I am a VC researcher who helped discover Intel’s close relationships with China. It reveals the governance crisis

My plan was not to find myself involved in international conspiracies that include semiconductors. Armed with a certificate of law and a master’s degree, my career started as an analyst in Wall Street at the beginning of the century, and I worked on several aspects of the fence over the next few years. I got a finger in the white law firm, and I spent time in the hedge box-I was a temporary general advisor for the Dallas Stars NHL team for several months.

But about a decade ago, I started working seriously on investment capital, and has increased in the task of protecting the technological future of America against authoritarian competitors, specifically China. In Bastille Ventures, I opened my team’s research over the past year and changed a lot of eyes. First, we approached Financial timesAnd, honestly, to find our data immediately, which led to an identity identification 43 startup investments By Intel Capital in China. Then it helped in a greater investigation by Reuters that revealed 600 Chinese startups received investments from the Intel-Board of Directors and Future Executive Director-Lip-BU Tan.

More than a few and a half months ago, the American Senator Tom Couton launched the means with a speech seeking to investigate a prolific investment in China by the lips, which is a direct result of my research and reporting later. This was amplified by President Trump’s call to remove him, and support our long view that his complex history in Intel’s leadership with China should be insecure.

Although the Intel despair of both capital injection and government support reference, the most striking events in this summer were the blatant omission of any governmental ability to exercise control or influence. Instead, it contains a virtual “vote alignment” with the Board of Directors, accepting the absence of will, the ability to control or restrict the Board of Directors and its leadership.

How to lose the initiative: Intel Hall surrender

Intel’s decline was not inevitable. Granting 19.5 billion dollars through the American Law and Sciences of SciencesIt aims to restore the leadership of the American semiconductors – it has been given a mandate and a war. But instead of rebuilding at home, Intel doubled on China.

While the share of American chips manufacturing from about 40 % in 1990 to less than 12 % today (and Safar share in the applicant Semiconductor chips, with Taiwan More than 60 percent A share of the global market and 90 % of advanced chips, atte 43 Chinese artificial intelligence and semiconductor startupsMore than any arm of the project of other American companies, according to the future union, a private sector organization that focuses on the two parties that helped in the research. Worse than that, Intel is repressive $ 1.5 billion at the University of Tsinghwa– Cina, “Massachusetts Institute of Technology”, tightly committed to the People’s Liberation Army and the Communist Party, is only considered by President Xi as a graduate. Despite the risks of sharing and stealing advanced technologies and intellectual property, INTEL continued, if not exacerbated such risks by continuing to maintain great intertwining with Tsinghua. In addition, it belongs to it, Intel China Research, Activity actively maintains artificial intelligence projects in ShenzhenA reputable city as a center of military technology.

These were not operational errors, but the strategies approved by the Board of Directors. Since two members of the Intel Board of Directors are also institutional Sikoya CapitalJim Getz, and The international debtThe Congress and the Future Federation were martyred as the best facilitators to transfer technology to the military sector in China. Another external director, Risa Laviso-Mauri, led the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which she keeps More than 55 investments associated with China– Most of any American profitability, for every Rubicon in the future. A Reuters He found an investigation with Future Union’s Lip-Bu Tan’s Minority investments in more than 600 emerging Chinese companies Between 2012 and 2024 – including dozens of direct relationships – on Intel Board of Directors. It is not clear whether all lip holdings have been revealed. However, it represents a strong evidence of convincing failure in the self -led police police and the urgent need for the increasing criteria related to the duties of the Board of Directors to protect America.

Intel commercial with Beijing is equally composed. In 2024, nearly a third of Intel’s revenues came from China; Lenovo alone made up 12 %. When following the demobilization and distribution of profits, Intel chose the lack of axis but to pressure Washington – the efforts made to restrict China’s investments, and since the polyetio is exposed, taking advantage of treasury connections at the highest levels. This is a hero of taxpayers funding using his influence to protect her Chinese business from the same rules aimed at protecting American technology. However, the lack of control, that is, the fact that the American government agrees to vote with the Intel Council regarding matters that require the approval of the shareholders – and against the unimaginable proposals – with limited exceptions: (1) when the law requires otherwise; (2) When voting affects government rights under the agreement/arrest order; (3) When voting, relaxation, or financial harm refuses to have an Intel relationship with the United States government; Or (4) When the vote weakens Intel’s ability to comply with the agreement/order. Net -Net: The negative investor, the virtual vote in support of the plate, and the most narrower pits applied.

