In its short 14-year history, GlobalFoundries has risen to become the world’s third-largest chip foundry. Based in upstate New York, GlobalFoundries isn’t a household name because it’s manufacturing semiconductors that are designed and sold by other companies.
But it’s quietly helping power nearly every connected device.
“Look at every electronic device in your house, and I would bet you money that every one of those devices has at least one GlobalFoundries chip in it,” Thomas Caulfield, GlobalFoundries CEO, told CNBC.
GlobalFoundries chips are inside everything from smartphones and cars to smart speakers and Bluetooth-enabled dishwashers. They’re also in the servers running generative artificial intelligence models, a market that’s booming so quickly that chipmakerNvidia has surpassed a $1 trillion market cap and is forecasting 170% sales growth this quarter.
Within generative AI, GlobalFoundries isn’t focused on making the powerful graphics processing units (GPUs) used to train large language models like ChatGPT. Instead, the company is manufacturing chips that perform functions like power management, connecting to displays, or enabling wireless connections.
Caulfield says AI is “the catalyst for our industry to double in the next eight years and GF will have its fair share, if not more, of that opportunity.”
Now, as tensions with China raise concerns over the world’s reliance on TSMC, and the U.S. and China play technological tug-of-war with export controls, GlobalFoundries finds itself positioned well outside the geopolitical crosshairs. The company has spent about $7 billion to expandproduction in Singapore, Germany, France and upstate New York.
CNBC went to Malta, New York, for a firsthand look at the fabrication plant where GlobalFoundries is adding 800 acres, to ask how the company plans to stay ahead while developing the older chips still essential for everyday devices.
‘It worked out for everybody’
The story began in 2009, when Advanced Micro Devices decided to break off its manufacturing operations into a separate company and focus entirely on designing chips. The newly formed GlobalFoundries took over AMD’s chip fabrication plant, or fab, in Dresden, Germany. At the time, it was a joint venture between AMD and the government of Abu Dhabi’s tech investment arm. Moorhead was working at AMD.
“Our founder, Jerry Sanders, at AMD said, ‘real men have fabs.’ So the thought of spinning out the fab from AMD into its own company was a really big deal,” Moorhead said. AMD “had to do it,” he added, because “the expenses for a leading edge fab were doubling every two or three years. And right now we’re looking at investments of campuses upwards of $100 billion.”
“I think it worked out for everybody,” Moorhead said.
GlobalFoundries started building its new fab, and future headquarters, in Malta in 2009. The next year, it expanded into Singapore with the purchase of Chartered Semiconductor. By 2015, it had acquired IBM‘s in-house semiconductor division, taking over production sites in Vermont and New York. By 2018, GlobalFoundries was a $6 billion business.
“Unfortunately, it had a strategy that was not able to produce profitability or free cash flow,” said Caulfield. “So in 2018, when I became the CEO of GlobalFoundries, we decided to make a strategic pivot to focus all our energy, all our R&D, all of our capital deployment to go be the very best at these essential chips. And that began a journey to turning our company around to profitability.”
To this day, GlobalFoundries only makes 12-nanometer chips and above, or what it calls “essential” chips.
GlobalFoundries CEO Thomas Caulfield shows a 300mm wafer to CNBC’s Katie Tarasov at Fab 8 in Malta, New York, on September 5, 2023.
Carlos Waters
“If you do secure pay transactions, whether it’s on your credit card or on your smart mobile device, we make the chip that does that,” Caulfield said. “Do you like the photographs your camera takes? Well, we make image sensor processors that drive that camera. Do you like the battery life on your phone? We make the PMICs, the power management ICs that make sure that power is managed on these devices.”
During the 2021 chip shortage, GlobalFoundries told CNBC it sold out entirely. That same year, the company went public on the Nasdaq.
“Ultimately, we really need these chips,” said Daniel Newman, CEO of research firm Futurum Group. “We found that out because we had parking lots full of pickup trucks that couldn’t be shipped because they couldn’t put the ECU in or they couldn’t install power seats. So GlobalFoundries had a really strong market requirement.”
“Not only do we have a high concentration of semiconductor manufacturing in Taiwan between TSMC and UMC, but TSMC is twice the size of the other four companies combined,” Caulfield said.
TSMC makes more than 90% of the world’s most-advanced microchips, creating vulnerability during supply chain backlogs as well as risks tied to China’s continued threats to invade Taiwan. Like GlobalFoundries, TSMC also makes older nodes. Caulfield said GlobalFoundries is absolutely going after TSMC.
“Not only do we have aspirations, we think in certain areas we’ve won,” Caulfield said. He pointed to his company’s radio frequency chips and silicon on insulator technology.
“Silicon on insulator is a huge differentiator when it comes to power, and TSMC doesn’t use that,” Moorhead said.
At a time of geopolitical turmoil, GlobalFoundries is investing about $7 billion to add capacity in parts of the world with lower risk.
In Singapore, the company just completed a $4 billion expansion that it says makes it the country’s most-advanced fab. In June, it finalized a deal with STMicroelectronics to build a jointly owned fab in Crolles, France.
Not all global expansion endeavors have gone smoothly, however. In 2017, GlobalFoundries made big plans for a fab in Chengdu, China. In 2020, it backed out.
