How public funding, geopolitical risk, and leadership scrutiny are reshaping board oversight

The events surrounding Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan raise critical questions about the evolving role of corporate boards in an era of heightened geopolitical sensitivity. This is not a political episode but a case that underscores the need for governance practices to adapt to new forms of strategic scrutiny. As national governments become more directly involved in key industries, executive leadership decisions are no longer judged solely on commercial merit. They are also evaluated through the lens of geopolitical exposure and alignment, whether actual or perceived.

Lip-Bu Tan was appointed CEO of Intel in March 2025. Investors initially responded positively. He brought over 40 years of experience in the semiconductor industry, including senior leadership at Cadence Design Systems and a long record of investment through Walden International. His appointment followed a period of volatility under his predecessor and was viewed as a credible move toward restoring execution discipline and long-term focus. Intel’s share price rose on the announcement.

Several months into Tan’s tenure, questions surfaced about his past affiliations with Chinese technology ventures. Senator Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel’s board raising concerns. The following day, former President Trump publicly called for Tan’s resignation. Intel’s shares fell more than 3% before partially recovering. Although the board and CEO issued formal responses and Trump later did an about face, praising Tan’s success following an in-person sit down between the two, the episode revealed a deeper breakdown in anticipation and governance readiness.

This is not a question of whether Tan was conflicted. It is a question of whether the board planned for a foreseeable form of reputational risk with geopolitical dimensions.

Executive Vetting in a Policy-Aligned Environment

Intel is a major recipient of public funding through the CHIPS Act. With nearly eight billion dollars in federal support tied to domestic semiconductor production, the company occupies a central role in the national economic agenda. This changes the governance calculus. Boards must consider not only whether a CEO is qualified to lead but also whether the candidate’s background aligns with the broader expectations that accompany public capital.

Experience once regarded as a global asset may now prompt scrutiny under a different policy lens. This does not suggest boards should avoid internationally experienced leaders. It does mean that the perception of global affiliations must be evaluated as part of the company’s overall risk profile. Overlooking that dimension invites unnecessary exposure.

Strategic Communication as a Board-Level Concern

Intel’s public statement emphasized its alignment with US national and economic security interests. Tan also issued an internal message affirming his ethical standards and global industry experience. These were appropriate responses, but they were reactive. Boards cannot rely on post-crisis messaging. In sectors of strategic importance, communication planning must be embedded in the executive selection and transition process.

This includes anticipating questions related to past roles, investments, or affiliations. It also includes proactive engagement with policymakers, regulators, and capital markets stakeholders. Boards must ensure that a coordinated communications framework is in place before reputational concerns surface publicly.

Redefining Fiduciary Duty

In a policy-aligned market, fiduciary responsibility extends beyond financial performance. Directors must also account for public confidence, regulatory alignment, and reputational integrity. These factors now directly influence a company’s ability to execute strategy, attract capital, retain leadership, and maintain its license to operate.

This is especially relevant for companies receiving direct public support. In such cases, the board is responsible not only for the stewardship of private capital but also for upholding public trust. Governance frameworks must reflect the full scope of that responsibility.

Managing Leadership Continuity as Strategic Risk

Intel is navigating a difficult but necessary turnaround. The company is rebuilding its manufacturing capabilities, repositioning its product roadmap, and working to regain ground in areas such as artificial intelligence. The controversy surrounding Tan, regardless of its substance, introduced instability at a critical juncture.

Boards must treat continuity as a strategic asset. Just as they plan for financial, operational, and supply chain risks, they must also account for threats to leadership focus and execution. This requires scenario planning for reputational events, coordinated internal protocols, and clarity on how the organization will respond under pressure.

Boardroom Imperatives

The Intel case reflects a new baseline for board governance. It is no longer sufficient to appoint leaders based solely on operational expertise or sector experience. Boards must also assess geopolitical exposure, stakeholder perception, and the implications of receiving public capital.

Directors must understand not only the company’s commercial strategy but also the regulatory and policy frameworks that shape its operating environment. They must anticipate pressures that emerge beyond the capital markets and embed both communication and continuity planning into executive oversight.

Boards that do not adapt will be left responding to risks they should have anticipated. Boards that take a broader, forward-looking view will be better equipped to guide their companies in a landscape where private leadership and public interest are increasingly connected.