Connect with us

Business

U.S.-China chip war: How Trump’s Nvidia-AMD deal has redefined Washington’s export control policy

Published

on



Under both the first Trump and Biden administrations, Washington argued that it needed to limit China’s technological development by barring more and more sensitive products from being exported to its strategic rival. Now, Trump’s decision to allow Nvidia and AMD to sell their advanced AI chips to China in exchange for a 15% cut of their revenue turns the export control regime into something like a bargaining chip.

The Trump administration is already positioning the deal as a playbook for other products and industries. “Now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it?” U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Bloomberg TV on Wednesday. 

Trump’s move reflects Washington’s uneasy position in its tech rivalry with Beijing. The lead the U.S. holds over China in AI and semiconductors is shrinking, with experts estimating a lead of just one to two years at most. Meanwhile, U.S. companies complain of being shut out of the world’s second-largest economy. And now China is adopting the U.S.’s tactic of export controls, using its wealth of rare earth metals—key materials used in an array of electronic goods—to put pressure on Washington and its allies.

Analysts that spoke to Fortune view Trump’s Nvidia deal as a one-off measure stemming from the president’s trade negotiations with China.

Ray Wang, a semiconductor researcher at the Futurum Group, points out that the Trump administration first signaled that it would issue export licenses for Nvidia’s H20 processor—an AI chip designed to comply with U.S. rules—in late July, as part of its trade war truce with Beijing. Wang suggests that the government’s 15% cut, agreed upon over the weekend, is an add-on, an “opportunity to raise government revenue,” in accordance with Trump’s broader goals.

But the damage to the export control regime may have already been done, says Jennifer Lind, an associate professor at Dartmouth University and international relations expert. “This deal suggests that under the Trump administration, what gets banned or permitted is not being driven by careful calculations about the effect on Chinese military power—but rather on political whim and personalist politics,” Lind explains. “This is ruinous for a functioning export control regime.”

How have export controls changed?

On Monday, Trump confirmed media reports that Nvidia and AMD had agreed to give 15% of their China sales to the U.S. government in exchange for export licenses. The chips in question are Nvidia’s H20 and AMD’s MI308, two AI processors designed for the Chinese market and tailored to comply with earlier U.S. export controls. 

In that same press conference, Trump suggested he might even let Nvidia sell a watered-down version of its leading Blackwell processor to China. 

Export controls have changed wildly in the past few months. In April, Nvidia revealed that the U.S. had blocked it from selling the H20 to China, and that it was taking a $5.5 billion charge on the unsold inventory. 

As Washington and Beijing escalated their trade war, the export controls ramped up. By late May, the U.S. had expanded controls to block the sale of chip design software and airplane parts, among other products and chemicals, to China. 

Then, almost as quickly as they were imposed, these export controls disappeared. As part of its trade negotiations with China, the U.S. agreed to scale back controls on chip design software and airplane parts. 

Officials argue that these agreements are needed to get China to loosen its own controls on rare earth magnets, which threaten several U.S. industries like automobiles and defense. 

Some lawmakers worried about the growing tech dominance of China fear that Trump’s deal sets a bad precedent. John Moolenar, a Republican who chairs the House Select Committee on China, argued that “we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities.” 

His Democratic counterpart, Raja Krishnamoorthi, suggested that “by putting a price on our security concerns, we signal to China and our allies that American national security principles are negotiable for the right fee.”

Backlash to the deal might prevent further erosion of the export regime, says Chris Miller, author of Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology. “We’re going to see some pushback against the H20 decision in the U.S. from Congress, the media, and the bureaucracy, which will likely also discourage a further weakening of controls,” Miller says. 

Did the chip controls work?

The Biden administration framed export controls as a national security measure, designed to maintain and expand the U.S.’s technological edge versus China. 

The Trump administration has used similar reasoning in the past. But now he seems to be treating the chip controls as tools for economic dealmaking, raising questions as to what might come next. 

“There’s no real leadership on this issue with the White House now, as there was in the Biden era,” Paul Triolo, a partner at the DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group, said at the Fortune Brainstorm AI Singapore conference in mid-July, after the first announcement that Trump would allow the H20 to be sold in China again. “We’re in a little bit of a weird moment.”

It’s unclear, however, how effective the export controls have been at throttling tech development in China. The country’s tech sector, in spite of the export controls, seems to have developed satisfactory processors and powerful AI models. Huawei, the Chinese tech giant, is working with chipmaking giant SMIC to make its own AI processors. Huawei’s Ascend chips still lag Nvidia’s most advanced products, yet compare favorably to Nvidia’s chips sold in China. 

