Middle Eastern Countries Intensify Efforts to Develop AI Industry
Saudi Arabia Strengthens ‘AI Alliance’ with the U.S.
WSJ: “Be Aware of Potential Project Reductions, Cancellations, and Geopolitical Risks”

Countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), are making aggressive investments in artificial intelligence (AI). They are investing substantial sums of money in developing their domestic AI industries while also forming strategic alliances with AI powerhouses like the United States, in an effort to diversify their economies. However, some analysts caution that the AI investment frenzy in the region could cool at any moment, and companies that benefit from it should remain vigilant.

“Oil Money” Pouring into AI

According to the IT industry, on the 17th, Middle Eastern nations are intensifying their focus on developing AI to reduce reliance on the oil industry. The UAE launched the Artificial Intelligence and Advanced Technology Council (AIATC) and established a dedicated investment firm to inject USD 100 billion into the AI sector. It has also created the world's largest global hub for AI and tech companies, the “AI and Web3 Incubator,” and unveiled the “UAE National AI Strategy,” which aims to make the UAE a global leader in AI by 2031.

Saudi Arabia is supporting its AI industry through the “Vision 2030” initiative, an economic reform project announced by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2016. The core goal is to diversify Saudi Arabia’s oil-dependent economy by leveraging data and AI. As part of this, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) plans to invest USD 100 billion in AI between 2019 and 2029, focusing on supporting AI startups and building AI infrastructure.

Middle Eastern countries are also investing heavily in AI companies based in the U.S. and other advanced economies. The UAE-backed AI investment firm MGX last year partnered with Microsoft and BlackRock to launch the “Global AI Infrastructure Investment Partnership” (GAIIP), a fund worth over USD 30 billion. MGX also took part in OpenAI’s USD 6.6 billion funding round. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s PIF is reportedly in talks with U.S. venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz to form a USD 40 billion partnership.

U.S.–UAE AI Cooperation Expands

AI alliances between Middle Eastern countries and the U.S. are becoming increasingly robust. On May 15 (local time), the White House announced an agreement with the UAE to build the largest AI data center outside the United States. This 5GW-capacity center will be located in Abu Dhabi and constructed under the leadership of G42, an AI company backed by the UAE sovereign wealth fund. Although the participating U.S. companies have not been disclosed, market speculation includes AI chip leaders Nvidia and AMD, as well as OpenAI and SoftBank, which are developing the “Stargate Project.”

To facilitate cooperation with the UAE, the U.S. Department of Commerce also signaled plans to remove the “AI Dissemination Rule.” Introduced under the Biden administration, this rule classifies countries into three tiers to regulate the export of U.S.-made AI chips. Tier 1, the “Inner Circle,” includes the U.S. and key allies such as the Five Eyes (the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), major Western European countries, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan—these countries face no restrictions. Tier 2, comprising countries primarily located in Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, can purchase U.S. AI chips but face country-specific quotas. Tier 3 includes 22 nations such as China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Syria, which are essentially barred from importing U.S. AI chips.

Following the announcement of these regulatory relaxations, U.S. tech firms began securing major contracts in the Middle East. On May 13, Nvidia announced it would supply 18,000 units of its latest high-performance AI chip, the GB300, to a USD 10 billion data center project led by Saudi-owned AI firm Humane. Nvidia is expected to supply hundreds of thousands more chips to Saudi Arabia over the next five years. AMD, Nvidia’s rival, will also provide AI chips and software for the same project. U.S. network and cybersecurity giant Cisco is contributing its technologies to ensure a secure and efficient AI infrastructure for Humane.

Sustainability of Investment Boom in Question

While U.S. companies are enjoying massive benefits from the Middle East’s AI investment boom, some analysts warn that caution is warranted. On June 16, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that although Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are making sweeping AI investments, there is a history in the region of projects being abruptly scaled back or canceled. Doubts remain over whether these AI investments will yield sustainable returns.

Indeed, the region has seen high-profile investment projects suddenly canceled or altered. A prime example is Saudi Arabia’s NEOM project, launched in 2017 to build a futuristic city near the Red Sea, bordering Jordan and Egypt. Spanning 44 times the size of Seoul, it was divided into three major components: The Line (a linear vertical city), Oxagon (an advanced octagon-shaped industrial city), and Trojena (an eco-friendly mountain tourism complex), with a total projected cost of USD 1 trillion.

However, the momentum behind NEOM has noticeably slowed this year, as Saudi Arabia has prioritized funding for major international events like the 2029 Asian Winter Games, the 2030 Riyadh Expo, and the 2034 FIFA World Cup. As a result, NEOM has effectively been relegated in priority. According to fDi Intelligence, an investment-focused outlet under the UK’s Financial Times, Saudi Arabia’s PIF has cut its NEOM-related budget by up to 60% this year. In December 2023, a USD 3.6 billion contract related to NEOM was also scrapped.

