Latest news with #ChineseCommunists
9 News
4 days ago
- Business
- 9 News
Trump calls on Intel CEO to resign for alleged ties to China
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here United States President Donald Trump has demanded the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan following reports and allegations that he has ties to China . "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!" Trump posted on Truth Social. The call comes just days after Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton raised concerns and pressed the chair of Intel's board over the CEO's alleged connections to China, questioning the integrity of the company and its impact on US national security. Donald Trump has set his sights on Intel CEO Lip Bu-Tan. (CNN) In a letter earlier this week to Intel board Chair Frank Yeary, Cotton pointed to recent reporting on Tan's Chinese investments. Reuters in April reported that Tan has personally and through various venture funds invested in hundreds of Chinese companies, some of which have ties to the country's military. "The new CEO of @intel reportedly has deep ties to the Chinese Communists US companies who receive government grants should be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and adhere to strict security regulations. The board of @Intel owes Congress an explanation," Cotton wrote in a post on X, attaching the letter. In a statement posted online, Intel said it looked forward to working with the Trump administration. "Intel, the Board of Directors, and Lip-Bu Tan are deeply committed to advancing U.S. national and economic security interests and are making significant investments aligned with the President's America First agenda," the statement read. Shares of Intel (INTC) closed down 3 per cent yesterday. The Trump administration is taking a hardline stance in matters relating to China. (AP) Trump's remarks come as Tan, who took over as Intel CEO in March, is attempting to revive the beleaguered chipmaker after it missed out on the mobile and AI boom. Rival Nvidia, whose chips have been crucial for AI infrastructure, became the first $4 trillion (AUD 6.1 trillion) company last month. Intel said in July that it had slashed 15 per cent of its workforce in the hopes of creating "a faster-moving, flatter and more agile organisation." Before taking over the top job at Intel, Tan was the CEO of tech design company Cadence Design Systems and was a founding member of Walden Catalyst Ventures. Yesterday's Truth Social post comes after Trump has criticised Intel in the past. On Wednesday, as Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook announced the iPhone maker would invest another $100 billion ($153 billion) in its US operations, the president took a shot at Intel. "Intel was just taken over the over the coals," he said. "They were taken to the cleaners, frankly." World China news China USA Politics Donald Trump CONTACT US
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Trump calls on Intel CEO to resign: ‘There is no other solution to this problem'
US President Donald Trump on Thursday called for the immediate resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, citing alleged ties to China that he claimed pose a national security risk. '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!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. His remarks follow heightened scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, including Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who earlier this week raised alarm over Tan's reported financial involvement in Chinese companies. In a letter to Intel board Chair Frank Yeary, Cotton referenced a Reuters report from April which revealed that Tan, both personally and through venture funds, has invested in hundreds of Chinese firms, including some with links to the Chinese military. 'The new CEO of @intel reportedly has deep ties to the Chinese Communists. US companies who receive government grants should be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and adhere to strict security regulations. The board of @Intel owes Congress an explanation,' Cotton posted on X, sharing a copy of his letter. The new CEO of @intel reportedly has deep ties to the Chinese Communists. U.S. companies who receive government grants should be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars and adhere to strict security regulations. The board of @Intel owes Congress an explanation. — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) August 6, 2025 As per reports by CNN, shares of Intel (INTC) fell nearly 5 per cent in premarket trading.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
This Is What Trump Does When His Revolution Sputters
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Revolutions have a logic. The revolutionaries start with a big, transformative, impossible goal. They want to remake society, smash existing institutions, replace them with something different. They know they will do damage on the road to their utopia, and they know people will object. Committed to their ideology, the revolutionaries pursue their goals anyway. Inevitably, a crisis appears. Perhaps many people, even most people, don't want regime change, or don't share the revolutionaries' utopian vision. Perhaps there are unplanned disasters. Smashing institutions can have unexpected, sometimes catastrophic, consequences, as the history of post-revolutionary famines shows very well. But whatever the nature of the crisis, it forces the revolutionaries to make a choice. Give up—or radicalize. Find compromises—or polarize society further. Slow down—or use violence. The bloodiest, most damaging revolutions have all been shaped by people making the most extreme choices. When the Bolsheviks ran into opposition in 1918, they unleashed the Red Terror. When the Chinese Communists encountered resistance, Mao sent teenage Red Guards to torment professors and civil servants. Sometimes the violence was mere theater, lecture halls full of people demanding that victims recant. Sometimes it was real. But it always served a purpose: to provoke, to divide, and then to allow the revolutionaries to suspend