This momentum puts the U.S. in a difficult position. It could double down on controls in the hope of restraining Chinese innovation in the short-term—even if, in the long run, China’s domestic industry becomes self-sufficient. Or it can relax its curbs, retaining market access and hope that China never invests in domestic alternatives. 

U.S. officials, it seems, now believe it’s better for Nvidia to keep selling to China. “You want to sell the Chinese enough that their developers get addicted to the American technology stack,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on CNBC in mid-July, soon after reports emerged that Nvidia would be allowed to sell the H20 in China again. (Lutnick also dismissed the H20 as Nvidia’s “fourth-best” chip.)

“What we don’t want is for Huawei to have a digital Belt and Road,” Bessent said Wednesday, referring to China’s strategy to build infrastructure in emerging markets around the world. “We do not want the standard to become Chinese.”

China pushes back

Chinese pressure likely played a role in getting Trump to let Nvidia and AMD chips back into China. 

While China had slowly started to limit exports of rare earths in recent years, Beijing stopped exports entirely as part of its retaliatory measures to Trump’s tariffs earlier this year. Officials demanded that Chinese exporters apply for licenses before they sell to any overseas clients. The suspension froze industries in both the U.S. and Europe.

China is the source of around 90% of the world’s rare earths, thanks to a years-long project to invest in domestic processing. Governments are starting to invest in non-Chinese sources, but it may take years for such projects to come to fruition.

After winning over Washington, Nvidia and CEO Jensen Huang may now need to win over Beijing. Chinese officials have warned companies working in government-related areas against using Nvidia’s chips, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday. 

Chinese state media have also gone after the H20. “When a type of chip is neither environmentally friendly, nor advanced, nor safe, as consumers, we certainly have the option not to buy it,” a CCTV-affiliated WeChat posted on Sunday.

And after Michael Kratsios, one of the U.S.’s leads on AI policy, suggested that Nvidia chips could contain “location-tracking” to combat chip smuggling, Chinese regulators summoned Nvidia executives to a meeting to explain whether H20 chips contained security risks. 

The furor was enough to push Nvidia to forcefully state that “Nvidia GPUs do not and should not have kill switches and backdoors.”

Wang, the researcher at the Futurum Group, points out that China’s private sector—big tech companies like Alibaba and Tencent and smaller startups like Moonshot—will consume the vast majority of Nvidia’s chips.

“They really need those chips to train and develop their AI,” Wang says. “I don’t believe the guidelines from the government will stop this behavior.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Paramount launches WBD hostile bid that includes Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner

Published

on



In a separate regulatory filing, Paramount disclosed that Affinity Partners, the private equity firm led by Jared Kushner, is part of the bid. It added that sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar are also participating.

Affinity and the other outside financing partners have agreed to forgo any governance rights, which Paramount said means the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States would have no jurisdiction over the transaction. Meanwhile, Chinese tech conglomerate Tencent is no longer a partner.

The offer comes after Paramount lost out in the bidding war for the assets last week to Netflix, which made a cash-and-stock deal worth $27.75 per share. Paramount’s proposed transaction is for the entirety of WBD, including the Global Networks segment, while Netflix’s deal is for the studio and HBO Max.

Paramount argued its offer to WBD shareholders provides a superior alternative to the Netflix transaction, which offers “inferior and uncertain value and exposes WBD shareholders to a protracted multi-jurisdictional regulatory clearance process with an uncertain outcome,” referring to the likely antitrust concerns for Netflix’s megadeal.

At the Kennedy Center over the weekend, President Donald Trump partially confirmed reporting from Bloomberg’s Lucas Shaw about his private conversations with Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, saying they had met in the Oval Office before Netflix announced its winning bid, while adding that its combined market share with WBD could be an antitrust concern.

Paramount argued that WBD’s recommendation of the Netflix offer is based on an “illusory prospective valuation of Global Networks that is unsupported by the business fundamentals” and encumbered by high levels of financial leverage assigned to the entity. Netflix’s offer would assume $11 billion of debt and involve a $59 billion bridge loan, which Bloomberg reported was among the highest ever.

David Ellison, chairman and CEO of Paramount, said: “WBD shareholders deserve an opportunity to consider our superior all-cash offer for their shares in the entire company.”

Paramount, which earlier sent a letter to WBD CEO David Zaslav complaining of a “tainted” sale process, further asserted today that although Paramount made six offers for WBD over 12 weeks, “WBD never engaged meaningfully with these proposals, which we believe deliver the best outcome for WBD shareholders.