WSJ further emphasized that the region’s persistent geopolitical risks cannot be overlooked. The recent military clash between Israel and Iran underscores this reality. Should tensions between the two escalate into full-blown war, the AI investment fever in the Middle East could quickly subside. Prolonged conflict may force governments in the region to shift their political and economic priorities, putting the profitability of U.S. tech companies in serious jeopardy.

"Part of Global Business Expansion"
"High Likelihood of Overseas Production"
"U.S. Telecom Market Offers Growth and Sustainability"

The Trump family’s venture into the smartphone and telecom industry has ignited a flurry of attention—and controversy. With a gold-colored device proudly branded with “Make America Great Again” and a suite of telecom services bundled under “Trump Mobile,” the initiative unmistakably courts Donald Trump’s conservative base. Yet, behind the patriotic messaging lies a complicated web of contradictions, particularly regarding overseas manufacturing and ethical concerns that once again blur the line between politics and personal business.

As Trump continues to promote a nationalist, America-first economic agenda, critics are pointing to what they call “selective patriotism”—a convenient disregard for his own standards when business interests are involved. This venture, observers argue, not only exposes those contradictions but also raises new questions about how far the Trump brand is willing to go in transforming political loyalty into consumer capital.

A Bold Launch Blurring Political and Commercial Lines

On June 16, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump convened a press conference at Trump Tower in New York to announce the official launch of Trump Mobile, their family's newest foray into the tech and telecom space. The Trumps laid out their ambitious vision: to challenge dominant telecom operators like AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, while also entering the competitive hardware arena alongside Apple and Samsung.

“This is more than just a phone—it’s a movement,” declared Eric Trump, emphasizing their goal to both innovate the telecommunications industry and transform Trump Mobile into one of the world’s top tech platforms.

Instead of building its own telecommunications infrastructure, the Trump Mobile service will operate as a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO), which means it will lease access to existing networks. This approach is akin to South Korea’s "budget phone" model. The announced USD 47.45 monthly plan promises to deliver nationwide 5G coverage, free international calls to over 100 countries, 24-hour roadside assistance, and remote medical consultations—an expansive package targeting both convenience and security. The service is expected to launch in August, although the company has not revealed its network partners or service providers.

Alongside the telecom plan is the T1 smartphone, a signature gold-colored device emblazoned with the U.S. flag and Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan. The phone runs on Android 15 and comes equipped with a 6.8-inch AMOLED display, a 16-megapixel front camera, a 50-megapixel main camera, 12GB of RAM, and 256GB of internal storage. It is set to retail for USD 499.

However, the timing and optics of the launch have triggered fresh scrutiny. Despite Donald Trump’s public claims of disengagement from the daily management of his family’s enterprises, the Trump Organization continues to expand aggressively into new sectors—from real estate and media to cryptocurrency. One of its newer ventures, World Liberty Financial, a crypto firm launched in October 2024, has already amassed more than USD 57 million in revenue, according to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

With this latest move, many critics believe Trump is once again testing the ethical boundaries between his business interests and political identity, raising concerns about using public office to fuel private gain.

The Patriotism Dilemma: Made in America—or Not?

The Trump family’s messaging around the launch touts American values and patriotism. Yet, the venture’s apparent dependence on foreign supply chains starkly contradicts Donald Trump’s longstanding rhetoric on manufacturing and economic nationalism.

Just one month before the Trump Mobile announcement, the former president issued a public threat to impose tariffs exceeding 25% on smartphone manufacturers such as Apple and Samsung if they failed to relocate their production facilities to the United States by the end of 2025. While the message was widely seen as targeting Apple’s new factory in India, Trump was clear that Samsung, too, would not be spared.

These pronouncements earned him praise from conservative supporters, who have long championed his “America First” approach. But Trump Mobile’s manufacturing model seems to fly in the face of these values. Given that the majority of smartphone components and devices sold in the U.S. are assembled overseas, industry experts argue that large-scale domestic production is not only improbable—it’s virtually impossible.

The Washington Post, citing an anonymous telecom insider, remarked: “Building a supply chain takes time. If making smartphones domestically were that easy, other companies would have done it already.”

Garrett Schneemann of Counterpoint Research reinforced this skepticism, suggesting that the Trump T1 phone bears a strong resemblance to T-Mobile’s REVVL 7, a model currently manufactured in China. Though Trump Mobile has not confirmed the origins of the T1’s production—and the phone has yet to be released—its similarity to an already existing Chinese-made model has fueled speculation that the Trump Group is relying on the very same global supply networks Donald Trump has consistently condemned.

This contradiction has prompted many to accuse Trump of espousing “selective patriotism”—wielding nationalist rhetoric when politically expedient, while making business decisions that rely on the same international systems he claims to oppose. If confirmed, this would further erode the credibility of his oft-repeated pledge to “bring manufacturing back to America.”

Political Loyalty as a Business Model

While the Trump Group’s patriotic messaging has captured attention, market analysts suggest that the true driving force behind the venture may be less ideological and more financial. The U.S. telecom sector, after all, is a lucrative and relatively stable industry—especially when paired with a strong subscriber base.

