Intel scores Micron exec and receives funding threat from U.S. senator

Intel 12th Gen Hero Corei9 Chip
Intel 12th Gen Hero Corei9 Chip (Image credit: Daniel Rubino / Windows Central)

What you need to know

  • Intel has appointed David Zinsner as its chief financial officer (CFO), fresh off Zinsner's run as CFO at Micron.
  • Intel has also attracted the ire of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio due to its apology to China regarding wording surrounding the country's human rights abuses of Uyghurs.
  • These events, though not related, have happened in close proximity to one another.

There is softball news and there is hardball news. Intel has managed to score itself a headline in both camps at right around the same time.

On the less controversial end of the spectrum is the news that Intel has appointed David Zinsner as its chief financial officer. Zinsner comes to Intel fresh off being the CFO of Micron. He assumes his role on January 17, 2022. As for current CFO George Davis, he's retiring in May. You can read Intel's full press release to see the kind words CEO Pat Gelsinger has to share about Zinsner.

In more controversial news: U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has officially denounced Intel and floated the idea the company should be excluded from a piece of the $52 billion pie the U.S. government baked in order to help remedy the chip shortage. You can read Rubio's full statement over at his site, but here's a key quote:

Intel's cowardice is yet another predictable consequence of economic reliance on China. Instead of humiliating apologies and self-censorship, companies should move their supply chains to countries that do not use slave labor or commit genocide. If companies like Intel continue to obscure the facts about U.S. law just to appease the Chinese Communist Party then they should be ineligible for any funding under the CHIPS Act.

Rubio's comments come as a result of Intel apologizing to China for simply acknowledging it doesn't deal with the Xinjiang region in order to adhere to U.S. law and sanctions. Said law and sanctions came about in response to the ongoing genocide of Uyghurs in China (the term "genocide" has been used by the U.S. government to describe the situation).

Intel has been big on securing funding for itself at the exclusion of the competition, as evidenced by its putdown of Taiwan not too long ago. It remains to be seen how the company will respond to Rubio's remarks.

Robert Carnevale

Robert Carnevale is the News Editor for Windows Central. He's a big fan of Kinect (it lives on in his heart), Sonic the Hedgehog, and the legendary intersection of those two titans, Sonic Free Riders. He is the author of Cold War 2395. Have a useful tip? Send it to

