Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/us-considers-requiring-permits-for-nvidia-amd-global-ai-chip-sales.24687/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2030970
            [XFI] => 1060170
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

US Considers Requiring Permits for Nvidia, AMD Global AI Chip Sales

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
(Bloomberg) -- Nvidia Corp. has long been the world’s AI kingmaker. Now, the Trump administration is considering taking a formal role in the industry that would include similarly sweeping powers.

Officials at the US Commerce Department have written draft regulations that would restrict AI chip shipments to anywhere in the world without American approval, giving Washington broad control over whether other countries can build facilities for training and running artificial-intelligence models — and under what conditions.

The proposed rule — which could change substantially or be shelved entirely — would require companies to seek US permission for virtually all exports of AI accelerators from the likes of Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices Inc., a global expansion of curbs that currently cover around 40 countries, according to people familiar with the matter. These chips are the most coveted components in the tech world. Companies like OpenAI and Alphabet Inc. buy them by the thousands to install in data centers that run services like ChatGPT and Gemini.

Shares of Nvidia and AMD fell to session lows on the news Thursday. Nvidia dropped as much as 1.9%, while AMD declined 2.3%.

WATCH: US Proposes Rule Requiring Licenses for AI Chip Exports

WATCH: US Proposes Rule Requiring Licenses for AI Chip Exports

President Donald Trump’s team has said repeatedly that they want the world to use American AI, and the Commerce Department’s draft rule isn’t meant to function as an Nvidia export ban. Rather, the regulations would set up the US government as gatekeeper for the AI industry: Companies — and in some cases, their governments — would have to seek Washington’s blessing to buy the precious accelerators. How Trump’s team decides to dole out those licenses would then determine whether countries are able to build critical digital infrastructure, technology that many world leaders see as key to economic growth, corporate competitiveness and military sovereignty.

The specific approval process would depend on how much computing power a company wants, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing an ongoing policy debate. Shipments of up to 1,000 of Nvidia’s latest GB300 graphics processing units, or GPUs, would undergo a fairly simple review with certain exemption opportunities. Companies building bigger clusters would need preclearance before seeking export licenses. They could face conditions such as disclosing their business models or allowing the US government site visits, depending on the specifics of the data centers in question.

For truly massive deployments — more than 200,000 of Nvidia’s GB300 GPUs owned by one company, in one country — the host government would have to get involved. The US would only approve such exports to allies that make stringent security promises and “matching” investments in American AI, the people said, noting that the draft rule doesn’t specify an investment ratio. For context, 200,000 GB300s is the number that NScale, a UK company that specializes in renting AI chips to third parties, is planning to provide to Microsoft Corp. across four sites in the US and Europe. The firm described this deal as “one of the largest AI infrastructure contracts ever signed.”

Nvidia, AMD and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, which is responsible for semiconductor export controls, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The Commerce Department later said in a social media post that the agency “is committed to promoting secure exports of the American tech stack. We successfully advanced exports through our historic Middle East agreements, and there are ongoing internal government discussions about formalizing that approach.” That’s a reference to last year’s AI chip deals with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, both of which have been subject to license requirements for accelerator shipments since 2023.

The agency’s framework is far from finalized, the people familiar with the situation emphasized, and officials from across the federal government are currently providing their input. Axios quoted a White House official as saying that the Commerce Department’s rule as drafted “does not reflect what President Trump has said on export controls nor does it reflect the direction of the Trump administration on encouraging export of the American AI stack.” Trump’s team is standing up several initiatives to promote American AI exports, especially in the Global South.

Still, the proposed regulations mark the administration’s most substantive step toward a global chip export strategy since scrapping President Joe Biden’s approach in May, at which time they promised a replacement rule “in the future.” Trump officials have derided the previous administration’s so-called AI diffusion rule, which controlled AI chip sales to most countries and set caps on how much could be exported, as stifling American tech dominance. The Commerce Department reiterated that sentiment in its Thursday post, saying that “we will not” return to the AI diffusion framework, which it called “burdensome, overreaching and disastrous.”

