When a sitting U.S. president publicly calls for the resignation of the recently appointed CEO, hired to reinvigorate one of America’s most strategically important technology companies, the market listens. Share prices can swing, investor confidence can waver, and global competitors can take note. That’s why President Trump’s recent attack on Intel CEO Lip Bu Tan — calling him “highly conflicted” and insisting he “must resign immediately” — is not just inappropriate; it’s dangerous. It’s also more than a little ironic, given the president’s own long and well-documented history of conflicts of interest.
Let’s start with the facts. Tan responded swiftly and decisively in a memo to Intel employees:
“There has been a lot of misinformation circulating about my past roles … I want to be absolutely clear: Over 40+ years in the industry, I’ve built relationships around the world and across our diverse ecosystem — and I have always operated within the highest legal and ethical standards.”
At least for now, Intel’s board clearly agrees. Tan remains in his position, steering a company that is critical not only to America’s economic security but to its technological leadership. And Tan is a man whose career spans decades of chip design breakthroughs, global supply chain negotiations, and collaborative ecosystem building across geopolitical divides. Those relationships are an asset in an industry where supply chains span continents and partnerships make or break innovation cycles.
But here’s where the hypocrisy is impossible to ignore. If “highly conflicted” were truly disqualifying, Donald Trump would have been forced to resign from the presidency the moment he took office in 2017. From day one — and despite campaign promises to do so — Trump refused to fully divest from his sprawling business empire, creating unprecedented overlap between his official duties and personal financial interests. Properties bearing his name continued to solicit and receive patronage from foreign governments, political allies, and domestic interest groups. The Trump International Hotel in Washington became a de facto clubhouse for those seeking influence.
Add to that the undisclosed debts to foreign banks, opaque licensing arrangements in countries with complex political landscapes, accepting significant gifts from governments and people looking for favors and favorable treatment, and the persistent blurring of lines between campaign events, commercial promotion of Trump-branded products, and even promoting then-DOGE-director and ex-friend of Trump Musk’s Tesla cars on the White House lawn while accepting a free EV. The former president’s tenure offers a masterclass in conflicts of interest—on steroids.
The timing of Trump’s attack on Tan also raises another possibility: that this is less about Tan leading Intel and more about controlling the headlines. His comments conveniently coincide with building public pressure to release the Epstein files—documents that could implicate prominent figures, likely including Trump himself. In this light, picking a fight with the CEO of one of America’s most important tech firms serves as a diversion, drawing media oxygen away from a storyline far more dangerous to Trump. For a politician who has long understood the art of distraction, this is straight from the playbook.
By attacking the credibility of a respected tech leader without substantiating evidence, Trump is doing more than just projecting; he’s undermining a U.S. company whose success is vital to national security. Intel is also central to efforts to onshore semiconductor production, reduce dependence on foreign manufacturing, and maintain America’s edge in advanced chip design. Its CEO’s credibility isn’t just a shareholder concern — it’s a national interest concern. So if our national security apparatus — even one lacking its former level of independence — had a problem with Tan, it should quietly investigate and produce real evidence of malfeasance. Or I don’t know, maybe investigate Trump.
For senior executives, engineers, investors, and analysts, the danger here is twofold. First, presidential pronouncements — even those untethered from reality — can move markets. A single tweet or offhand remark can erase billions in market capitalization. For an administration as demonstrably self-serving as Trump’s, the potential for market manipulation is obvious. Whether directly or through allies, such comments can be weaponized for personal gain. The SEC —at least in the past, when its independence wasn’t threatened by a fascist president — has taken a dim view of insider trading; it should take an equally dim view of any elected official attempting to influence stock prices for political or financial benefit.
Second, this kind of politicized attack risks chilling the willingness of corporate leaders to engage globally. In a sector where competitiveness depends on cross-border collaboration, talent mobility, and access to diverse markets, narrowing the field to only those executives without any international footprint is a recipe for stagnation. If “conflict” is defined as having had professional relationships beyond U.S. borders, every serious technology executive becomes suspect.