“We believe our offer will create a stronger Hollywood. It is in the best interests of the creative community, consumers, and the movie theater industry. We believe they will benefit from the enhanced competition, higher content spend and theatrical release output, and a greater number of movies in theaters as a result of our proposed transaction,” Ellison continued. “We look forward to working to expeditiously deliver this opportunity so that all stakeholders can begin to capitalize on the benefits of the combined company.”

Paramount’s tender offer is scheduled to expire at 5 p.m. ET on Jan. 8, 2026. The company said its offer will be financed by new equity backstopped by Paramount’s well-capitalized principal equity holders, and $54 billion of debt commitments from Bank of America, Citi, and Apollo.

Centerview Partners and RedBird Advisors are acting as lead financial advisors to Paramount, and Bank of America Securities, Citi, and M. Klein & Co. are also acting as financial advisors. Cravath Swaine & Moore and Latham & Watkins are acting as legal counsel to Paramount.

Disclosure: The author worked at Netflix from June 2024 through July 2025.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Craigslist founder signs the Giving Pledge, and some of his fortune will go to a pigeon rescue

Published

on



Of the wealthiest people in the world, about 250 have pledged to give away the majority of their fortune—an effort coined the Giving Pledge. It was started by Bill Gates, Melinda French Gates, and Warren Buffett in 2010, and billionaires including Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, and Bill Ackman have signed on. 

Although it’s often also referred to as the “Billionaire’s Pledge,” other wealthy donors have committed to the endeavor. One of the latest signatories is Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, who announced on LinkedIn this weekend he’s officially joining the Giving Pledge.

“Okay, I’ve formally signed up for the Giving Pledge, sometimes considered the Billionaire’s Pledge, though I’ve never been a billionaire, particularly after I gave away all my Craigslist equity to my charitable foundation,” Newmark wrote. “Seems like a good way to officially enter my middle seventies, which I’ve done today.”

Newark built his fortune by founding popular online marketplace Craiglist in 1995. It started as an email list for local San Francisco residents, but turned into an online classifieds page the following year. Today, Craigslist is estimated to be worth about $3 billion

“This all feels like a follow up to my decision in early 1999 to monetize Craigslist as little as possible,” Newmark said of signing Giving Pledge. “The best estimate so far is that I turned down around $11B that bankers and VCs wanted to throw at me. I still made plenty after that.”

In 2020, Forbes estimated Newmark’s net worth at $1.3 billion, although in 2022 he said he’d give away most of his fortune to charitable causes. There aren’t more recent estimates of his net worth, but he emphasized in his LinkedIn post he is not a billionaire.

His foundation, Craig Newmark Philanthropies, mostly supports cybersecurity and veterans causes. And in his post committing to the Giving Pledge, Newmark said he’d continue making similar donations. 

“My focus is where I can do some actual good in neglected areas, like for military families and vets, like fighting cyberattacks and preventing scams,” he wrote. “Also, a little for pigeon rescue.”

Wait, what?

Newmark is also dedicated to rescuing pigeons. 

“I love birds, have a sense of humor, and I suspect that pigeons may become our replacement species,” he told the Associated Press in 2023.

His favorite neighborhood pigeon is named Ghostface Killah, who is featured in a painting on his mantle at home. 

He said he developed his love for pigeons in the mid-1980s when he lived in Detroit. Pigeons are “the underdog,” he told NYU’s student newspaper Washington Square News

“They’re the grassroots, most prominent bird and possibly our successor species,” Newmark said. “But pigeons are, well, I identify with them as well. I grew up with no money, living across the street from a junkyard.”

Early this year, Newmark donated $30,000 to San Francisco-based pigeon rescue Palomacy, which was the largest donation the organization had ever received. 

“Craig Newmark is many things: the founder of craigslist, an ‘accidental entrepreneur,’ a self-proclaimed old-school nerd, a full-time philanthropist and a life-long lover of pigeons,” Palomacy said in January. “We so appreciate the support they provide our feathered friends.”

With Newmark’s donation, Palomacy can continue to “save hundreds of pigeons and doves through hands-on rescue, rehabilitation, and rehoming in Northern California,” according to the organization. “We are reversing the unfair stigma against pigeons and showing the world they deserve our respect and protection.”

Recent criticisms of the Giving Pledge

Although there undoubtedly are some billionaires and other high-net-worth individuals who are genuinely committed to the Giving Pledge, there has been recent criticism many of the signatories aren’t living up to the pledge. Even Melinda French Gates, one of its founders, recently said people could be doing more. 

“Have they given enough? No,” she said in a recent interview with Wired.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week also called the Giving Pledge a failure—but for different reasons. He said it was “well intentioned,” but was “very amorphous” and claimed wealthy people made the commitment out of fear that the public would “come at it with pitchforks.” Bessent also pointed out that not many billionaires have actually delivered on their promise to donate their fortunes. 

