 
I'm sure there is no reason other tech companies want to keep a CEO that has plunged Intel into chaos. Surely Intel having to discount their hardware desperate to maintain sales is just the cherry on top.
Fascism in broad daylight: the government working with (and saving) corporations, at taxpayer’s expense, irrespective of how they’re run.
Fascism is when....socialism? Pretty brave to be posting that here with the rampant TDS some members have.
 
I'm sure there is no reason other tech companies want to keep a CEO that has plunged Intel into chaos.
But Intel's deep dive into chaos did not happen on his watch. As I see the descent, it was cumulative over the last several CEOs. And yet, Intel is still the pretender that has nothing.
Surely Intel having to discount their hardware desperate to maintain sales is just the cherry on top.
Fascism is when....socialism? Pretty brave to be posting that here with the rampant TDS some members have.
:rolleyes: Pretty bold to be posting here with Trump Disciple Syndrome.
 
Most likely they told Trump he couldn't be president of Intel and join the Tech-bro club AND be president of the US at the same time and told him he was doing such a great job running the US that he should just focus on that.
 
The dude was HIRED SPECIFICALLY to be the ''bad guy / hatchet man.''. it is his job to fire 30% of the staff and sell off the FABS.. well at least that 'was' what he was hired for in the beginning. the turn around plan has always been to get rid of the anchor around their neck in the fabs.

But then the christian faith elected to represent them with a factual convicted sex abuser, factual convicted financial felon, Epstein list member and list hider and he decided that COMMUNIST SOCIALISM was the answer and now we have governments USING TAX DOLLARS interfering with and owning private corporations.

in the old days republikans got mad when government got into telling big businesses what to do.. but now they are all communists
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there is no reason other tech companies want to keep a CEO that has plunged Intel into chaos. Surely Intel having to discount their hardware desperate to maintain sales is just the cherry on top.
Fascism is when....socialism? Pretty brave to be posting that here with the rampant TDS some members have.
Lip Tan has been the CEO of Intel since March of this year well after Intel was in trouble.

The republican party is a domestic terrorist group with the explicit goals of protecting their members and donors from prosecution for their crimes.
 
Lip Tan has been the CEO of Intel since March of this year well after Intel was in trouble.

The republican party is a domestic terrorist group with the explicit goals of protecting their members and donors from prosecution for their crimes.
Oh right, “Lip Tan”....clearly you mean Lip-Bu Tan, and yes, he only became Intel’s CEO in March 2025, loooong after the company’s current issues started. But sure, let’s rewrite history while we’re at it.

And tossing around “domestic terrorist group” to describe a political party? That just shows either your age or that you’ve gone full extreme left echo chamber. You might want to touch some grass....the world’s a bit more nuanced than your social media feed.
 
The dude was HIRED SPECIFICALLY to be the ''bad guy / hatchet man.''. it is his job to fire 30% of the staff and sell off the FABS.. well at least that 'was' what he was hired for in the beginning. the turn around plan has always been to get rid of the anchor around their neck in the fabs.

But then the christian faith elected to represent them with a factual convicted sex abuser, factual convicted financial felon, Epstein list member and list hider and he decided that COMMUNIST SOCIALISM was the answer and now we have governments USING TAX DOLLARS interfering with and owning private corporations.

in the old days republikans got mad when government got into telling big businesses what to do.. but now they are all communists
Wow, that’s quite the conspiracy cocktail....a CEO “hired as a hatchet man,” Christian voters somehow appointing CEOs, and governments turning “communist” because they support domestic chip manufacturing. You managed to fit capitalism, socialism, religion, and Epstein all in one paragraph. Very impressive.

Maybe take a step back from the doom scroll and read an actual business report....Intel’s fab divestment and restructuring plans were announced long before Lip-Bu Tan joined. The reality’s a lot less dramatic than whatever political fan fiction you’re quoting.
 
Oh right, “Lip Tan”....clearly you mean Lip-Bu Tan, and yes, he only became Intel’s CEO in March 2025, loooong after the company’s current issues started. But sure, let’s rewrite history while we’re at it.

And tossing around “domestic terrorist group” to describe a political party? That just shows either your age or that you’ve gone full extreme left echo chamber. You might want to touch some grass....the world’s a bit more nuanced than your social media feed.
Yes that is who I meant. I think that was pretty obvious so I don't understand your confusion.

A political party that sends troops from one state to another to shut down protests is absolutely a domestics terrorist group by definition.
 
Yes that is who I meant. I think that was pretty obvious so I don't understand your confusion.

A political party that sends troops from one state to another to shut down protests is absolutely a domestics terrorist group by definition.
Oh, it was “obvious,” right, except you literally wrote “Lip Tan,” which isn’t a person. I just figured basic accuracy might help your argument.

And as for the “domestic terrorist group by definition” bit, no, deploying the National Guard or law enforcement during riots doesn’t magically fit the legal definition of terrorism. If you’re going to throw those labels around, at least know what they mean. Otherwise it just sounds like emotional social media talk, not a serious point.
But...keep trying.

If the police in these far left states would do their job, the National Guard wouldn't have to.
 
Oh, it was “obvious,” right, except you literally wrote “Lip Tan,” which isn’t a person. I just figured basic accuracy might help your argument.

And as for the “domestic terrorist group by definition” bit, no, deploying the National Guard or law enforcement during riots doesn’t magically fit the legal definition of terrorism. If you’re going to throw those labels around, at least know what they mean. Otherwise it just sounds like emotional social media talk, not a serious point.
But...keep trying.

If the police in these far left states would do their job, the National Guard wouldn't have to.
Seems weird that you couldn't figure out who I was referring to given the context. Seem more likely its just a low effort argument tactic.

There are no riots happening in Portland or Chicago. Those are just blue cities in blue states that the GOP is happy to attack openly because they operate as a domestic terrorist group.

This is the kind of propaganda that leads people to think there are riots when there aren't:

 
Last edited:
Back