The success story of the T-Mobile and Sprint merger offers a telling precedent. Historically trailing behind AT&T and Verizon, the combined entity quickly shot up to second place in market share post-merger. T-Mobile’s stock surged by over 70% in a single year, thanks in large part to aggressive investment from SoftBank Chairman Masayoshi Son, who held an 88% stake in Sprint. His bold infrastructure spending transformed the competitive landscape.

The U.S. telecom industry is known for its high entry barriers but reliable revenue streams. Once network infrastructure is secured, companies can offer bundled services—cable, internet, mobile—and lock in long-term subscriptions. These structural advantages make the industry appealing for investors willing to commit at scale.

Observers believe the Trump Group sees an opportunity to apply this model to its advantage. Already, bundling smartphones with telecom plans is a proven cash-generating strategy in the subscription economy. When combined with Trump’s powerful political brand, the result could be a new, self-reinforcing business model grounded in customer loyalty rather than technical superiority.

In this light, the Trump Mobile venture is more than just a business—it’s an extension of Trumpism into the consumer marketplace. By turning political allegiance into economic capital, the Trump Group may have found a way to convert its supporter base into long-term paying customers. As many market experts see it, the convergence of political identity and product loyalty is not a bug in the Trump economic strategy—it’s the entire feature.

Escalation of Military Clashes Between Israel and Iran
Is Israel Aiming for the Collapse of the Iranian Regime?
U.S. and Russia Call for Mediation but Refrain from Direct Involvement

The long-simmering hostility between Israel and Iran has erupted into open warfare. What was once confined to covert operations and proxy conflicts has become a dramatic and sustained military confrontation. In the span of just a few days, a dangerous rhythm of tit-for-tat missile strikes, and air raids has taken hold. Civilian neighborhoods, government buildings, and strategic facilities lie in ruins. Both nations are bracing for escalation, and the threat of a full-scale regional war looms large. Amid the chaos, major global powers—those with the leverage to mediate—stand largely on the sidelines, issuing calls for calm while avoiding direct involvement.

The latest outbreak of violence signals more than a clash of national interests. It marks a shift in the region’s balance of power, testing the resolve of governments, the resilience of populations, and the limits of diplomacy. As casualties mount and cities burn, the world watches the unfolding disaster with growing anxiety.

Clashes Intensify as Cities Become Warzones

On June 15, the Iranian capital of Tehran was the scene of a dramatic escalation. Around midday, explosions shattered the relative calm near Valiasr Square in the heart of the city. Just hours later, a series of blasts rocked northern Tehran. Iranian media swiftly confirmed that Israeli airstrikes had targeted buildings connected to the city’s police headquarters and intelligence agencies. The strikes marked a significant escalation in Israel’s campaign and struck close to key symbols of Iranian state power.

Within an hour of the initial attacks, Iran launched an unprecedented daylight missile offensive on Israeli cities. The IRNA, Iran’s state-run news agency, announced that major population centers including Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, and Haifa were under direct missile fire. This marked the first time Iran had carried out such an attack in broad daylight, signaling a bold departure from its typical after-dark tactics and a shift in strategic posture.

The exchange of fire continued into the night. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced additional missile salvos targeting Israel and issued stern warnings to Israeli citizens via national broadcasts to avoid vital infrastructure. Eyewitness reports from AFP and Reuters described sirens blaring and explosions rocking areas across Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported that Ben Gurion International Airport—Israel’s primary international hub—had been hit by missiles. The attack was interpreted as retaliation for Israel’s earlier strike on Iran’s Mashhad Airport.

As Iranian missiles rained down, Israel launched a series of precision counterattacks. Dozens of missile-related facilities in western Iran were bombarded. Notably, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs building sustained damage. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh, writing on X (formerly Twitter), condemned what he described as a deliberate attack on diplomatic institutions and revealed that numerous civilians and diplomats had been wounded.

The human toll of this escalating crisis continues to rise. Israeli relief authorities reported at least 13 dead and 380 injured over three days of attacks. Iranian health officials announced 224 fatalities, while U.S. human rights organizations, cited by the Associated Press, put the death toll at 406. The conflict’s reach has extended beyond national borders. Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that five Ukrainian nationals, including three children, were killed during an Israeli airstrike on the southern city of Bat Yam.

Operation Rising Lion: A Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Heart

The spark that ignited this deadly spiral was lit on June 13, when Israel initiated a preemptive airstrike campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. Codenamed “Operation Rising Lion,” the assault involved dozens of fighter jets striking key Iranian targets. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the mission was intended to halt what he described as an existential threat posed by Iran’s advancing nuclear program.

In public remarks, Netanyahu declared, “We have launched Operation Rising Lion to repel Iran, which threatens Israel’s survival.” He revealed that the strikes had hit the heart of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, as well as missile production sites and military command centers. He went further, stating that Iran had accumulated enough highly enriched uranium for nine nuclear bombs, and could achieve weaponization within months.

