A bipartisan contingent of U.S. lawmakers led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, and Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican, has pressed Intel for answers about the company’s testing of semiconductor equipment supplied by ACM Research. In a letter to Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan dated Wednesday, the lawmakers outlined national security concerns tied to the equipment and ACM Research’s corporate links.
ACM Research, which operates from Fremont, California, is described by the lawmakers as having extensive connections to China and two overseas units that have previously been targeted by U.S. sanctions. The letter notes that ACM counts sanctioned Chinese firms among its customers, including YMTC, CXMT and SMIC, and raises the possibility that ACM could gain access to sensitive data or processes through work inside Intel’s facilities.
"By operating in Intel’s facilities, ACM could gain exposure to cutting-edge chipmaking processes that may materially improve the quality and competitiveness of ACM and Chinese military companies," the lawmakers wrote.
Intel responded with a written statement asserting that ACM tools are not used in the company’s semiconductor production processes. The company said it complies fully with U.S. laws and regulations and that it maintains regular engagement with the U.S. government on security matters.
ACM Research did not immediately provide a comment for this report. In prior communications the company said it could not address "specific customer engagements," while confirming that its U.S. team has sold and delivered multiple tools from its Asian operations to domestic customers. ACM has also disclosed the shipment of three tools to a "major U.S.-based semiconductor manufacturer," noting those tools are being tested and that some have met performance standards.
The letter to Intel was co-signed by Democratic Representatives Elissa Slotkin and Andy Kim and Republican Representatives Jim Banks and Pete Ricketts, underscoring a cross-party concern about the role of firms with China ties in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing operations.
Lawmakers also cited an earlier review by the House Selection Committee on China, which said it had "reviewed with concern reports that ACM Research...has sold (semiconductor manufacturing equipment) to a semiconductor manufacturer with U.S. operations that also formally certified ACM Research’s tools for use in its production line."
Separately, the senators and representatives highlighted circumstances that they said increase Intel’s responsibilities. They noted that Intel faced calls for its chief executive’s resignation last August from President Donald Trump over alleged ties to China, and that the U.S. government now holds a stake in Intel. Those factors, the lawmakers argued, create questions about Intel’s fiduciary duties and its obligation to protect the public interest.
In their letter the lawmakers wrote: "This raises important questions about Intel’s fiduciary responsibility and approach to safeguarding the public interest, including how the company benefits American economic interests and taxpayers." They added that "Intel’s entanglements with blacklisted Chinese companies calls into question whether taxpayer dollars are subsidizing activities that could directly threaten U.S. national security and leadership in semiconductor manufacturing."
The correspondence asks Intel to clarify the nature and scope of ACM’s access to its facilities, the specific tools involved, and what safeguards are in place to prevent transfer of sensitive process information. The lawmakers seek responses that would illuminate whether any interactions could materially benefit sanctioned Chinese entities or otherwise pose a risk to U.S. national security.
At present, public statements from Intel emphasize compliance and separation of ACM equipment from production lines, while ACM has noted limited public disclosures about shipments and testing. Lawmakers’ inquiries underline continuing scrutiny of cross-border supplier relationships as the United States weighs both industrial policy and national security considerations in semiconductor manufacturing.
Note: This article reports on the content of a congressional letter and statements from the companies involved. Where companies declined to comment or provided qualified responses, the article reflects those limitations.