Former Intel CEO Craig Barrett has stirred controversy with a blunt claim: only Intel can secure America’s semiconductor future – not TSMC or Samsung.
Writing in an op-ed for Fortune, Barrett argued that the U.S. government should pressure Big Tech companies like NVIDIA and Apple to invest directly in Intel’s advanced manufacturing capacity, rather than relying on subsidies alone.
Barrett insists that neither TSMC nor Samsung is ready to transfer their most advanced chipmaking processes to U.S. soil, making Intel the nation’s sole viable path to state-of-the-art domestic production. He calls Intel a necessary “second source” to balance the market dominance of TSMC, warning that without it, America risks losing strategic independence in chip supply.
However, his statements come at a time when Intel’s own foundry ambitions are under fire. The company faces stiff competition, massive capital needs – estimated at $40 billion just to match TSMC’s output – and questions over leadership under CEO Lip-Bu Tan. Meanwhile, both TSMC and Samsung are already planning 2nm facilities in the U.S., challenging Barrett’s claim of Intel’s uniqueness.
Critics point out that Intel’s troubles stem from years of prioritizing shareholder buybacks over investing in cutting-edge lithography, leaving it behind in EUV and even DUV adoption. Some argue that if Intel can’t compete on merit, it should not be rescued – especially after decades of refusing to open its fabs to other companies when it had the lead.
Barrett also warns against Intel abandoning the race for leading-edge nodes, insisting that the company must remain a technology leader rather than a follower. Yet, geopolitical realities and market economics suggest that forcing other companies to use Intel’s processes – especially when they’re behind – might not be the cure he envisions.
Whether Barrett’s rallying cry will influence policymakers remains to be seen. The upcoming meeting between CEO Lip-Bu Tan and former President Trump could shape Intel’s next chapter – but for now, the debate over whether Intel should be saved, restructured, or left to market forces rages on.