Samsung is probably more accurately described as a multinational company in this context. The location of a company's headquarters is not a primary determining factor for all different types of geopolitical risk. Like other multinationals, they have some ability to pick the jurisdictions they operate, and each of those locations have their own geopolitical contexts.

However, in this case, South Korea is also a close US ally. There is little risk to the US that the headquarters of Samsung is in South Korea.

>However, in this case, South Korea is also a close US ally

So is Taiwan.

But TSMC isn't necessarily a multinational company, which can also be said about other notable Taiwanese companies like Foxconn, whose business model depends on exploiting young, cheap, unskilled laborers from rural China and who had been far less successful in operating oversea operations outside China, such as in Brazil or Wisconsin, US.

As insinuated in the pessimitic tone of in the interview, TSMC also appears to be very reluctant to expand beyond Taiwan and China, and is certainly less worried about geopolitical threat from China. I think it's important to note that not everyone in Taiwan is dead set against the CCP. In a pre-pandemic Pew Research Center poll[1], at least 1/3 of Taiwanese still longed for closer economic and political ties with the mainland China. I don't have any recent data, but I doubt it changed much since.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/05/12/in-taiwan-view...

Correct. Which is the reason why having TSMC in Arizona would also help. https://tsmccareers.com/tsmc-arizona/

For these risks physical location matters more than the organizational structure. If something (perhaps a conflict, perhaps something else) disrupts manufacturing or shipping around East Asia, supply from the Samsung fabs in Korea and TSMC fabs in Taiwan would be disrupted, but any manufacturing capacity that's physically located in the West would be still available.