U.S. chipmaker Intel is once again facing heightened scrutiny from lawmakers in Washington, as concerns resurface about its potential connections to Chinese technology firms. The renewed attention comes less than a year after former U.S. President Donald Trump questioned the company’s leadership and its ties to China.
A group of senators from both political parties has now formally raised questions with Intel’s chief executive, Lip-Bu Tan, following reports that the company may have interacted with a subsidiary of ACM Research. The Chinese arm of ACM has been placed on the U.S. government’s Entity List, which restricts American firms from doing business with organizations considered to pose national security risks.
The lawmakers are seeking clarity on whether Intel has tested or used equipment from the company and what implications such interactions could have for U.S. technological security.
Focus on Sensitive Chipmaking Technology
At the center of the inquiry are specialized tools used in semiconductor manufacturing. ACM Research produces equipment designed to clean and process silicon wafers, a critical step in fabricating advanced chips.
While these tools are highly technical, they are also deeply embedded in the manufacturing process, raising concerns that they could potentially access or expose proprietary information. Lawmakers are particularly worried that if such tools were used, even in limited testing scenarios, they might create pathways for sensitive manufacturing data to be compromised.
The issue carries broader implications because semiconductor technology is widely viewed as a strategic asset. The United States has been working to strengthen domestic chip production while limiting the transfer of advanced capabilities to geopolitical rivals, especially China.
Questions Over Safeguards and Compliance
In their communication to Intel, senators have asked a series of detailed questions aimed at understanding the company’s internal safeguards. These include whether ACM equipment has been evaluated or deployed, how Intel protects its manufacturing processes, and what measures are in place to ensure that sensitive information cannot be accessed externally.
Another key concern is whether U.S. government funds could indirectly benefit restricted foreign entities. Lawmakers want assurances that taxpayer-backed investments are not, even unintentionally, supporting organizations that fall under U.S. trade restrictions.
The inquiry reflects growing caution among policymakers about the global nature of supply chains in the semiconductor industry, where companies often operate across multiple jurisdictions with varying regulatory frameworks.
Government Investment Raises Stakes
The scrutiny surrounding Intel is further intensified by the U.S. government’s financial involvement in the company. In 2025, during the administration of Donald Trump, the federal government acquired a 10 percent stake in Intel for approximately $8.9 billion.
This significant investment effectively made American taxpayers partial owners of the company, elevating expectations for transparency and accountability. Lawmakers argue that this relationship makes it even more important to ensure that Intel’s operations align with national security priorities.
The investment was part of a broader effort to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains. However, it has also placed Intel under closer government oversight than most private companies.
Intel Pushes Back on Allegations
Intel has responded to the concerns by denying that it uses ACM Research’s tools in its chip manufacturing operations. The company maintains that it adheres strictly to U.S. laws and regulations and regularly engages with government authorities on security-related matters.
According to Intel, its manufacturing systems are designed with safeguards that limit the amount of information accessible to any individual tool. These controls are intended to protect sensitive intellectual property and prevent unauthorized data exposure.
Despite these assurances, lawmakers are continuing to press for more detailed explanations, indicating that the issue remains unresolved.
ACM Research’s Global Expansion
ACM Research was founded in 1998 in Silicon Valley by David H. Wang. Over the years, the company expanded its footprint internationally, with a growing emphasis on operations in China.
In 2006, ACM established a major subsidiary in Shanghai, which gradually became central to its research and manufacturing efforts. As the company developed more advanced semiconductor equipment, its China-based operations grew in importance and eventually surpassed the U.S. parent company in terms of value.
This evolution has drawn attention from U.S. policymakers, who are wary of advanced technologies being developed or controlled outside the United States, particularly in countries considered strategic competitors.
Blacklisting Reflects Broader U.S. Policy
In 2024, U.S. authorities added ACM Research’s subsidiaries in China and South Korea to the Entity List. This move effectively restricted American companies from engaging with those entities without special approval.
The decision was part of a wider policy effort to limit China’s access to cutting-edge semiconductor technologies. While ACM Research stated at the time that it had not been informed of specific violations, the designation signaled growing concern within the U.S. government about the company’s operations.
Reports published previously highlighted interactions between Intel and ACM, which have since become a focal point for lawmakers examining potential risks.
The situation adds another layer of complexity for Lip-Bu Tan, who is tasked with steering Intel through a challenging period. Once a dominant force in the semiconductor industry, the company has struggled in recent years to keep pace with competitors and adapt to rapid technological shifts.
Tan’s leadership has already been under examination due to his previous role at Cadence Design Systems. That company faced legal consequences after exporting chip design technology to a Chinese university with military connections, ultimately pleading guilty.
This history has made Tan a subject of ongoing concern among some U.S. lawmakers, including Tom Cotton, who has previously raised questions about his ties to China.