Netanyahu's rhetoric was intense and deeply symbolic. Drawing a line between past and present, he evoked the trauma of the Holocaust: “Eighty years ago, Jews were victims of the Nazi regime. Today, the Jewish state of Israel refuses to become a victim of a nuclear holocaust brought on by the Iranian regime.”

The decision to escalate militarily followed months of deadlocked nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran. Since April, the Trump administration has engaged in five rounds of talks, but they have failed to produce results. The central impasse revolves around uranium enrichment. The U.S. has insisted on a complete ban, while Iran remains firm that a total prohibition is unacceptable. The sixth round of negotiations, scheduled for June 15, was abruptly canceled in the aftermath of Israel’s initial strike.

Israel’s sense of urgency stems not only from diplomatic failure but also from a strategic assessment that time is running out. The fear is that if Iran’s nuclear progress is left unchecked, it will irreversibly shift the regional power dynamic, posing an intolerable risk to Israeli national security.

Calculating Collapse: Is Regime Change the Real Goal?

Beyond the immediate military objectives, some analysts argue that Israel’s true aim may be to trigger the downfall of the Iranian regime itself. With public dissent in Iran rising and internal fractures widening, the current moment presents a unique opportunity—at least from the perspective of Israeli strategists.

On June 15, in an interview with Fox News, Prime Minister Netanyahu openly hinted at this possibility. “The Iranian regime is very weak,” he said, “and there is a possibility that our military attacks could lead to regime change.” The comment has only intensified speculation that toppling the government in Tehran may be a central, if unofficial, goal of Operation Rising Lion.

The Iranian regime has been rocked by internal unrest, with protests erupting across the country over mandatory hijab laws, as well as broader grievances involving youth, gender rights, and ethnic minority discrimination. If the economic toll of war continues to grow, public outrage could intensify, potentially mobilizing broader calls for regime change.

There are also fears that Israel could escalate its campaign into a “decapitation operation”—a strategy focused on surgically removing top regime figures. Such a move could induce administrative paralysis, throwing the government into disarray and hastening its collapse.

This agenda may be quietly supported by major powers. Both the United States and Russia—nations with vested interests in the regional order—have expressed concern over the conflict but have stopped short of intervention. Instead, they remain in observation mode. Before departing for the G7 summit in Canada, U.S. President Donald Trump remarked, “I hope a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran can be reached, and I believe the time has come to negotiate,” before adding, “Sometimes nations need to fight it out first.” When asked if he had urged Israel to halt its airstrikes, Trump deflected: “I don’t want to comment on that.”

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has attempted to play the role of mediator, speaking by phone with both Netanyahu and Iranian leadership following the outbreak of violence. Yet despite his diplomatic gestures, Putin has provided no material support or substantive mediation effort, signaling a broader reluctance by global powers to entangle themselves directly in the conflict.

The situation between Israel and Iran has now crossed a threshold. It is no longer a matter of brinkmanship—it is a sustained and brutal conflict with global implications. The stakes have escalated beyond missile exchanges and nuclear inspections. At issue now is the stability of the Middle East, the future of nuclear nonproliferation, and possibly, the survival of a regime in Tehran. While the world watches, and while statements are made from podiums thousands of miles away, the violence on the ground continues day and night.

“The chronic problem of ‘sasaeng fans’ persists, causing turmoil in the industry.”
 “Fake fans disguised as ‘sasaengs’ are also emerging.”
 “Creating content for financial gain.”

As K-pop’s influence grows beyond Asia to captivate fans across the globe, so too does the darker side of fame—one dominated not by love or admiration, but by obsession, intrusion, and exploitation. What once started as extreme but mostly harmless fan behavior has morphed into a systemic problem: sasaeng fans, known for crossing boundaries, are now engaged in coordinated and profit-driven criminal activity. These individuals purchase illegally obtained personal information, break into celebrities’ homes, track their schedules, and photograph them without consent. They then sell this stolen intimacy back into the fandom ecosystem—creating a vicious cycle where the personal lives of idols are repeatedly violated, monetized, and consumed. What might have once been dismissed as overzealous fandom is now being recognized as a form of stalking and digital trafficking that demands legal and social accountability.

Targeting Idols at Home and Abroad

The most recent and high-profile example of sasaeng criminality occurred on June 12, when Seoul's Yongsan Police arrested a Chinese woman in her 30s who attempted to break into the home of BTS’s Jungkook. Reports indicate that she flew to Korea specifically to see him. Surveillance footage revealed her repeatedly inputting various combinations into the digital lock at his front door before she was caught and arrested on the spot for attempted trespassing. Jungkook had only recently been discharged from military service, but his experience with stalker fans is long and well documented. Prior to his enlistment and even during his military duty, he endured repeated invasions—food deliveries sent by strangers to his private residence, and uninvited fans staking out his gym. In a live broadcast during a break last December, Jungkook issued a heartfelt plea to viewers: “Please don’t come to my house.”

