Perhaps Reuters is glossing over the way in which Intel's letter phrased things, but it certainly sounds as if they were utterly clueless about the subject being politically sensitive. Vs. (say) "Per U.S. law [exact, legalistic citation], signed into law on [date] by [President], Intel is legally forced to require that [dull, narrow, legalistic description of requirement, free of any hot-buttons]." Placed amid similar citations of other new laws - some of them Chinese - which affect Intel's supply chain.

Arguments about whether or not the third rail should carry 10,000 volts can be made all day. But corporate management that gets electrocuted because they were simply oblivious needs to be replaced.