Intel’s Use of Tools from Sanctioned China-Linked Firm Sparks National Security Concerns

Gerik

Summary:

Intel has tested chipmaking equipment from ACM Research, a U.S.-based firm with deep operations in China and sanctioned overseas units, raising alarms over potential national security vulnerabilities despite no proven regulatory breach....

Intel’s Quiet Engagement with ACM Raises Regulatory Red Flags

Intel, a pillar of America’s semiconductor ambitions and partially government-backed, has reportedly tested advanced chipmaking tools this year from ACM Research a company whose two overseas units, in Shanghai and South Korea, are subject to U.S. sanctions. The equipment in question, known as "wet etch tools," is used to clean and remove layers on silicon wafers and is considered critical in advanced semiconductor manufacturing. These tools were reportedly evaluated for Intel’s future 14A process, a cutting-edge chip fabrication platform scheduled for a 2027 debut.

Although Intel's use of the tools does not appear to breach existing regulations, the association with a firm whose Chinese unit is restricted due to military-related concerns has rekindled anxiety among U.S. national security analysts and lawmakers. The central issue lies not only in the testing of the tools, but in the possibility that proprietary U.S. technology could be indirectly exposed or that ACM's products could be manipulated to compromise chip production.

Sanctions, Executive Scrutiny, and Strategic Ambiguity

The situation comes months after President Donald Trump publicly criticized Intel’s CEO amid broader concerns over China’s rising influence in the global chip supply chain. While Trump recently softened some of his chip export restrictions allowing Nvidia to resume sales of certain AI chips to China his administration, along with bipartisan lawmakers, continues to view Chinese toolmakers with suspicion.

Recent legislative efforts aim to restrict the use of Chinese-made chip tools by any company benefiting from billions in U.S. semiconductor subsidies. Intel’s move to evaluate tools from ACM, despite their links to Chinese military-supported firms like SMIC and YMTC, appears to run counter to the spirit of these efforts even if it technically remains within legal boundaries.

Chris McGuire, a former National Security Council official, emphasized the strategic risk: Chinese-linked tools could be manipulated remotely, potentially threatening U.S. chip supply chains or enabling Beijing to siphon off technological know-how. ACM counters this by asserting that its U.S. operations are completely segregated from its sanctioned Chinese units and that customer data is safeguarded under stringent internal protocols.

Deep China Ties Despite U.S. Headquarters

ACM Research was founded by David Wang, a U.S. citizen with Chinese permanent residence, who still holds majority voting control. Although headquartered in Fremont, California, the firm’s R&D operations are predominantly located in Shanghai. Its clientele includes multiple Chinese firms already under U.S. sanctions, including YMTC, CXMT, and SMIC entities tied to China’s military-industrial ambitions.

These associations have caught the attention of U.S. regulators. The House Select Committee on China flagged ACM in a 2025 report for allegedly supplying semiconductor manufacturing equipment to a U.S.-based firm, suspected to be Intel, and formally certifying it for production use. Such interactions, even if legal, may enable backdoor support for China’s semiconductor ambitions through indirect technology transfers.

ACM’s Expansion in the U.S. Raises Strategic Eyebrows

Adding to the concerns is ACM’s 2023 opening of a facility in Hillsboro, Oregon just a mile from Intel’s premier R&D and fabrication plant. This “Silicon Forest” presence has reportedly facilitated direct engagement with Intel, with tool evaluations underway and further integration anticipated in 2026. Hedge fund Kerrisdale Capital reports that ACM is tailoring its Oregon facility to allow Intel to test wafers directly, suggesting a closer relationship than either company publicly acknowledges.

Despite ACM’s claim that it is not a significant supplier to any U.S. chipmaker, industry sources indicate otherwise. Kerrisdale highlights “active tool evaluations” and notes that ACM’s U.S. lab upgrades were designed to deepen collaboration with Intel though whether this translates into full adoption remains unknown.

Geopolitical Pressures and Market Dynamics Collide

The broader context includes Beijing’s strategic push to dominate semiconductor manufacturing and reduce dependence on Western suppliers. ACM has grown its global market share in cleaning tools to 8%, per Gartner, and offers prices 20%–30% lower than Western competitors such as Applied Materials and Lam Research. This cost advantage, if sustained, may tempt even subsidy-backed U.S. firms to explore such options, further complicating Washington’s goal of decoupling critical technologies from Chinese influence.

Moreover, as Chinese toolmakers make competitive gains, Washington risks a two-front dilemma: enforcing national security measures while maintaining competitiveness in a highly globalized industry. Intel’s exploratory engagement with ACM may therefore be more symptomatic of industry cost pressures and innovation demands than political intent but it still underscores the fragility of national tech safeguards.

Intel’s ACM Engagement Highlights Systemic Vulnerability

Intel’s testing of ACM tools, though not illegal, exposes persistent gaps in U.S. tech protection frameworks. The incident illustrates how globalized supply chains allow even firms under partial government ownership to brush up against sanctioned entities without regulatory fallout. While ACM insists its U.S. operations are independent and secure, the geopolitical implications particularly given ACM’s deep China ties suggest a need for more coherent, forward-looking policies.

The causal link between China’s growing technological footprint and U.S. national security anxiety is evident. As Chinese toolmakers inch closer to parity, their presence in Western fabs, even indirectly, becomes a flashpoint. For Intel and its peers, the challenge now is to navigate rising cost and innovation demands without compromising strategic autonomy something current U.S. policy still struggles to enforce with clarity.

Source: Reuters

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

News, historical chart data, and fundamental company data are provided by FastBull Ltd.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.