Yet, Jungkook’s ordeal is far from unique. In December of the same year, a young man in his 20s was sentenced to 10 months in prison for twice breaking into the former residence of the girl group NewJeans. Though the members had already moved out, the perpetrator broke in and stole personal belongings including hangers and fan-made banners. The case revealed that even after a celebrity has moved away, obsessive individuals may continue to track their past residences and patterns. This sustained fixation reflects how sasaengs operate with alarming commitment.

Veteran singer Kim Jaejoong’s experience also paints a grim picture. Over the years, he has become a repeated target of sasaengs, and his latest ordeal highlights how these invasions are no longer confined to physical spaces. Kim recently revealed that someone hacked his KakaoPay account—an incident he described as mentally crushing. “My password was changed, and when I contacted support, they told me I couldn’t delete the account unless I knew the new password. That totally broke me.” But financial violation was just one layer of the trauma. Kim shared a chilling account: someone had secretly entered his home late at night, in a residence that didn’t have a digital lock, and photographed him from behind in intimate settings like his bedroom and bathroom. The images were later sent to him via photo mail. To avoid vehicle-based tracking, he said he had to switch cars seven to eight times. “They memorized my license plate,” he said. “One person even deliberately crashed into my car.”

These are not isolated incidents—they are indicative of a broader, persistent threat to celebrities’ physical safety, mental health, and personal dignity.

Behind the Lens: The Business of Proxy Photography

While many sasaeng activities might appear driven by irrational obsession, the truth is more disturbing: some are carried out with financial gain as the primary motive. Increasingly, sasaengs are becoming organized players in an underground market where the privacy of idols is up for sale. A particularly lucrative niche has emerged: the role of 대리찍사—or proxy photographer.

These sasaengs often spend large sums of money to follow celebrities abroad, particularly to locations like Japan, where short flights make shadowing idols logistically easier. A round trip for a short international event often includes at least one or two nights of lodging. If the event includes a concert or fan meet, the costs skyrocket. According to estimates, a single trip can cost approximately USD 750. These expenses are often recouped through the resale of unauthorized photos and videos taken during these schedules.

When well-known hommas—fans who manage popular fan accounts and produce high-quality media—are unable to attend a schedule in person, they hire proxies to capture the content for them. The raw files are then edited and uploaded as if the homma had taken them. In some cases, the media is used to create physical merchandise like photo books and fan goods, which are sold for profit. While the paparazzi industry is global, the K-pop version is uniquely fueled by a blend of emotional attachment and commercial opportunism.

On social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), hashtags such as #데이터 (#data), #사후데이터 (#postdata), #대리찍사 (#proxyshooter), and #댈찍 (#shortform) yield dozens of vendors openly offering illicit media. Transactions are arranged via open KakaoTalk chat rooms, with payments accepted through KakaoPay, PayPal, and other digital channels. Some hommas even monetize exclusive stories from fan sign events—selling conversations that allegedly took place during 1:1 moments with idols. These stories appeal to general fans who are curious about what their favorite idols say to more recognizable fans, but the veracity of the content is rarely verified. Still, demand is high.

The market price of this "data" varies drastically depending on the idol group’s popularity, comeback activity, or even trending status. Though community etiquette suggests that original data should be deleted after being sold, in practice, the same files are often sold to multiple buyers. Because there's no enforcement mechanism in this black market, ethical standards are routinely ignored.

A Criminal Culture Disguised as Fandom

What makes the sasaeng phenomenon especially insidious is how it often masquerades as passionate fandom. In recent years, the rise of paid message services and private communication platforms has further blurred the lines between digital intimacy and fantasy. Some fans begin to believe they have a personal relationship with the celebrity, leading to delusional and increasingly aggressive behavior. Alarmingly, fake fans have begun to operate under the sasaeng label—chasing after idols, boasting about proximity, and even treating celebrities as if they were possessions.

Cultural critic Kim Heon-sik minced no words: "Sasaengs are not fans—they are fake fans and criminals." He warned that these individuals commit multiple forms of infringement: violating privacy, portrait rights, copyrights, and even generating deepfakes. Some resell illegally obtained content or use it to generate revenue via platforms like YouTube. “This is no longer a fringe issue,” Kim emphasized. “It affects celebrities’ mental health, sometimes to the point that it disrupts or ends their careers.” He added that the danger has now extended to influencers and ordinary individuals who live semi-public lives online. “Strong legal punishments and social sanctions are urgently needed.”

Despite increasing calls for reform, Korea’s current legal and institutional frameworks are not equipped to handle the complexities of sasaeng activity. One entertainment industry insider explained that while major agencies can pursue legal action, smaller companies and rookie idols lack the resources and often fear retaliation. “Many choose to remain silent, either because they can’t afford a legal battle or they’re afraid of what sasaengs might do next.”

