Trump shifts stance on Intel CEO Tan Lip-bu after White House talks
Intel chief executive at the White House on Monday.
'The meeting was a very interesting one,' Trump said in a social media post. 'His success and rise is an amazing story. Mr Tan and my cabinet members are going to spend time together and bring suggestions to me during the next week.'
Intel, in a statement, said Tan and Trump had discussed the company's 'commitment to strengthening US technology and manufacturing leadership', casting the talks as 'candid and constructive'.
'We appreciate the president's strong leadership to advance these critical priorities and look forward to working closely with him and his administration as we restore this great American company,' the statement added.
The president's warm remarks were a stark reversal from just four days earlier, when Trump
called for Tan's resignation and accused him of having conflicts of interest.
Trump last week wrote in a post on Truth Social that Tan should step down as chief of the US chipmaker, describing him as 'highly CONFLICTED'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
3 hours ago
- AllAfrica
WWIII without bullets: everyone loses in Trump's trade war
As US President Donald Trump enters his second term, his aggressive trade policy has reignited what many are calling a global economic conflict—a de facto World War III without bullets. New tariffs rolled out in August 2025, with more in the works, are shaking global markets, straining supply chains and threatening livelihoods across continents. Unlike conventional warfare, this trade war is fought with tariffs, retaliation and uncertain trade deals. But the impact is no less severe. From factory workers in Asia to farmers in North America, millions are caught in the crossfire. Trump's latest wave of tariffs has sent shockwaves through the business world. Companies from Detroit to Dhaka are scrambling to adjust to shifting costs, delayed shipments, and volatile demand. Firms are once again hesitating to hire, expand, or invest. Some are already scaling back production. Small and medium-sized enterprises—especially in export-dependent economies—are suffering most. As one supply chain manager in Vietnam put it: ' We've spent the last two years rebuilding after Covid and inflation. Now we're tearing it all down again because of this trade war. ' Rising input costs and shrinking demand are leading many businesses to cut jobs, not create them. The economic promises behind Trump's tariffs—protecting American jobs and revitalizing domestic industries—are clashing with the reality on the ground. US farmers are facing new retaliatory tariffs from China, threatening their already-precarious position in global markets. In developing countries, layoffs are widespread, especially in garment manufacturing, electronics assembly and food processing industries that rely heavily on exports. This trade war is not just a fight between the US and China. Its ripples reach deep into the Global South, where countries that depend on trade with major economies are being dragged into the fray. In Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nigeria, factories are closing. Port activity is slowing. Currencies are destabilizing. Millions who had only recently climbed out of poverty are now seeing their futures collapse. For developing nations, trade is not a chess piece in a geopolitical contest—it's a lifeline. They are the invisible casualties of this economic conflict. Even the US's closest allies haven't been spared. Canada is once again facing U.S. tariffs, particularly on aluminum, solar panels and some agricultural products. While Canada remains a party to the USMCA, the agreement doesn't shield it from unilateral actions by the US president under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act—allowing tariffs on the basis of 'national security.' This proves that even formal trade agreements offer little real protection in a system dominated by unpredictable, politically motivated policies. Trump's ongoing trade war has undermined decades of American leadership in building a rules-based trading system. The US once led the push for open markets, global cooperation, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Now, it has become one of the leading sources of uncertainty—with tariffs as threats, not tools, and agreements treated as optional rather than binding. If the US can impose or ignore rules at will, what incentive do other countries have to stick to them? Once again, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is watching from the sidelines. With its dispute resolution body still crippled and no meaningful reform in sight, the WTO has failed to respond to this growing crisis. Without a functioning enforcement system, the rules of global trade are reduced to suggestions—and global trust is crumbling. At the core of Trump's approach is a zero-sum philosophy: that any gain by another country must be a loss for the US. But that doesn't match how the modern global economy actually works. One country's import is another's export. One company's supplier is another's customer. Disrupting trade damages everyone in the chain, especially workers at the bottom. Trade, when cooperative and fair, is a positive-sum system. But when weaponized for political points, the damage is universal. Trump's second-term tariff war is already causing widespread disruption. If left unchecked, it risks pushing the world economy toward deeper fragmentation, financial instability, and rising inequality. The promise of global trade has always been mutual growth and shared prosperity. But today, it is being twisted into a tool of confrontation. If trade becomes war, everyone loses. Businesses lose clarity. Workers lose income. Developing nations lose hope. It's not too late to turn back. But doing so will require bold leadership, trust in international institutions, and a renewed commitment to trade not as a weapon—but as a bridge.
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
New details emerge about Trump's US$175 billion Golden Dome missile defence system
The Trump administration's flagship Golden Dome missile defence system will include four layers – one satellite-based and three on land – with 11 short-range batteries located across the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii, according to a US government slide presentation on the project first reported by Reuters. The slides, tagged 'Go Fast, Think Big!', were presented to 3,000 defence contractors in Huntsville, Alabama, last week and reveal the unprecedented complexity of the system, which faces an ambitious 2028 deadline set by US President Donald Trump. The system is estimated to cost US$175 billion, but the slides show uncertainties still loom over the basic architecture of the project because the number of launchers, interceptors, ground stations and missile sites needed for the system has yet to be determined. 'They have a lot of money, but they don't have a target of what it costs yet,' said one US official. So far, Congress has appropriated US$25 billion for Golden Dome in Trump's tax-and-spend bill passed in July. Another US$45.3 billion is earmarked for Golden Dome in his 2026 presidential budget request. Intended as a multilayered missile defence shield for the United States, Golden Dome draws inspiration from Israel's Iron Dome, but is significantly bigger due to the geography it will need to protect and the complexity due to the varied threats it will face. According to the slides, the system architecture consists of four integrated layers: a space-based sensing and targeting layer for missile warning and tracking as well as 'missile defence' and three land-based layers consisting of missile interceptors, radar arrays, and potentially lasers.
South China Morning Post
4 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Harvard mulls paying US$500 million for job training scheme to end Trump feud
Harvard University has signalled it is willing to pay US$500 million for workforce training programmes as part of a settlement with the White House to restore more than US$2 billion in frozen federal funds, according to a person familiar with the negotiations. Advertisement The administration is open to Harvard and other colleges paying penalties in the form of contributions to workforce training programmes, the person said. Last month, Brown University agreed to pay US$50 million over ten years for such programmes in its home state of Rhode Island. Harvard has repeatedly ruled out paying a direct fine to the government, as Columbia University agreed to do. Agreement on how to pay a penalty would bring the Ivy League university closer to ending a months-long stand-off with the White House, which began over accusations that Harvard failed to confront campus antisemitism during pro-Palestinian student protests. It quickly expanded to target DEI and admissions practices, international student enrolment, and alleged faculty political bias and collaboration with China. Harvard has pushed back, filing multiple lawsuits against the administration and publicly condemning a campaign that university president Alan Garber has called 'unmoored from the law'. Under the current terms of negotiation, Harvard's deal does not include the appointment of a federal monitor, according to the person familiar with the situation – a sticking point for the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based school, whose leaders have insisted on measures to preserve institutional autonomy throughout the negotiations. Columbia accepted an independent monitor who will oversee compliance for the next three years. Advertisement But the Trump administration is likely to insist on some kind of strong enforcement mechanism for Harvard as part of a deal, according to the person, who asked not to be named to discuss ongoing talks.
