The internal crisis at Intel deepens with the departure of several executives linked to its ambitious chip factory project in Ohio, known as Ohio One. Announced in 2022, this initiative aimed to turn the state into the new industrial hub for semiconductors in the United States. Three years later, progress falls far short of promises, and now the company faces an additional problem: losing strategic figures in government relations and project management.
Departure of a Politically Influential Lobbyist
Among the most notable departures is Kevin Hoggatt, Vice President of Industrial and Governmental Affairs, considered one of the main architects of Intel’s strategy to garner institutional support for the project. Hoggatt played a key role in negotiations with the Biden administration and also maintained bridges during Donald Trump’s presidency, making him a prominent figure in Washington and in Ohio itself.
In a LinkedIn post, Hoggatt reflected on pivotal moments from his career at the company: from laying the first stone of the complex alongside President Joe Biden and Governor Mike DeWine to participating in business forums and promoting the sector to the local community. “I am proud to have contributed to positioning Ohio as the future Silicon Heartland,” he wrote, emphasizing that the project will remain strategic for the company despite delays.
Other Executives Also Leave the Ship
Hoggatt’s departure was not an isolated event. He’s joined by Toby Starr, responsible for public affairs; Sanjay Patel, construction project director; and Tom Marshall, senior program manager in the foundry division. This exodus raises questions about the project’s stability and Intel’s ability to meet announced deadlines.
The company presented Ohio One as the most advanced semiconductor factory on U.S. soil, with an initial planned investment of over $20 billion. However, recent reports suggest the plant won’t be operational until 2031, nearly a decade after its announcement. Meanwhile, the Oregon complex — considered the company’s flagship — is also experiencing cuts and massive layoffs.
A Context of Slowdown and Cuts
Intel, which still holds the title of the only U.S. company manufacturing cutting-edge logic semiconductors, is going through a complex period. Its foundry division, created to compete with giants like TSMC and Samsung, has not met expectations. The strategy of former CEO Pat Gelsinger, based on reclaiming technological leadership through the “five nodes in four years” plan, now faces a tougher reality: rising costs, process delays, and fierce international competition.
The financial pressures are forcing the multinational to prioritize reducing operational losses over strategic investments. Although the CHIPS Act, passed in 2022, provided Intel with billion-dollar subsidies, the project execution schedule remains sluggish. Ohio’s case is emblematic: despite institutional publicity and political symbolism, the plant has yet to produce chips.
Impact on U.S. Industrial Policy
This situation sparks broader debate about the technology reindustrialization strategy pushed from Washington. Ohio’s project was presented as an example of America’s commitment to reduce dependence on Asia for microchip production, especially in the wake of the pandemic and the 2020-2021 supply chain crisis. Yet, the lack of tangible results erodes the official narrative and highlights the challenges of building a capital- and knowledge-intensive industry amid global uncertainty.
Experts note that beyond the immediate impact on Intel, the slowdown may discourage other ecosystem players. “The exit of profiles like Hoggatt means losing interlocutors with direct access to political decision circles, which delays additional support and breeds distrust in the supply chain,” industry analysts explain.
Brain Drain as a Structural Symptom
The phenomenon is not limited to Ohio. Reports from Oregon — where Intel maintains its historic facilities — speak of
The talent exodus also reflects a shift in sector perception: whereas a decade ago working at Intel symbolized stability and prestige, today professionals seek more agile projects with less dependence on political and financial fluctuations.
Official Narratives Versus Reality
Despite the challenges, institutional messages remain optimistic. Both the White House and Ohio’s government stress that Intel’s project will have a transformative impact on the local economy, creating thousands of direct and indirect jobs. However, the 2031 operational date contrasts with initial expectations and forces a more cautious tone.
Meanwhile, Ohio’s business ecosystem has begun diversifying to avoid relying solely on Intel. Training programs, tech hubs, and partnerships with other companies aim to capitalize on the initial momentum, though uncertainties about the pace of construction persist.
Conclusion
The departure of key figures like Kevin Hoggatt and others marks a turning point for the Ohio One project and, by extension, Intel’s strategy to regain ground in the global semiconductor industry. The delay until 2031 to start production reveals the scale of challenges: from funding and talent retention to competition from global rivals.
Intel remains an essential player in U.S. industrial policy, but its ability to realize promises made in Ohio will be critical in determining whether the Silicon Heartland becomes a reality or remains a symbol of missed opportunities.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Intel Ohio One project?
It’s a semiconductor factory complex announced in 2022 in Ohio, with a planned investment of over $20 billion, aimed at boosting local production of advanced chips in the U.S.
Why has the Ohio plant’s opening been delayed?
The delay is due to factors such as Intel’s economic slowdown, difficulties within its foundry division, technological progress lagging behind schedule, and the departure of key executives. It is now estimated that it won’t be operational until 2031.
What is the impact of Kevin Hoggatt’s and other executive’s departures?
It results in the loss of strategic contacts in politics and project management. This talent drain complicates institutional relations and heightens uncertainty about Ohio’s complex future.
How does Intel’s situation affect U.S. industrial policy?
The slowdown of Ohio One weakens the goal of reducing dependence on Asia for chip manufacturing. While the government maintains its reindustrialization narrative, delays cast doubt on the effectiveness of the CHIPS Act and the subsidies provided.
Image and information via: LinkedIn