This has led to growing calls for sasaeng behavior to be treated not as an internal industry issue, but as a public one, requiring institutional and societal attention. Kim argued that civic groups and public agencies must become involved. “But many still say, ‘Why should we protect celebrities?’” he lamented. “The public often thinks only of global stars, but many others—people with no real income, just brief fame—end up enduring this abuse for years. Some are targeted by sasaengs simply for appearing in a single drama or music show. Who will speak up for them?”

Refrigerators and washing machines added to list of "steel derivative products."
Samsung and LG manufacture in Vietnam and Mexico for export.
High exposure of Korean steel exports to U.S. makes impact inevitable.

The Trump administration has designated key home appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines as “steel derivative products” and decided to impose a steep tariff equivalent to 50% of the steel value. With many key export products included in the list and the implementation date imminent—set for the 23rd—Korea’s appliance industry has begun urgent response measures. Although Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics operate production bases in the U.S., their local production volume is small, and most products are manufactured in Korea, Mexico, and Vietnam, making it difficult to avoid the tariff.

U.S. to Impose 50% Tariff on Steel and Steel Derivatives

According to industry sources on the 16th, the U.S. Department of Commerce added new steel derivative products to the list subject to the 50% tariff via the Federal Register on June 12 (local time). Newly added items include: refrigerators, dryers, washing machines, dishwashers, freezers, cooking stoves, ranges, ovens, and garbage disposals.

The tariff will take effect starting June 23. Previously, in March, the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on steel and its derivatives and doubled it to 50% on June 4. Most countries, except the UK, are now subject to this 50% tariff.

Samsung and LG, both of which have U.S.-based production facilities, are urgently reviewing response strategies. However, only a limited number of products—such as some washing machines—are produced locally. To avoid the tariff, U.S.-made steel must be used, but the share of U.S.-made steel in local production is small, and the majority of appliances are produced overseas and exported to the U.S., making it hard to sidestep the added costs. According to KB Securities, exports of the newly affected items to the U.S. were valued at USD 3.6 billion in 2024, accounting for 2.8% of Korea’s total exports to the U.S.

U.S. Tariff Barrier Threatens Broader Supply Chains

The move has triggered concern not just in the home appliance sector but across the Korean steel industry. During Trump’s first term, Korean steelmakers secured a 2.63 million-ton annual export quota through negotiations. According to the Korea Iron & Steel Association, Korea exported 2.77 million tons (9.8%) of steel to the U.S. last year—the fourth-largest volume after the EU, Japan, and India. Although the U.S. accounts for about 10% of Korea’s steel exports, the actual impact feels much larger due to the strategic importance of the U.S. market and its ripple effects on third-country exports through global supply chains.

The U.S. steel market is considered promising not only in volume but also in value. The country consumes about 90 million tons of steel annually, with around 20% dependent on imports—the second-highest globally after the EU, and the highest for a single nation. The Trump administration’s reshoring push has also led to increased demand for high-value-added specialty steel for automobiles and appliances. Additionally, Trump’s energy policy, which includes expanding oil production, has led to a surge in demand for specialized steel like OCTG and pipelines.

U.S. steel prices are also higher than those of other countries due to high production costs and strong domestic demand. Korea Ratings recently cited these high prices as a reason for the strategic importance of the U.S. market. According to steel consultancy MEPS International, U.S. steel prices are 20–30% higher than global averages. As of December 2024, hot-rolled coil prices averaged USD 631 per ton globally versus USD 753 in North America. While the U.S. ranked fourth in volume among Korea’s steel export markets last year, it was second in terms of export value due to these high prices.

There are growing fears that this steep U.S. tariff could also hinder Korean exports to other countries. If products unable to enter the U.S. flood into third countries, those nations may erect their own trade barriers to protect domestic industries. In fact, the EU recently cut duty-free steel import quotas by 14%, and India has imposed a 12% tariff on low-cost steel. The EU and India are Korea’s largest and third-largest steel export markets, respectively. A similar case occurred in the global EV market, where Chinese-made vehicles, unable to enter the U.S., flooded into countries with lower barriers, hurting local industries.

S&P: “U.S. Tariffs to Undermine Competitiveness of Korean Steel Firms”

Experts share similar concerns. In a recent report, international credit rating agency S&P Global Ratings warned that Korean steelmakers may be hit harder by U.S. tariffs than other Asian competitors. S&P noted that “Korean steelmakers have enjoyed tariff exemptions within quota limits, but with the end of this measure, their competitiveness is likely to decline.” The report also highlighted Korea’s relatively high exposure to the U.S. market compared to China (2%) and Japan (4%), with Korea’s figure near 10%.

The tariffs could be particularly damaging for major firms like POSCO and Hyundai Steel. POSCO Holdings, the parent of POSCO, has seen rising capital expenditures due to expansion into battery materials, resulting in increased debt. A decline in high-priced U.S. steel exports could further erode the group’s profitability. Hyundai Steel is already struggling due to rising competition, domestic market stagnation, and a glut of cheap Chinese steel. The added burden of U.S. tariffs has forced the company to consider restructuring, including asset sales, business reorganization, and production cuts.