Warren Buffett, another Giving Pledge founder, also recently admitted he had to rethink some of his original philanthropic plans.

“Early on, I contemplated various grand philanthropic plans. Though I was stubborn, these did not prove feasible,” he wrote in a recent letter to shareholders. “During my many years, I’ve also watched ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices, and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists.” 

Several studies have also poked holes in the Giving Pledge, showing how it’s benefitted billionaires by presenting themselves as generous and public‑spirited, but doesn’t question inequalities and tax rules that led to such massive wealth in the first place.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) argues the Giving Pledge is “unfulfilled, unfulfillable, and not our ticket to a fairer, better future.” 

To be sure, many wealthy signatories like Newmark appear to be genuinely committed to the cause. 

“Like I say, a nerd’s gotta do what a nerd’s gotta do, and a nerd should practice what he preaches,” Newmark wrote over the weekend.





Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang urges a return to factory careers: ‘Not everyone needs a PhD’

Published

on



“We want to re-industrialize the United States. We need to be back in manufacturing,” Huang said recently on theJoe Rogan Experience podcast. “Every successful person doesn’t need to have a PhD. Every successful person doesn’t have to have gone to Stanford or MIT.”

Huang believes more Americans need to take on manufacturing gigs—not just to pivot to where the work will be in the age of AI, but also because the entire industry could be at risk. As much as the thought of U.S. citizens heading back into factories may seem like a back-track, he said it impacts the nation’s ability to remain prosperous and build AI companies like his.

“If [the] the United States doesn’t grow, we will have no prosperity,” Huang continued. “We can’t invest in anything domestically or otherwise—we can’t fix any of our problems. If we don’t have energy growth, we can’t have industrial growth. If we don’t have industrial growth, we can’t have job growth. It’s as simple as that.”

“If not for [Trump’s] pro-growth energy policy, we would not be able to build factories for AI, not be able to build chip factories, we surely won’t be able to build supercomputer factories. None of that stuff would be possible without all of that. Construction jobs would be challenged, electrician jobs—all of these jobs that are now flourishing, would be challenged.”

Lutnick’s intergenerational manufacturing push amid talent shortages

As the cofounder and leader of the world’s most valuable company, Huang has a peek under the hood of America’s changing workforce dynamic. The CEO of the $4.53 trillion chip giant has a direct line to U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who are determined to bring U.S. manufacturing back to its glory days. 

The Trump administration is pressing for American self-reliance while curbing immigration, leading officials like Lutnick to push for an intergenerational manufacturing boom. He even framed it as a step into the future, not a stumble back into the past. 

For example, Lutnick claimed that technician jobs are promising gigs with a low barrier to entry, that can pay anywhere between $70,000 to $90,000 at the onset—no college degree required. 

“It’s time to train people not to do the jobs of the past, but to do the great jobs of the future,” Lutnick toldCNBC earlier this year. “This is the new model, where you work in these plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here, and your grandkids work here.”

It’s an appealing proposition: avoid college debt and earn more than the average U.S. worker, all while having stability during an AI jobs wipeout. Yet many manufacturing roles have been left unfilled, despite the sector continuing to grow. 

Employment in the manufacturing surpassed pre-pandemic levels, standing at about 13 million jobs as of January 2024, according toDeloitte. It was estimated that the need for human workers in manufacturing could stand at around 3.8 million, but over half of these jobs—around 1.9 million—could remain unfilled if skill gaps aren’t addressed and the tune on the jobs doesn’t change. 

After all, only 14% of Gen Zers said they’d consider industrial work as a career, according to a 2023 study from Soter Analytics. There are a few concerns holding them back: they believe the industry doesn’t offer work flexibility, and the conditions are unsafe.

Huang even believes robots will create new jobs for humans

Huang has hope for the future of jobs, even as robot employees step onto the scene—and it’ll give yet another boost to factory jobs. 

Some tech leaders, like Tesla CEO Elon Musk, are already developing their own fleets of autonomous workers; Musk predicted his company’s Optimus humanoid robots will be used internally within Tesla by the end of 2025, and the following year, other companies will have the tech in their hands. 

It’s assumed that these robots will take over the work of employees, leaving humans high and dry—but Huang is optimistic that the tech will create new opportunities, especially for technicians.

“I’m super excited about the robots Elon’s working on. It’s still a few years away. When it happens, there’s a whole new industry of technicians and people who have to manufacture the robots,” Huang explained in the podcast. 

“You’re going to have a whole apparel industry for robots. You’re going to have mechanics for robots. And you have people who come to maintain your robots.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.