Intel Faces Leadership Departures at Ohio Fab Project Amid Delays and Economic Struggles
Intel’s ongoing challenges in its foundry and manufacturing operations have been compounded by the departure of several key figures tied to its high-profile Ohio One facility. According to a report by Columbus Business First, multiple leaders directly involved with the project have left the company, including Kevin Hoggatt, a central lobbyist who was instrumental in securing administrative support for the fab.
Hoggatt, who worked on Intel’s government relations team, confirmed his departure in a LinkedIn post. He noted his presence at the Ohio One groundbreaking ceremony alongside President Biden, as well as his role accompanying Intel’s interim co-CEO David Zinsner during President Trump’s inauguration. His bipartisan involvement highlights the significant role he played in establishing Intel’s collaborative ties with U.S. administrations as the company sought to expand domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
Hoggatt’s departure is not isolated. Other figures tied to the Ohio fab have also exited, including Toby Starr (Public Affairs Manager), Sanjay Patel (Construction Site Manager), and Tom Marshall (Senior Program Manager, Foundry Division). Their exits underscore growing concerns about Intel’s ability to deliver on its promised U.S. chipmaking expansion.
Intel’s Ohio One facility was announced three years ago with fanfare, pitched as a cornerstone of U.S. efforts to regain semiconductor independence. However, despite its strategic importance, high-end process production at the site now appears unlikely to begin before 2031.
The timeline reflects broader economic pressures at Intel. Team Blue has been grappling with weak financial performance, foundry delays, and investment cutbacks. Its Oregon site is also facing layoffs and reduced commitments, painting a picture of slowed momentum at a time when rivals like TSMC and Samsung are pushing forward aggressively.
For now, Intel’s focus is shifting toward reducing operating losses and ensuring that ongoing projects generate measurable returns. While the Ohio facility remains a long-term strategic asset, current market conditions suggest that domestic expansion has taken a backseat to short-term financial stabilization.
The departure of high-level staff connected to Ohio One only adds further uncertainty to Intel’s U.S. semiconductor ambitions and raises questions about whether Team Blue can sustain momentum in its bid to reclaim leadership in global chipmaking.
Do you think Intel can still deliver on its Ohio fab vision, or will delays and leadership shake-ups put the project too far behind rivals like TSMC?
