In an editorial published in Assets In October, board members said that splitting Intel into two companies — one focused on developing its own microprocessors and one focused on being a “foundry” to make chips for other companies — was the only way to “stop the bleeding.” and ensure that the most advanced chips continue to be made in America.

“Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger is a true technologist who has played an important role in the company’s storied past. Today he is faced with a difficult decision: whether to dissolve the cult company. He already announced a plan to create Intel Foundry as an independent subsidiary within Intel. But that doesn’t go far enough,” the former directors wrote, calling instead for Intel to split its design and manufacturing divisions into two entirely separate companies.

Gelsinger made it his mission to revitalize Intel as a leading manufacturer when he returned to the company as CEO in 2021 after previously leading VMWare. When he took the job, Intel was struggling with manufacturing problems that had caused it to lose its lead over Taiwan’s TSMC in producing the most advanced chips. Meanwhile, demand for Nvidia’s AI-optimized chips is hurting Intel’s sales.

The U.S. government has promised nearly $8 billion in grants to Intel under the CHIPS Act.

In their October commentary, the former board members — David B. Yoffie, Reed Hundt, Charlene Barshefsky and James Plummer — said the U.S. government should condition its financial support on Intel splitting into two companies.

“The government has the influence to force Intel onto a better path – and it must use it now.”

While the full details of Gelsinger’s surprise exit have not yet been announced, the former Intel directors’ open letter provides valuable insight into the challenges the CEO faces in his final weeks at the company.