the law, create an emergency, and rule by decree. I doubt very much that Donald Trump knows a lot about the methods of Bolsheviks or Maoists, although I am certain that some of his entourage does. But he is now leading an assault on what some around him call the administrative state, which the rest of us call the U.S. government. This assault is revolutionary in nature. Trump's henchmen have a set of radical, sometimes competing goals, all of which require fundamental changes in the nature of the American state. The concentration of power in the hands of the president. The replacement of the federal civil service with loyalists. The transfer of resources from the poor to the rich, especially rich insiders with connections to Trump. The removal, to the extent possible, of brown-skinned people from America, and the return to an older American racial hierarchy. [Juliette Kayyem: Trump's gross misuse of the National Guard] Trump and his allies also have revolutionary methods. Elon Musk sent DOGE engineers, some the same age as Mao's Red Guards, into one government department after the next to capture computers, take data, and fire staff. Trump has launched targeted attacks on institutions that symbolize the power and prestige of the old regime: Harvard, the television networks, the National Institutes of Health. ICE has sent agents in military gear to conduct mass arrests of people who may or may not be undocumented immigrants, but whose arrests will frighten and silence whole communities. Trump's family and friends have rapidly destroyed a matrix of ethical checks and balances in order to enrich the president and themselves. But their revolutionary project is now running into reality. More than 200 times, courts have questioned the legality of Trump's decisions, including the arbitrary tariffs and the deportations of people without due process. Judges have ordered the administration to rehire people who were illegally fired. DOGE is slowly being revealed as a failure, maybe even a hoax: Not only has it not saved much money, but the damage done by Musk's engineers might prove even more expensive to fix, once the costs of lawsuits, broken contracts, and the loss of government capacity are calculated. The president's signature legislation, his budget bill, has met resistance from senior Republicans and Wall Street CEOs who fear that it will destroy the U.S. government's credibility, and even resistance from Musk himself. Now Trump faces the same choice as his revolutionary predecessors: Give up—or radicalize. Find compromises—or polarize society further. Slow down—or use violence. Like his revolutionary predecessors, Trump has chosen radicalization and polarization, and he is openly seeking to provoke violence. For the moment, the administration's demonstration of force is mostly performative, a made-for-TV show designed to pit the United States military against protesters in a big Democratic city. The choice of venue for sweeping, indiscriminate raids—Home Depot stores around Los Angeles, and not, say, a golf club in Florida—seems orchestrated to appeal to Trump voters. The deployment of the U.S. military is designed to create frightening images, not to fulfill an actual need. The governor of California did not ask for U.S. troops; the mayor of Los Angeles did not ask for U.S. troops; even the L.A. police made clear that there was no emergency, and that they did not require U.S. troops. [David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal] But this is not the final stage of the revolution. The Marines in Los Angeles may provoke more violence, and that may indeed be the true purpose of their mission; after all, the Marines are primarily trained not to do civilian crowd control, but to kill the enemies of the United States. In an ominous speech at Fort Bragg yesterday, Trump reverted to the dehumanizing rhetoric he used during the election campaign, calling protesters 'animals' and 'a foreign enemy,' language that seems to give permission to the Marines to kill people. Even if this confrontation ends without violence, the presence of the military in Los Angeles breaks another set of norms and prepares the way for another escalation, another set of emergency decrees, another opportunity to discard the rule of law later on. The logic of revolution often traps revolutionaries: They start out thinking that the task will be swift and easy. The people will support them. Their cause is just. But as their project falters, their vision narrows. At each obstacle, after each catastrophe, the turn to violence becomes that much swifter, the harsh decisions that much easier. If not stopped, by Congress or the courts, the Trump revolution will follow that logic too. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
Trump's Revolutionary Logic Meets the California Protests
Revolutions have a logic. The revolutionaries start with a big, transformative, impossible goal. They want to remake society, smash existing institutions, replace them with something different. They know they will do damage on the road to their utopia, and they know people will object. Committed to their ideology, the revolutionaries pursue their goals anyway. Inevitably, a crisis appears. Perhaps many people, even most people, don't want regime change, or don't share the revolutionaries' utopian vision. Perhaps there are unplanned disasters. Smashing institutions can have unexpected, sometimes catastrophic, consequences, as the history of post-revolutionary famines shows very well. But whatever the nature of the crisis, it forces the revolutionaries to make a choice. Give up—or radicalize. Find compromises—or polarize society further. Slow down—or use violence. The bloodiest, most damaging revolutions have all been shaped by people making the most extreme choices. When the Bolsheviks ran into opposition in 1918, they unleashed the Red Terror. When the Chinese Communists encountered resistance, Mao sent teenage Red Guards to torment professors and civil servants. Sometimes the violence was mere theater, lecture halls full of people demanding that victims recant. Sometimes it was real. But it always served a purpose: to provoke, to divide, and then to allow