A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
OPINION:
Sen. Tom Cotton sent a letter last week to the chairman of the board at Intel asking questions about the chipmaker’s new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, Mr. Tan’s ties to Chinese companies and a recent criminal case involving his former company, Cadence Design Systems.
The Arkansas Republican expressed his “concern about the security and integrity of Intel’s operations and its potential impact on U.S. national security” and asked the chairman whether the board was aware of the subpoenas sent to Cadence Design during Mr. Tan’s time there as CEO.
He also asked whether Intel’s board required Mr. Tan to divest from chip companies in China that had links to the Chinese military or Chinese Communist Party and whether Mr. Tan had adequately disclosed other ties to Chinese companies. This was an especially pointed question because Intel had been given $3 billion by the Biden administration specifically to develop the Secure Enclave program, an effort designed to ensure a secure supply of microelectronics for weapons systems.
In an unhelpful and response-free statement, an Intel spokesmodel offered: “Intel and Mr. Tan are deeply committed to the national security of the United States and the integrity of our role in the U.S. defense ecosystem.”
That sounds great and may in fact be great, but it doesn’t answer any of the serious questions raised by Mr. Cotton.
Sensing blood in the water, President Trump followed the senator’s lead and demanded Mr. Tan’s immediate resignation in the obligatory Truth Social post. Predictably, Intel stock dropped like a rock and, by the time this column goes to print, it is very likely that Mr. Tan will be gone.
I mention all this because it demonstrates that political power, when properly focused and supported by public opinion, can shape the actions of corporations. This is especially so when it comes to China, the threat from which may now be the only thing on which both parties agree.
The clearest expression of that bipartisan understanding was the passage of the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which passed the House on a 352-65 vote and the Senate on a 79-18 vote and was signed into law by President Biden way back in April 2024.
That law specifically addressed the most effective psychological weapon in the history of warfare — TikTok — which is deployed on a daily basis against at least 125 million Americans. It is an essential component in China’s long war against the United States.
More specifically, in that law Congress and the president specifically required its Chinese owners, ByteDance, to sell a controlling interest in the application to non-Chinese owners or have the application banned in the United States. The ban was to take effect on Jan. 19.
Unfortunately, and for reasons that are not exactly clear, Mr. Trump has postponed enforcement of the nationwide ban three times, most recently in June. This despite the lack of provisions in the law that allow postponement and, more important, despite the fact that the application is not and has not been allowed on any government or military devices since December 2022.
If it isn’t safe for soldiers and government employees, why is it still safe for the rest of us?
Mr. Cotton is right to be focused on the possibility that the new guy at Intel may be too close to the slaving, genocidal regime in Beijing. Team Trump should be equally focused on following the law and either finding a buyer for TikTok or banning it.
The time for more postponements or explanations is over.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.