rewrite this title Former Intel CEO Barrett says customers should bail out Intel

Is there a way that Intel can be saved? Former Intel chief executive Craig Barrett thinks so, and it isn’t the way the company’s former board members suggest.

Intel should have a number of its customers invest a total of $40 billion in the company to ensure a steady supply of chips, the company’s former chief executive wrote over the weekend.

Barrett’s comments come as current chief executive Lip-Bu Tan is scheduled to meet with President Trump on Monday at the White House, according to a report. However, the meeting doesn’t appear on Trump’s public calendar.

Intel faces numerous crises. On one hand, the company has already announced the layoffs of thousands of employees, dating back to last year. Although Intel solicited billions from the U.S. government as part of the CHIPS Act, it has warned that it might exit chip manufacturing altogether if it can’t find a customer for its 14A manufacturing process. The 14A process follows the 18A process, the foundation of Panther Lake, which Tan has said remains on track. But Trump has also demanded that Tan step down, citing Tan’s ties to a number of Chinese firms in his role as a venture capitalist.

In the interim, former Intel chief executive Craig Barrett has weighed in with a list of bombastic thoughts on the matter. Barrett, writing in Fortune, is the 86-year-old former CEO who took the reins at Intel in 1998, succeeding the iconic Andy Grove. Barrett oversaw the Pentium III and Pentium 4, as well as the early days of the Xeon processor.

An investment into the future

In Barrett’s mind, customers should be investing in Intel to ensure a stable (and American) supply of semiconductors. “Neither Samsung or TSMC plan to bring their state of the art manufacturing to the U.S. in the near term,” he wrote. “U.S. customers like Nvidia, Apple, Google, etc. needs and should understand they NEED a second source for their lead product manufacturing due to pricing, geographic stability and supply line security reasons.”

Barrett suggested that Intel’s customers invest a “competitive” $40 billion into the company.

“Where does the money come from? The customers invest for a piece of Intel and guaranteed supply,” Barrett wrote. “Why should they invest?  Domestic supply, second source, national security, leverage in negotiating with TSMC, etc.  AND IF THE USG GETS ITS ACT TOGETHER, they catalyze the action with a 50% (or whatever number Trump picks) tariff on state of the art semi imports. If we can support domestic steel and aluminum, surely we can support domestic semiconductors.” (Emphasis Barrett’s.)

Fortune, which has apparently dug into its contact list to solicit advice on the Intel matter, previously published an opinion written by former board members arguing that Tan should be fired and the company broken up. “Be serious,” Barrett wrote.

“By all means, if you want to complicate the problem, then take the time to split up Intel and make the FFWBMs [the “four former wise board members”] happy but if you’re in the business of saving Intel and its core manufacturing strength for the USA then solve the real problem — immediate investment in Intel, committed customers, national security, etc.