  • Too many companies bowing down to China. If we don't pull out as much as we can, we're pretty screwed long-term.
  • Many have been saying this for a long, long time.
  • @Shipwreck_Will That's what happens when fat cats moved pretty much of all of manufacturing to China primarily to take advantage of the cheap labour. What else did these morons think was going to happen? The poor sods would continue to do menial work whilst corporations got rich? Hell no, the people there looked at what they were doing and realised they could do the same thing themselves as they already make the manufacturing equipment too. Combined with the CCP's adversary to anyone that is not part of the ccp. It was a recipe for the current situation. So the CCP provided shielding for many companies whilst they got to grips of making things themselves even if it meant ripping off other brands, Intellectual property etc. But here in is the rub, “Intellectual property” is now solely the purview of the rich, corporations and patent trolls. When was the last anyone invented something that didn't get mired in litigation, bought out and shelved etc. Anyway, on the flipside given most electronics are made in China. People need to think carefully about buying decisions - buying second hand should be first port of call. Plus that also reduces e-waste as well as the negative associated aspects of e-waste.
  • asdf asdf adsf
  • Good informative article. My opinion on the China comments: I can understand a company trying to stay neutral in order to do business in China. That's a large market and a source of low-cost manufacturing. I get not wanting to rock that boat. However, I have a much harder time accepting a company taking the added step of prostrating itself before the Chinese government and retracting prior statements that may have been critical of genocide or communism (as if there could be any justification for either of those horrors). This is doubly bad for Intel, because they were recently promoting the fact that they were setting up foundries in the US to reduce dependence on China for manufacturing... only to completely undermine the US-marketing value of that position with their kowtowing to the Chinese Communist party. No US company should ever grovel or roll over and pee on itself to demonstrate its submissiveness to the Communist party of China, or, worse, suggest fealty thereto. That makes America as a whole look weak and spineless. Sadly, the once great company Intel has insulted all of us who count the United States of America as our primary home. I truly hope it can find a way to undo this mistake and reclaim the high ground, standing against genocide and for freedom.
  • Standing against genocide and for freedom
    Says an american
    Ignoring the genocide of native americans
    Go to bed America your free to do what we tell you.
    Thank you Bill Hicks
  • Peter, I assume you're a Brit? Do you have the expression there, "Two wrongs don't make a right?" Just because the American government did bad things in the 18th and 19th centuries, doesn't through some warped logic mean that China should get pats on the back for doing it today. And while I'm definitely not excusing it (I completely agree that the American government lying to and seeking to kill off Native Americans was a horrible crime), but if you put yourselves in the minds of the people at the time, not the happy safe views of 2022, those former tribal nations had been at war with the US too -- killing Americans, and at the start of those wars, the American government and the Indian nations had similar military power to each other (that changed over time, so that the American government became much more powerful). Those in government at the time viewed their actions as appropriate justice during and following war. The closer parallel there would be the Treaty of Versailles after WW I, which relegated the Germans to a terrible existence after their defeat, which in turn nurtured anger and resentment, giving rise to the Germany that would then start WW II. Again, that's no excuse, what the US did then was absolutely wrong, but at least view it in the actual context in which it happened. More important, no one alive today contributed to or participated in those crimes of centuries past. You are not responsible for the sins or crimes of your forefathers, neither are we. In China, in stark contrast, the current government is actively killing off its people today.
  • Ignorant.
    I am descended from the first tribes on turtle island and you're spouting colonialist apologia. Also, Uyghur genocide is a US imperialist myth to push a new cold war agenda against China. The Uyghur genocide nonsense comes from far-right Christian ideologues who believe it's their God-given duty to fight the CPC and crush it. All imperialist nonsense. The days of US global hegemony is coming to a close. We're moving into a multi-polar world and Americans are going to have to come to grips with what that means, or collapse under their hubris.
  • Bla bla.
    Native Americans were like almost all humans on the planet descended from someone who migrated. Native Indians came across Alaska via what we now call Russia.
    Tribes fought each other (and were cruel in doing so, gruesome killings)
    They also had white slaves who could “earn” their freedom.
    Point being, everyone’s ancestors at some point did something heinous. What matters is what is happening today. If you deny the genocide and brutal regime in China - then you are beyond reasonable debate.
  • deadonthefloor, you are conflating various unrelated points. Whether the United States of America prospers or collapses into dust has ZERO bearing on whether or not China's behavior is acceptable. What China is doing is horrific. Period. That is a fact regardless of whether or not the US is perfect or just as bad. It's also not just the Uyghurs, but the Tibetan Monks and Dalai Lama, the tennis player (can't recall her name right now) who was just punished and sent to a reeducation camp for accusing a Communist party member of sexually assaulting her, the people of Hong Kong who want only to continue their freedom being crushed by the Communist government, the currency manipulation that suppresses the standard of living of all people in China.... Also, I think you have the "imperialist" accusation backwards: Taiwan. The ONLY reason China gets away with what it's doing without at least a massive outcry is because it's a powerful and vindictive country that everyone fears to cross, including many powerful people in the US and Europe, because they have business interests in China that matter more to them than stopping genocide. Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia slaughtering Serbs... those are the parallels. How can you defend such atrocities? If anything, I would think the historic experiences of your ancestors (similar to mine as a Jew), would make you extra sensitive to persecution based on race or religion.
  • Marco Rubio, that's rich calling Intel a coward when he too is a coward and a spineless one too. Maybe if he wasn't actively styming support for the American people by following Republican party lines. He'd have some crediblity.
  • So, you're of the mindset that if someone has a different viewpoint, they have no credibility? You must be super fun at parties. He's a Republican and, yes, generally speaking, agrees with Republican party values. This is no different than Joe Biden supporting Democratic Party values. Each party has ideas for the American people which they think serves the citizenry the best. For one party it means personal and economic freedom (i.e., free markets), minimal government, etc. and for the other it means a large social safety net including nationalized healthcare, support for individual cultural identity (i.e., salad bowl), etc. Rather than lambasting someone for having a different opinion, try to say one nice thing about someone with whom you disagree.
  • That's a massive assumption on your part. Marco Rubio has no credibility what so ever. Just look at his U-turn after 45 became the republican party nominee. I am not going to list all the examples as I will die of old age as the list is extremely long. Anyone who doesn't stick to their words has zero crediblity. This is not about values, if you want to talk about values. Ask yourself why does the republican party not want to assist with the investigation into January 6? As they had ample opportunity to put forth candidates. No, placing potential subjects of investigation in a panel is not assisting. The entire planet saw what happened that day. It was a maga mob. No ifs, no buts. Ask yourself do you want maternity leave, parental leave, bookable time off from work so you could attend a family event such as a play, visit someone in hospital without worrying about getting fired or losing out on money for bills? If you want that then why on earth would you ever vote republican?
    Manchin is a under cover republican. But even then, Republicans could have come out and called out Manchin and said they were going to support giving people paid leave. But did they? Nope. That's a second example.
  • TechFreak1, you know I love your technical assessments here and I've learned much from your comments in those areas, but on these matters your ad hominem attacks just come across as petty. Of course it's fine to completely disagree with Rubio, but to say he "has no credibility what so ever" is just silly. People can disagree for a variety of fair reasons without either being necessarily right or wrong. Usually, the difference is on priority or slight ethical differences that lead to very different policy preferences. When you dig down, even today, most Americans agree on far, far, far more than we disagree. We all want everyone to be safe, healthy, happy, and well off. The differences are just on how we best think government can help reach those goals. I'll over-simplify and summarize to make the point, I realize this isn't entirely correct, but I hope it helps understand those with whom you may disagree without hating them so much: Democrats believe in helping those who need help as the chief priority and don't think the means used to do so are particularly important, whether it's taxing those with more than they need or imposing vaccine mandates on people to save their lives, hence their support for various social and welfare programs to effect those. Republicans believe that anyone and everyone can achieve complete success through talent, innovation, or hard work and believe in giving everyone the freedom to succeed or fail. They also believe that where freedom brings out the best in people, which in turn creates jobs and wealth that benefit everyone, giving things to people is just a form of enslaving them (like the drug dealer giving away the first few doses for free), hence their opposition to most social and welfare programs. Neither of those is necessarily right or wrong, good or evil, they are just different valid perspectives that lead to very different policy preferences. I urge you to respect the views of others just as you would no doubt want others to respect your perspective.
  • Oh boo hoo. The guy who is still supporting regime change in Latin America doesn't like a tech company. Rubio is one of the worst neocons in office today.