S&P added that “the U.S. steel tariffs could negatively affect the credit ratings of Korean steel companies” and predicted that “sales may decline by low to mid-single digits, and operating profit may fall by mid to high single digits.” However, some analysts believe the impact on Korea’s steel industry could be limited. Outside of POSCO and Hyundai Steel, most firms have relatively low exposure to the U.S.. While some will lose price competitiveness, others may even benefit from the changing trade landscape.

WSJ: "Intel Must Spin Off Foundry Business to Escape Management Crisis"
Earlier this year, speculation went beyond a spin-off to a possible sale.
Intel insiders, however, are focused more on improving technological capabilities than restructuring.

Calls are growing for U.S. chipmaker Intel to spin off its foundry division in order to enhance competitiveness. Analysts argue that separating the foundry business could help attract clients—particularly rival chip designers—and fundamentally improve service quality. However, both current and former Intel executives have pushed back on this notion, claiming that a spin-off would be a mistake and that technological innovation is the key to regaining competitiveness in the foundry market.

Talks of Intel Foundry Spin-Off Resurface

On June 15 (local time), The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that Intel should split off its foundry business to escape its ongoing management and technological crisis, and to better compete with companies like Taiwan’s TSMC. In 2021, Intel re-entered the foundry business with the ambitious goal of becoming the world’s second-largest foundry by 2030. However, it has struggled to catch up with TSMC and Samsung Electronics in semiconductor manufacturing, failing to establish a strong market presence. Intel’s foundry division posted an operating loss of USD 2.32 billion in Q1 of this year alone, following a loss of USD 13.4 billion in 2023.

WSJ suggests that spinning off the foundry unit could resolve these issues. Since many potential customers—such as Nvidia and AMD—are also competitors in chip design, separating the design and foundry operations could help reduce conflict of interest and make it easier to bring in external clients. WSJ also argues that the cultural limitations of Intel's foundry business could be overcome through a spin-off. The division has long been criticized for prioritizing in-house production over serving outside customers, failing to establish a customer-centric service model.

This isn't the first time the idea of separating Intel’s foundry business has been floated. In August last year, Bloombergreported that Intel was reviewing options including a split of its design and foundry businesses, and the cancellation of expansion projects for its manufacturing facilities. Citing anonymous sources, the report said investment banks Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were advising Intel on potential M&A opportunities.

TSMC and Broadcom Reportedly Eye Intel’s Business

In February, reports emerged that TSMC was considering acquiring and operating Intel’s U.S.-based chip plants. According to Bloomberg, figures associated with the second Trump administration had recently proposed collaboration between TSMC and Intel, and TSMC responded positively. The report added, “Talks are in their early stages and a specific collaboration framework has not been decided,” but noted that “TSMC is open to operating Intel’s U.S. plants.”

This was not the first such approach—TSMC reportedly received a similar proposal during the Biden administration but rejected it due to concerns over technology leakage. Given TSMC’s dominant market position with major clients like Nvidia and Apple, there was little incentive for them to take that risk. However, the Trump camp appears more determined to push the deal forward regardless of those concerns.

Some have also speculated that Broadcom might acquire Intel's chip design unit after TSMC acquires the foundry division. In the same month, WSJ reported that Broadcom had reviewed the possibility of acquiring Intel’s design and marketing operations. With a potential buyer for the foundry unit emerging, Broadcom could step in to acquire the rest. However, WSJ clarified that Broadcom was not working directly with TSMC in this matter.

“Technology First,” Say Intel Executives Past and Present

While the idea of spinning off the foundry unit is gaining momentum in the market, those familiar with Intel’s internal affairs have expressed skepticism. In March, former Intel CEO Craig Barrett wrote in Fortune that Intel is in a position to reclaim its leadership and that “breaking the company into pieces to try and regain leadership would be the most foolish move.”

Barrett emphasized that in the semiconductor industry, “the best technology wins,” and argued that Intel’s foundry struggles stem not from structural issues, but from lagging technical capabilities. “The reason all independent chip designers use TSMC is because TSMC has the best technology,” he said. “If Intel can match or surpass TSMC, companies will choose Intel.” His message: spinning off the foundry division won't fix the problem—superior technology will.

Newly appointed Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan echoed this stance in a message to employees after taking the helm in March. “I joined Intel because I believe we can win,” he said. “Intel plays a critical role in the U.S. and global tech ecosystem, and together, we can turn this business around.” He added, “In areas where we’re behind, we need to take risks, innovate, and leap forward,” emphasizing that Intel will “reclaim its stature as a global company and build a world-class foundry business.”

Over 50% performance improvement over the previous model.
Potential collaboration to reclaim technological leadership.
Strategy includes GDDR7, emphasizing cost and flexibility advantages.

