Donald Trump Issues Ultimatum To Intel CEO: 'Resign, Immediately'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
President Donald Trump has called on the new CEO of the technology company Intel to resign immediately.
Writing on Truth Social on Thursday, Trump said that Lip-Bu Tan was "highly conflicted."
"The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem," he said.
President Donald Trump speaking in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington D.C. on Wednesday.
President Donald Trump speaking in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington D.C. on Wednesday.
AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Why It Matters
Trump's intervention comes amid increased political concern over Tan's appointment as CEO in March.
Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton questioned Tan's ties to Chinese companies and the Chinese military on Tuesday.
In a letter to Intel's chair Frank Yeary, he expressed "concern about the security and integrity of Intel's operations and its potential impact on U.S. national security."
"Mr. Tan reportedly controls dozens of Chinese companies and has a stake in hundreds of Chinese advanced-manufacturing and chip firms. At least eight of these companies reportedly have ties to the Chinese People's Liberation Army," he wrote in his letter, posted on X.
An Intel spokesperson said in a statement on Wednesday that "Intel and Tan are deeply committed to the national security of the U.S. and the integrity of our role in the U.S. defense ecosystem."
This is a developing story. More to follow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
End the gerrymandering wars by enlarging the US House
Meanwhile, national Democratic Party leaders are Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up There are no saints or villains in this saga. Republicans and Democrats are engaging in a bare-knuckled fight for power, and what each side condemns is Advertisement The cause of all this drama is not inherent Republican or Democratic perfidy. It is an institutional flaw: With only 435 seats, the US House is far too small — which means each congressional district is far too large. The average district now encompasses nearly 760,000 people. That is a constituency vastly greater than any member of Congress can effectively or fairly represent. And because congressional districts are so large, each one is a political prize well worth gerrymandering. When each district must corral so many people, a single line on the map has an outsize political impact. Under such circumstances, partisan cartography becomes irresistible — and bitter, recurring fights like the one in Texas are inevitable. Happily, there is a structural remedy that would dramatically curtail the constant court fights, political retaliation, and vicious maneuvering surrounding redistricting. Congress ought to expand the size of the House from the current 435 members to 1,500. No constitutional amendment would be needed — it would require only a simple statute to restore each House district to a more manageable size, and thereby make gerrymandering far less tempting. That would be a return to what the framers of the Constitution intended. The House of Representatives was conceived as Advertisement And there it froze. Congress didn't expand the House following the 1920 census, because of a political standoff. Many members resented the A House of 435 might have been workable during the Hoover administration. It makes no sense now. If the House were expanded to 1,500 members, the average congressional district would have about 225,000 people — still larger than its counterparts in many other modern democracies, but far more manageable than today's bloated mega-districts. Granted, that would require more chairs in the House chamber and perhaps smaller offices and staffs for each member. But the payoff would be enormous: Not only would the House be more representative, it would also be less susceptible to gerrymandering. Here's why: When each congressional district contains three-quarters of a million seats, a carefully crafted border can determine the balance of thousands of votes — enough to flip a seat. That makes each boundary line a powerful political weapon. But when districts are a third or a quarter of that size, no single line carries as much weight. Shifting a few neighborhoods or towns from one district to another would affect far fewer voters, making it harder for mapmakers to engineer outcomes with surgical precision. Smaller districts mean smaller levers — reducing the scope for mischief. Advertisement And the more districts there are, the less potent those engineering tactics become. Gerrymandering works best when the map has fewer, larger pieces — which makes it easier to 'pack' opposition voters into a handful of districts, and to 'crack' the rest among multiple other districts, thinning out their numbers to ensure that they lose everywhere else. But multiply the number of districts, and that strategy loses force. The cartographer's advantage fades as the map gets more granular. When each puzzle piece covers a smaller slice of territory, the lines become less predictable and harder to weaponize. Last but definitely not least, in a 1,500-member House, voters would be likelier