Competitiveness (in the tech sector) depends on cross-border collaboration, talent mobility, and access to diverse markets, narrowing the field to only those executives without any international footprint is a recipe for stagnation. If “conflict” is defined as having had professional relationships beyond U.S. borders, every serious technology executive becomes suspect.
Trump’s comments are not about safeguarding corporate governance—they’re about distraction and deflection. By framing Tan as conflicted, Trump shifts focus away from both his own history of self-dealing and the potentially damaging revelations that could emerge from the Epstein files. This is a classic political tactic: accuse others of the very behavior you’ve perfected while redirecting public attention away from threats to your own position.
For the tech sector, the takeaway is clear: CEOs and boards must remain vigilant—not only in upholding the highest ethical standards, but in defending themselves against politicized, bad-faith attacks that have nothing to do with performance or governance. And for investors, there’s a broader warning: when politics intrudes this brazenly into corporate leadership decisions, the risk profile changes.
What remains of America’s technology leadership has always depended on stability, trust, and the freedom of executives to operate without political intimidation. Undermining that for a news cycle’s worth of political theater—or to bury a far more dangerous story—is reckless. If the president truly cares about conflicts of interest, there’s no better place to start addressing them than in the mirror.
Because if the standard is “highly conflicted,” the call isn’t coming from inside Intel—it’s coming from Mar-a-Lago.
What’s Cooking at My House:
Smashed Cucumbers and Chicken Salad
Zainab Shah, NYTimes
It’s summer. It’s hot. And I’m not so keen on turning on the oven. So I’ve been making a lot of salads. The added benefit is that — at least when I’m not shoveling ice cream and sweets down my throat and I keep up my bike riding — I’m losing a bit of weight. But just a bit. No risk of my shriveling down to nothing.
Anyway, I made this salad, along with two others for dinner this week. All three are 5-star NYTimes salads (gift links included for all). The Charlie Bird Farro Salad is vegetarian (using parmesan cheese) and the Chicken Galbi Noodle Salad has a similar (Asian) flavor profile to this cucumber and chicken salad. Because of that, the Charlie Bird Salad was a bit of an outlier, menu wise, but very delicious; I’ll surely make it again when it is a better fit for the menu. I’m sharing this salad because these leftovers were the most coveted by my pod; they were gone by the next day.
Enjoy!
Servings: 2-4 Time: 40 minutes
Ingredients
- 6 Persian or other thin-skinned small cucumbers
- 1/2 teaspoon fine sea salt
- 1/4 cup unseasoned rice vinegar, or to taste
- 1 tablespoon sesame oil (untoasted or toasted)
- 2 teaspoons soy sauce
- 1 teaspoon honey (optional)
- 1 pound coarsely shredded cooked chicken, about 2½ cups (from a store-bought rotisserie chicken or 1 pound poached chicken breast, see Tip)
- 2 tablespoons chopped fresh cilantro
- 1/2 to 1 teaspoon red-pepper flakes
- 2 teaspoon toasted white sesame seeds (optional)
Directions
- Trim off the ends of the cucumbers and halve the cucumbers lengthwise. Place the flat side of each piece on the chopping board and, using the back of a chef’s knife, mallet or other heavy tool, smash the cucumbers to flatten them. Further break the flattened cucumbers by hand, then place them in a colander set over a large bowl. Mix in the salt and refrigerate 20 minutes to chill and drain.
- Remove the cucumbers from the refrigerator. In the same large bowl (wipe dry if necessary), whisk together the vinegar (feel free to start with less and add more after tasting), sesame oil, soy sauce and honey (if using). Add the drained smashed cucumbers and shredded chicken, and mix well. Top with cilantro, red-pepper flakes and sesame seeds, if you like. Though enjoyable at room temperature, this salad is best served chilled.
Enjoy!
Copyright permission/reprint service of a full TechSplicit story is available for promotional use on your website, marketing materials and social media promotions. Please send us an email at talktous@techsplicit.com for details.