It has been a seismic year for Intel. What is changing for you right now?
It is an interesting time at Intel because we are fundamentally revamping the company. Historically, we designed and manufactured our own chips, but the industry has changed significantly. We have seen the rise of fabless companies, and there’s no U.S.-based company able to manufacture the most advanced chips. Only three companies globally can do that: Intel, TSMC, and Samsung. Pat Gelsinger recognized the need to adapt to these industry changes, and we have updated our business model accordingly. We have separated our product business, which now operates like a fabless company, and launched Intel Foundry, which is open to manufacturing chips for others. While Intel Foundry is still in its early stages and catching up in efficiency, we’re excited about the investments being made in the U.S. to build a more resilient domestic semiconductor industry.
Intel has committed to investing over $100 billion, a significant figure compared to your competitors. What are the key challenges you anticipate over the next three to five years, especially as Intel aims to redefine itself and reclaim a leadership role in the industry?
One of the biggest challenges is reinventing the company after past mistakes that left us trailing behind. We are investing heavily in technology development, including our "five nodes in four years" plan, which is about not just catching up but surpassing TSMC in terms of technology. Another challenge is that we do not just compete with companies, but with entire countries. Competitors like TSMC and Samsung receive significant support from their governments.
The cost gap between manufacturing in the U.S. and Asia is around 40%, which the CHIPS Act is meant to address.
But for Intel to thrive, we need strong government policies that promote competitiveness, including workforce training and high-skilled immigration reform.
As Intel works to re-industrialize the U.S., how do you attract top talent, especially with the competition from exciting startups in the Bay Area?
Attracting top talent is always a challenge, but Intel has historically been a leader in bringing in the best and brightest. We work closely with educational institutions to secure top-tier engineers and scientists. Interestingly, we are seeing renewed interest in the semiconductor industry among young professionals, who are drawn to the critical role semiconductors play in everything from electrification to AI. We also invest in building a pipeline of talent through partnerships with universities and community colleges. In places like Arizona and Ohio, we’ve developed world-class training programs to equip workers with the skills needed for semiconductor manufacturing. Intel’s reputation and its pivotal role in advancing technology help us remain a top destination for talent.
There seems to be a tension between protecting U.S. interests and participating in the global ecosystem. How does Intel balance these competing priorities?
Silicon Valley has a long history of resisting government involvement, but the reality is that industries like ours need government support, especially in hard tech. For example, the U.S. government played a crucial role in the success of companies like Tesla and SpaceX. In the semiconductor industry, our competitors receive substantial backing from their governments—Taiwan for TSMC, Korea for Samsung, and China for its chipmakers. The U.S. is catching up with initiatives like the CHIPS Act, but we need comprehensive policies to remain competitive. The semiconductor supply chain is global, and no country can meet all the demands on its own. This global interdependence makes Intel’s partnership with governments essential to ensuring the industry's future success.
What do you think is your most important role in representing Intel in Washington, D.C.?
Our primary goal is to ensure that U.S. policies support a competitive environment for semiconductor manufacturing. While the CHIPS Act is a significant step, we need a broader set of policies to address workforce training, R&D investment, and immigration reform. Intel spends billions on research and development, but without policies that incentivize innovation and support manufacturing, it is difficult to maintain a competitive edge. The U.S. needs a stable and predictable policy environment to foster long-term investments. Our competitors have the advantage of strong government backing, and for Intel and the broader industry to thrive, we need continued support from the U.S. government.
Intel’s investments in Arizona and Ohio are part of an ambitious effort to expand domestic production. How are you de-risking such a massive investment, and what makes these states the right choice?
We have chosen Arizona and Ohio as part of our strategy to diversify our manufacturing footprint. Arizona has been home to Intel for over 35 years, and we have built a strong tech ecosystem there, supported by local universities and training programs. Ohio is a new frontier for us, offering the opportunity to create a high-tech ecosystem from the ground up, much like we did in Arizona and Israel. Building these fabs requires massive capital, but it is a long-term investment in the future of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. The CHIPS Act provides incentives, but it is our existing infrastructure and partnerships that help de-risk the investment. Our track record of creating tech hubs shows that these investments will drive growth and innovation for decades to come.
What worries you the most about the future of Intel and the semiconductor industry?
Several things keep me up at night. One is the uncertainty around U.S. policy, especially on issues like immigration and R&D tax credits. We need a stable environment to continue investing in innovation and attracting top talent. Congress has not renewed the R&D tax credit in years, leaving billions of dollars locked up, which affects our ability to compete globally. Geopolitics is another concern. The semiconductor supply chain is highly interconnected and global, which makes it vulnerable to disruptions like pandemics, natural disasters, or political tensions. For example, a single, inexpensive chip can delay the production of an entire car. Ensuring resilience in the supply chain is critical to Intel’s future success.