to know their elected representative — and to be known in return. In districts limited to 225,000 constituents, there would be room for more local voices, more diversity of all kinds, more candidates who reflect the communities they serve. Much smaller districts means much less expensive campaigns — and lower barriers to entry for challengers. It also encourages lawmakers to stay grounded in the concerns of their neighbors rather than the noise of national partisanship. Congress blundered badly when it froze the House at 435 seats. The chaos emanating from Texas is only the latest consequence of that blunder. Advertisement It doesn't have to be this way. Enlarging the House to 1,500 members would end the gerrymandering wars. Better still, it would revive the ideal of a legislature that truly speaks for the people — restoring the people's House to its constitutional roots. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
On This Day, Aug. 10: Founding Fathers propose 'E pluribus unum' as U.S. motto
1 of 6 | On August 10, 1776, a committee of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson suggested the United States adopt "E pluribus unum" -- "Out of many, one" -- as the motto for its Great Seal. File Photo by Chris Kleponis/UPI | License Photo Aug. 10 (UPI) -- On this date in history: In 1776, a committee of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson suggested the United States adopt "E pluribus unum" -- "Out of many, one" -- as the motto for its Great Seal. In 1920, Francisco "Pancho" Villa surrendered to Mexican authorities -- and drowned his sorrows in a bottle of cognac. In 1962, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and three other civil rights leaders were found guilty of disorderly conduct charges in Albany, Ga. Judge Adie Durden fined each $200 and sentenced them to 60 days in jail, but immediately suspended the sentences and placed King and his associates on probation. UPI File Photo In 1977, 24-year-old postal employee David Berkowitz was arrested and charged with being the "Son of Sam," the serial killer who terrorized New York City for more than a year, killing six young people and wounding seven others. Berkowitz was sentenced to life in prison. In 1980, Hurricane Allen made landfall along the Texas coast, killing 24 people there and in Louisiana. The storm killed a 269 people through the Caribbean, Mexico and United States. In 1991, China agreed in principle to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. In 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was sworn in as the U.S. Supreme Court's 107th justice. In 1993, three ships collided with one another in Tampa Bay, Fla., spilling 336,000 gallons of fuel oil into the water. No one was killed. The incident marked the first time officials used a computerized trajectory model to track the location of an oil spill. In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole selected former congressman, Cabinet secretary and NFL quarterback Jack Kemp as his running mate. File Photo by Ezio Petersen/UPI In 2003, more than 80 inmates tunneled their way out of Brazil's Joao Pessoa prison, one of the nation's top security facilities. In 2017, President Donald Trump said opioid addiction "is a serious problem the likes of which we have never had" and declared a national emergency over the crisis. In 2021, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced his resignation in the wake of a damning attorney general's report that found he'd sexually harassed nearly a dozen women in recent years. In 2023, a non-profit rescue team recovered 17 bodies while 33 remained missing after a boat carrying Rohingya Muslims capsized near Myanmar while sailing to Malaysia.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump says US jobs report was 'rigged' — here's how it actually works
Recent data on the health of the nation's job market cost Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, her own employment after President Trump lashed out when revisions to earlier months' numbers suggested the economy could be in worse shape than previously thought. 'Last weeks Job's Report was RIGGED,' Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. The July employment numbers, released last week, showed the US added 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than what was reported previously. Economists were quick to note the changes, while larger than normal, are routine, factoring in survey data from employers that's slower to arrive, while Trump's actions risk politicizing a crucial economic indicator. Here's how the jobs report is pieced together and why data within it is regularly updated. How 'jobs data' works Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes an 'employment situation' report that includes employment, hours, and wage data for workers on nonfarm payrolls from an 'establishment survey' of businesses representing varied sectors of the economy. The report also includes data from a separate 'household survey' on the labor force, employment, and unemployment. The report is closely watched by economists, traders, and businesspeople because it can move markets, influence monetary policy, and reflect the overall health of the economy. The revisions that upset Trump were from the