This is not free market capital. It is the surrender-the taxpayer.

The short term and Dilayer vulnerability

The structural imbalance begins with the Dilayer Law, which rules most American public companies, and which explains the credit duty as maximizing the value of shareholders – today. Notorious Revlon The doctrine forced the members of the Board of Directors to chase immediate returns, even if it is the courage of competitiveness or security in the future. Executive managers and councils come and go-in the middle CEO less than five years-while the short term leaves permanent damage. The short -term performance bonuses, which suffer from “short -term” interested in particular, tend to narrow the options for the backwards that leave the naked cabinet, which reduces their successors through their own valves and looted them in the long term of the company. Supermaority shares allow the administration to consolidate itself, making the independence of the real council interface. The result is a false system for utilitarianism and self -interest, not supervision.

Intel Council is the original model: managers with deep exposure in China, isolated from the consequences, ready for the mortgage American leadership of other numbers.

Chinese play book, weak America

PlayBook directly in Beijing: Use the market access to foreign companies to exchange royal technology. Forced technology transfer is the usual practice, as we have documented by the United States and European passengers. appleand IBMFord, Qualcomm – List of companies that were forced to choose between IP and reach long. Presse -underground panels routinely grow a wrong choice – in rationalization of damage as a problem with their successors.

Intel is not an anomaly; It is an omen. Through biotechnology, clouds, and chips, American companies’ leaders trading in future profits – enabled by the governance system that requires more.

A new credit duty for economic war
This is not an organization for its interest – it is an invitation to new criteria from holding the board of directors:

• National security as a basic duty: Make geopolitical risks and transfer technology a credit duty for councils in the strategic sectors.
• The conflicting managers ban: Anyone with great financial ties with hostile states must be prevented from these councils.
• Real supervision: Federal subsidies must require security audits, prior approval of foreign partnerships, and strong enforcement.
• Personal consequences: Clawbacks, prohibitions, and personal responsibility – must face Clawbacks, and personal responsibility – as in cybersecurity.
• Compulsory security committees: All critical technology boards should be overseeing IP, external risks and national security.

In the latest Intel demands, the government abandoned a good mind about the ability to exercise control, although it is the largest INTEL holder. As the general announcement stipulates, it still serves as a “negative” share with the default voting supporting the painting, and absent from the narrow exceptions that ultimately hinder the sale of the government for this position. Intel press and the prevailing coverage emphasizes the non -dispensation/non -information mode. This means, effectively, that the Intel administration and the board of directors have been offered to billions of capital without the model market restrictions that will require any shareholder to become the largest shareholder in private markets. This mainly allows the council alongside interests, which may include China’s interests, against the best interests of national goals in America, effectively.

Although the government, as the investor in the last resort in American companies, who choose the favorite favorites, constitute countless concerns, the Intel investment is particularly doubtful but is useful for the government’s reluctance to set standards for American security. During the Cold War, the secrets of trading with the Soviets mean imprisonment. With China, this still means a greater reward, and freedom to secure it in almost any means of the board of directors and management. The Intel disaster indicates that the single goal of the Delare’s Revlon Standard has proven the moment. This is the legal economic sabotage in another name. Intel’s story is not only about one company – it is a warning to the American industry. Managers do not bear the responsibility for transferring technology that facilitates their business to the rivalry systems. There is no equivalent standard here for what is now common in cybersecurity, as managers can bear the responsibility for neglecting to protect networks. Why should national security should be less?

The law must change before America’s technological edge is lost forever.

Patriotism may be voluntary, but it cannot be accountable. Paints that serve two masters do not serve well. US security – not China’s rise – has become the first principle of American companies.

The opinions expressed in cutting comments Fortune.com are only the opinions of their authors and do not necessarily reflect opinions and beliefs luck.