“It turned out we had three relatively large facilities around the world already that were severely underloaded,” Caulfield said. “Adding more capacity at a time when we couldn’t fill our existing capacity was just going to create a bigger economic hole for us.”
The U.S. has recently enacted a series of export bans on chip companies sending advanced tech to China. By only producing older nodes, GlobalFoundries says it’s been “very minimally” impacted.
Making chips in the U.S.
Although GlobalFoundries’ chips are considered legacy nodes, the process and resources needed are still incredibly complex. Caulfield said each silicon wafer goes through at least 1,000 steps over 90 days in the Malta fab. The process requires extensive cleaning, cooling and chemical treatment, which uses a lot of water. GlobalFoundries says Fab 8 uses about 4 million gallons of water a day, reclaiming 65% of that.
“Upstate New York is a very good place for access to high-quality and abundant water,” Caulfield said.
All the heavy machinery also requires about 2 gigawatts of power per day, according to Hui Peng Koh, who heads up the Malta fab. She said it’s enough power to “run a small city.”
“I would say our lowest-cost power is in the U.S.,” Caulfield said. “A lot of our power in upstate New York, where this facility is at, comes from hydroelectric, so it’s a greener power. In both Europe and Singapore, much of that power comes off of natural gas.”
Then there’s the manpower. GlobalFoundries has 13,000 employees worldwide. About 1,500 people report to Koh in Malta. She told CNBC it’s “challenging to attract talent to this part of the world.”
The high cost of materials and construction work also make building a fab in the U.S. more expensive than in much of Asia, so public subsidies have been key for reshoring production. GlobalFoundries said New York pitched in more than $2 billion for the Malta fab. The company also applied for funds from the $52 billion national CHIPS and Science Act. Focusing on 12-nanometer and above also helps the company keep costs down.
GlobalFoundries’ Fab 8 in Malta, New York, where Equipment Engineering Manager Chris Belfi led CNBC’s Katie Tarasov on a tour on September 5, 2023.
GlobalFoundries said it’s putting out 400,000 wafers per year from its Malta fab. While Caulfield wouldn’t put a dollar figure on the wafers, he said at any given time, there’s “about a half-billion dollars worth of inventory that’s running over those 90 days to create product.”
GlobalFoundries’ main customers for this massive output of essential chips are the world’s largest fabless chip companies, including Qualcomm, AMD, NXP and Infineon.
Eventually, many of its chips end up in the auto, aerospace, and U.S. defense industries.
GlobalFoundries is known for making “specialty chips” in big, exclusive deals, like one with Lockheed Martin in June for onshoring production of certain chips, and a recent $3 billion agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense.
Newman said GlobalFoundries has around 50 such long-term agreements.
“Effectively they’re saying, ‘We will create a stable margin commitment capacity and if the market shifts, we’re going to stand by the letter of our agreement,'” he said.
For companies hit hardest by the chip shortage, a deal with GlobalFoundries is a hedge against it happening again. In February, General Motors set aside exclusive production capacity at the Malta fab.
“GM, their lines got held up for very low-cost components because they couldn’t get enough,” Moorhead said. “What GM decided is that this is too much supply chain risk. We’re going to go directly to GF.”
GlobalFoundries says automotive is one of its fastest-growing segments. It makes many different kinds of chips for cars: the microcontrollers for power seats, airbags and braking; the sensing chips for cameras and Lidar; and battery management chips for electric vehicles.
Meanwhile, the growth of GlobalFoundries’ smartphone business is decelerating, alongside an industrywide slowdown. GlobalFoundries laid off 800 employees in December and January, and issued weaker-than-expected revenue guidance for the third quarter.
“Smart mobile devices last year represented 46% of our revenue,” Caulfield said. “While it grew last year, it was 50% the year before. So we’ve been trying to build our other business and to get more balanced, rather than having such a high exposure to smart mobile devices.”
Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX.
Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.
Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit.
“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.
To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.
Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform.
The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much.
The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms.
“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.
“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”
It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.
Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively.
X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.
Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.
Artificial intelligence training
X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.
“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.
Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually.
X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.
“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.
Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different.
The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center.
Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.
Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training.
“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.
Liquidated damages
Another unusual aspect of X’s new terms is its “liquidated damages” clause. The terms state that if users request, view or access more than 1 million posts – including replies, videos, images and others – in any 24-hour period they are liable for damages of $15,000.
While most individual users won’t easily approach that threshold, the clause is concerning for some, including digital researchers. They rely on the analysis of larger numbers of public posts from services like X to do their work.
X’s new terms of service are a “disturbing move that the company should reverse,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in an October statement.
“The public relies on journalists and researchers to understand whether and how the platforms are shaping public discourse, affecting our elections, and warping our relationships,” Abdo wrote. “One effect of X Corp.’s new terms of service will be to stifle that research when we need it most.”
Neither Threads nor Bluesky have anything similar to X’s liquidated damages clause.
Meta and X did not respond to requests for comment.
A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”
The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.
“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.
The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.
Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.
Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.
Concern with Congress and a changing White House
The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.
As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.
Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.
Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.
Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military
John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.
Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.
In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.
Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.
Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.
Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.
Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.
“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.
He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.
Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.