establishment survey, which relies on a survey of about 121,000 businesses and government agencies across the week or pay period that includes the 12th of the month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Estimated data from this survey is always revised twice in the succeeding two months after it's initially published 'to incorporate additional sample receipts from respondents in the survey and recalculated seasonal adjustment factors,' the BLS says in a 'frequently asked questions' page. Put simply, some businesses are slow to respond, so their survey answers are added as they're received, leading to revisions — up or down — in the estimates of new jobs. Importantly, the most recent revisions were within the BLS's confidence interval — the measure of uncertainty in its own estimates — of 'plus or minus 136,000' for the monthly change in total nonfarm employment, said Ryan Sweet, chief US economist at Oxford Economics. May payroll data was revised down by 125,000 jobs to 19,000 jobs gained, while June was revised down by 133,000 to 14,000 jobs gained. Sweet noted that 'if you look at the size of the revisions relative to total employment, they're not significantly larger than what we've seen historically.' In a blog post earlier this year, Michael Madowitz, principal economist for the Roosevelt Institute, wrote that while revisions can lead to some confusion, it's worth reflecting on 'why incurring some temporary confusion, in this case, contributes to the universally respected economic statistics that are central to the long-term stability of the US financial system.' The BLS is showing its work, he noted, which is a good thing. The payroll estimates from establishment surveys are also revised annually to account for wage and employment data from state unemployment insurance tax records. One of these revisions made waves last August when the BLS announced the economy had 818,000 fewer positions in the 12 months ending in March 2024 than initially reported, though that revision itself was also revised earlier this year to 598,000 fewer jobs. Trump has referenced the 818,000 data point as another example of what he perceives as data manipulation to favor Democrats, though it wasn't exactly great news for the Biden administration. 'We were pretty devastated that in August of 2024 in an election year — right kind of in the home stretch there when people were starting to pay attention — BLS did its annual benchmark revision and found that we had added 800,000 fewer jobs than we had thought at that point,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive group. Why are the revisions happening? A bigger likely problem than data manipulation is fewer businesses answering the survey. Response rates for the establishment survey have declined sharply in recent years, leading to some worries that the data is becoming more vulnerable to errors. Still, researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco wrote in March of the monthly employment gains through 2024 that 'despite the substantial decline in response rates, the incoming data are reassuringly not subject to greater noise, and thus greater uncertainty, than in the past.' But 'it's becoming less of a clear picture of how the labor market is doing in the first estimate' due to the lower survey responses, Sweet said. That's not a knock on the BLS, he added. 'These revisions are normal,' Sweet said. 'It's the nature of the beast of trying to measure a $30 trillion economy.' Additionally, big revisions have occurred in other times of economic weirdness, including the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. 'This is why we had massive upwards revisions in the early months of the Biden administration, when a ton of people were coming back into the labor force after COVID lockdowns,' Jacquez said. The US indeed has some weirdness right now, including tariffs, business uncertainty, and immigrant workers leaving the labor force. '(Major revisions) tend to coincide with idiosyncratic times in the labor market, which would make sense. If there's a big recession, there's a bunch of churn and a bunch of things happening in the labor market that wouldn't normally be captured by the standard analysis and regressions that you pull out of the data,' he added. Sign up for the Mind Your Money weekly newsletter By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Keep watch That's not to say the revisions aren't worth examining, though: the two-month revision was the biggest since 1968 when excluding recessions, economists at Goldman Sachs have said, and could point to some strain in the economy. Even before the most recent jobs report, economists had been watching for recession risks and a slowing job market, making reliable data all the more crucial. In a video appearance on Yahoo Finance, William Beach, McEntarfer's predecessor, said the BLS commissioner has nothing to do with the estimation or preparation of the jobs data, but 'the damage is done' — people who don't follow the BLS that closely may struggle to trust the numbers. 'We're going to take a long time to recover from this,' Beach said. Emma Ockerman is a reporter covering the economy and labor for Yahoo Finance. You can reach her at Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