Samsung Electronics has made a strong entry into the AI semiconductor market by supplying its HBM3E 12-layer product to AMD. Previously overshadowed by doubts about its high-bandwidth memory (HBM) capabilities and seen as a latecomer, Samsung now has an opportunity to regain market trust through this supply deal. The partnership with AMD is likely to go beyond a one-time transaction, potentially developing into a long-term collaboration. Moreover, with growing interest in GDDR7 for graphics applications, Samsung is expanding its influence in the market with a flexible strategy that encompasses both HBM and GDDR technologies.

Cracks in Nvidia's Dominance of the AI Semiconductor Market

On June 12 (local time), AMD announced at the “AI Advancing 2025” event in San Jose, California, that its next-generation AI accelerators, the MI350X and MI355X, will use HBM3E 12-layer memory from Samsung Electronics and Micron. While there had been quiet speculation that Samsung was supplying HBM to AMD, this was the first official confirmation, solidifying the collaboration between the two companies.

The HBM3E 12-layer product now being adopted was developed by Samsung last year. It stacks twelve 24Gb DRAM chips vertically using TSV (Through-Silicon Via) technology, providing a high capacity of 36GB. The memory offers up to 1,280 GB/s bandwidth and can handle speeds of up to 10Gbps across 1,024 I/O channels — a more than 50% improvement in performance and capacity over the previous 8-layer HBM3E.

Samsung applied advanced TC NCF (Thermal Compression Non-Conductive Film) technology in the HBM3E 12-layer process to maintain the same package height as the 8-layer version. It also minimized the gap between chips to 7 micrometers, increasing vertical density by over 20%. These enhancements aim to boost both power efficiency and performance. The integration into AMD’s MI350 series is seen as proof of Samsung’s successful execution of these goals.

AMD’s Expansion Offers Samsung a Golden Opportunity

Until now, Nvidia has had near-total control over the AI semiconductor market, not only dominating high-performance GPUs but also the HBM supply chain. Nvidia’s decision not to adopt Samsung’s HBM had raised concerns about Samsung’s technological prowess, pushing the company into a perceived competitive disadvantage. However, AMD’s adoption of Samsung’s HBM now helps dispel doubts about its technology and allows Samsung to shed its underdog image in the HBM market.

Industry observers are now eyeing the possibility of deeper technical collaboration between Samsung and AMD. AI semiconductors require intricate coordination between memory and GPUs in areas like communication efficiency, heat dissipation, and power optimization. This could evolve into a scenario where memory suppliers work alongside GPU designers from the early planning stages to develop custom HBM solutions — a step toward co-optimized products and integrated technical capabilities.

Market expansion potential is also significant. AMD is extending its MI series into various sectors, including data centers, high-performance computing, and defense/scientific research. As Samsung’s high-capacity HBM proves itself in these environments, it could be included in future products like the MI400 and MI500. Given the industry’s tendency to continue partnerships with trusted suppliers, Samsung has effectively secured a long-term growth path.

Ultimately, this partnership offers both companies a strategic opportunity to reclaim technological leadership. AMD can narrow the gap with Nvidia, while Samsung can rebuild confidence in its HBM products. If the two continue to deliver results, their collaboration could go beyond simple supply deals to include joint product development, marketing, and even ecosystem-level cooperation. This would help break Nvidia’s lock on the AI semiconductor market and foster a more competitive and flexible environment.

“HBM Isn’t the Only Answer”: GDDR7 Adoption Gains Traction

The dominance of HBM in AI semiconductors is also beginning to show cracks. While GDDR7 offers lower bandwidth than HBM, it is emerging as an efficient alternative for mid-range AI solutions due to its advantages in cost, heat management, and power consumption. Nvidia is already using GDDR7 in AI GPUs for the Chinese market, and AMD is reportedly considering a similar approach. This signals a more pragmatic strategy in memory selection — one that balances performance and cost.

The rise of GDDR7 is driven by increasing segmentation in the AI semiconductor market. While data center GPUs require ultra-high performance, edge AI and industrial GPUs with lower computational demands call for different memory strategies. Though HBM excels in performance, it remains expensive and faces supply constraints — particularly with SK Hynix and Micron now dominating the HBM space. This makes alternative solutions increasingly attractive to reduce risk.

This trend presents yet another opportunity for Samsung. While it has faced challenges regaining trust in the HBM market, Samsung is considered a technology leader in GDDR7, with robust production capacity. If Nvidia and AMD increase adoption of GDDR7, Samsung could expand its market presence with competitively priced products. It also allows Samsung to pursue a more flexible strategy, no longer needing to rely solely on HBM for growth.

The AI semiconductor market is clearly entering a phase where no single memory solution fits all. HBM remains essential for the highest performance, while alternatives like GDDR7 are gaining ground where cost-efficiency is key — signaling the rise of a "multi-tiered memory strategy." With its capabilities in both HBM and GDDR7, Samsung is well-positioned to compete more broadly, moving beyond the latecomer label to become a strategic player across the entire market.