the revolutionaries to suspend the law, create an emergency, and rule by decree. I doubt very much that Donald Trump knows much about the methods of Bolsheviks or Maoists, although I am certain that some of his entourage do. But he is now leading an assault on what some around him call the administrative state, which the rest of us call the U.S. government. This assault is revolutionary in nature. Trump's henchmen have a set of radical, sometimes competing goals, all which require fundamental changes in the nature of the American state. The concentration of power in the hands of the president. The replacement of the federal civil service with loyalists. The transfer of resources from the poor to the rich, especially rich insiders with connections to Trump. The removal, to the extent possible, of brown-skinned people from America, and the return to an older American racial hierarchy. Juliette Kayyem: Trump's gross misuse of the National Guard Trump and his allies also have revolutionary methods. Elon Musk sent DOGE engineers, some the same age as Mao's Red Guards, into one government department after the next to capture computers, take data, and fire staff. Trump has launched targeted attacks on institutions that symbolize the power and prestige of the old regime: Harvard, the television networks, the National Institutes of Health. ICE has sent agents in military gear to conduct mass arrests of people who may or may not be undocumented immigrants, but whose arrests will frighten and silence whole communities. Trump's family and friends have rapidly destroyed a matrix of ethical checks and balances in order to enrich the president and themselves. But their revolutionary project is now running into reality. More than 200 times, courts have questioned the legality of Trump's decisions, including the arbitrary tariffs and the deportations of people without due process. Judges have ordered the administration to rehire people who were illegally fired. DOGE is slowly being revealed as a failure, maybe even a hoax: Not only has it not saved much money, but the damage done by Musk's engineers might prove even more expensive to fix, once the costs of lawsuits, broken contracts, and the loss of government capacity are calculated. The president's signature legislation, his budget bill, has met resistance from senior Republicans and Wall Street CEOs who fear that it will destroy the U.S. government's credibility, and even resistance from Musk himself. Now Trump faces the same choice as his revolutionary predecessors: Give up—or radicalize. Find compromises—or polarize society further. Slow down—or use violence. Like his revolutionary predecessors, Trump has chosen radicalization and polarization, and he is openly seeking to provoke violence. For the moment, the administration's demonstration of force is mostly performative, a made-for-TV show designed to pit the United States military against protesters in a big Democratic city. The choice of venue for sweeping, indiscriminate raids— Home Depot stores around Los Angeles, and not, say, a golf club in Florida—seems orchestrated to appeal to Trump voters. The deployment of the U.S. military is designed to create frightening images, not to fulfill an actual need. The governor of California did not ask for U.S. troops; the mayor of Los Angeles did not ask for U.S. troops; even the L.A. police made clear that there was no emergency, and that they did not require U.S. troops. David Frum: For Trump, this is a dress rehearsal But this is not the final stage of the revolution. The Marines in Los Angeles may provoke more violence, and that may indeed be the true purpose of their mission; after all, the Marines are primarily trained not to do civilian crowd control, but to kill the enemies of the United States. In an ominous speech at Fort Bragg yesterday, Trump reverted to the dehumanizing rhetoric he used during the election campaign, calling protesters 'animals' and 'a foreign enemy,' language that seems to give permission to the Marines to kill people. Even if this confrontation ends without violence, the presence of the military in Los Angeles breaks another set of norms and prepares the way for another escalation, another set of emergency decrees, another opportunity to discard the rule of law later on. The logic of revolution often traps revolutionaries: They start out thinking that the task will be swift and easy. The people will support them. Their cause is just. But as their project falters, their vision narrows. At each obstacle, after each catastrophe, the turn to violence becomes that much swifter, the harsh decisions that much easier. If not stopped, by Congress or the courts, the Trump revolution will follow that logic too.
CNA
09-05-2025
- Politics
- CNA
Taiwan denounces Russia, China for distorting World War II history
TAIPEI : Taiwan's government on Friday (May 9) criticised Russia and China for distorting World War II history, saying Chinese communist forces made "no substantial contribution" to fighting Japan and instead took the opportunity to expand their own forces. Taiwan has since the start of this year sought to cast the war as a lesson to China in why aggression will end in failure, remind the world it was not the government in Beijing that won the war. The Chinese government at the time was the Republic of China, part of the US, British and Russian-led alliance, and its forces did much of the fighting against Japan, putting on pause a bitter civil war with Mao Zedong's Communists whose military also fought the Japanese. The republican government then fled to Taiwan in 1949 after finally being defeated by Mao, and Republic of China remains the democratic island's official name. was won under the leadership of China's communist party, Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council said it was the Republic of China government and people who fought and ultimately won. "The Chinese communists only took the opportunity to expand and consolidate communist forces, and made no substantial contribution to the war of resistance, let alone 'leading' the war of resistance," it said. China's Taiwan Affairs Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
