Why Intel Shouldn’t Split: Craig Barrett on Semiconductors, TSMC, and U.S. Chip Leadership

The semiconductor industry is at a crossroads, and Intel, one of America's tech giants, is in the spotlight. In a recent Fortune opinion piece published on February 28, 2025, titled "Intel is back-stop talking about breaking it up", former Intel CEO Dr. Craig R. Barrett makes a compelling case for keeping the company intact. With calls from some former board members to split Intel into separate design and manufacturing entities-or even sell its foundry to TSMC-Barrett argues that such moves would jeopardize Intel's resurgence and America's semiconductor leadership. Here's why his perspective matters and what it means for the tech world.

A Resurgent Intel Under Gelsinger's Legacy

Barrett, who led Intel as CEO from 1998 to 2005 and chaired its board until 2009, points to the company's recent technological strides as evidence of its comeback. Much of this progress came under Pat Gelsinger, Intel's former CEO who was ousted just two months ago. During his over three-year tenure, Gelsinger revitalized Intel's tech development, bringing its manufacturing prowess to parity with TSMC's cutting-edge 2nm process. Innovations like high NA EUV lithography and backside power delivery-areas where Intel now leads-signal a return to form for the chipmaker.

For Barrett, these achievements are proof that Intel's vertically integrated model, where design and manufacturing work hand-in-hand, remains a strength. Splitting the company, he warns, would disrupt this synergy at a critical moment, throwing a wrench into Intel's momentum.

The Breakup Debate: A Misstep in the Making?

The push to break up Intel isn't new. Four former board members recently penned Fortune pieces advocating for a split into a design-focused firm and a standalone foundry, arguing it could streamline operations. Some even floated selling the foundry to TSMC, the Taiwanese titan dominating the global chip-making scene. Barrett agrees that handing over the foundry to TSMC is a non-starter-more on that later-but he sharply disagrees with the breakup idea.

Dismissing the board members as "two academics and two former government bureaucrats," Barrett leans on his decades of experience leading Intel's 100,000-strong workforce to argue that a split would introduce chaos. Coordination between separate entities, he suggests, would sap efficiency and dilute the innovation that has historically driven Intel's success, like its role in advancing Moore's Law.

National Stakes: More Than Just a Corporate Call

Beyond corporate strategy, Barrett frames Intel's future as a matter of national importance. With TSMC based in Taiwan-a geopolitical hotspot-the U.S. can't afford to lean too heavily on foreign foundries for chips powering everything from smartphones to defense systems. Intel, as a homegrown, integrated player, is a linchpin in reducing that reliance. Barrett aligns this with the CHIPS Act, urging government support-think investments and tariffs-to bolster Intel rather than restructure it.

"Build on the current resurgence of Intel, don't tear it apart," he writes. It's a rallying cry not just for shareholders but for policymakers eyeing America's tech sovereignty.

TSMC in the Crosshairs

The mention of TSMC isn't incidental. As the world's leading foundry, TSMC sets the pace for the industry, and Intel's recent gains put it in direct competition. Barrett's refusal to entertain a foundry sale to TSMC underscores a broader push to keep advanced manufacturing stateside. With Intel matching TSMC's 2nm tech and leading in key areas, the stakes are high-and the U.S. has a vested interest in ensuring Intel stays in the fight.

What's Next for Intel?

Barrett's piece lands at a pivotal moment. Intel's tech is back on track, but leadership uncertainty post-Gelsinger and ongoing industry pressures-like the insatiable demand for AI chips-mean the road ahead isn't smooth. A breakup might appease short-term critics, but Barrett's argument is that it risks long-term damage to a company uniquely positioned to anchor America's semiconductor future.

For tech enthusiasts and industry watchers, this debate is a microcosm of bigger questions: Can the U.S. reclaim its chip-making crown? And is Intel's integrated model the key-or a relic? Barrett's betting on the former, and with his track record, it's a bet worth watching.