Whether Trump’s approach ultimately proves more or less restrictive would be a function of how officials use the worldwide license requirements they are now considering.

If Washington approves chip sales speedily and with few strings attached, the global AI infrastructure buildout could simply continue humming along — just with a lot more paperwork. Bureaucratic delays or drawn-out negotiations, meanwhile, would throw a wrench into project planning. It wasn’t until months after the Trump administration announced its UAE chip export deal that licenses began to flow, contingent on the Gulf nation investing $1 in the US for every dollar invested at home.

A big unknown is how much money the US would expect from countries like France or India, which also have ambitions to build large data centers of 1 gigawatt or more. Another factor is how Trump may wield chip curbs in broader diplomatic negotiations, especially as he recalibrates his tariff strategy. Last year, the president threatened semiconductor export controls in retaliation for digital services taxes that have been imposed in places like the European Union.

“We do not really like the idea of potentially tying AI access to trade negotiations (or to any other of Trump’s assorted whims), which such a move clearly opens a door to,” longtime Bernstein chip analyst Stacy Rasgon wrote of the draft rule.

Also unclear is how the US will handle restrictions on model weights, which are the numerical parameters that AI software uses to process data and make decisions — making them among the most valuable intellectual property in the world. Biden’s global chip framework included overarching restrictions on where companies could host frontier model weights, whereas Trump’s approach would handle that question through individual licenses.

Foreign leaders are broadly uncomfortable subjecting their tech futures to Washington’s whims. But when it comes to computing power, they have little choice. Countries can either import chips from American companies like Nvidia, the market leader by a wide margin, or Chinese firms like Huawei Technologies Co., which makes less-powerful chips in much smaller quantities but has global ambitions. And lest they consider the latter, Washington has issued a warning that using Huawei AI accelerators anywhere in the world could violate American trade restrictions.

China’s AI ambitions are a central factor behind Washington’s AI policymaking. One focus is limiting China’s production of AI chips, which the US has done by restricting exports of semiconductor manufacturing equipment — and, more recently under Trump, allowing Nvidia back into China to compete on Huawei’s home turf. The Commerce Department’s latest global proposal wouldn’t change Washington’s approach to chip exports to the Asian nation, people familiar with the matter said, nor would it alter an effective ban on AI chip exports to around 20 other arms-embargoed countries. Trump’s team is currently weighing how many Nvidia chip exports to China would be enough to dampen Huawei’s rise without giving the country too much additional computing capacity.

But the global framework could have significant knock-on effects for China’s AI industry. One direct consequence of the draft rule would be better US government visibility into global chip flows, which some officials have long argued is necessary to detect semiconductor smuggling. Trump’s team last year had planned chip export controls on Malaysia and Thailand to combat chip diversion to China, though they ultimately decided against singling out individual countries as they worked on a global strategy.

The US could also use export licenses to regulate Chinese firms’ access to AI chips overseas, as some national security hawks have long advocated. In select instances, they already have: Trump’s team conditioned some Nvidia shipments to the UAE on firms not providing computing services to any Chinese AI companies, according to people familiar with the matter. It remains to be seen whether they would impose similar license terms in other regions such as Southeast Asia, where firms like Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. rent the use of Nvidia chips they are unable to buy themselves.

 
This is the only issue I can think of quickly with strong bipartisan support in Congress, and IMO restricting chip sales and even cloud-based use by China seems just plain dumb.
 
So the US has to approve any shipments from any country???? The US does not have that authority. this needs to stop

Oh wait. you have to follow the rules or the US will Bomb you and then put in a 1000% tariff on you.

You can only embargo countries who cannot do it on their own. Otherwise it is better to sell to them. Obviously China can develop its own

"how can we hurt US tech companies and make China a tech leader all at the same time??? "
 
(Bloomberg) -- Nvidia Corp. has long been the world’s AI kingmaker. Now, the Trump administration is considering taking a formal role in the industry that would include similarly sweeping powers.

Officials at the US Commerce Department have written draft regulations that would restrict AI chip shipments to anywhere in the world without American approval, giving Washington broad control over whether other countries can build facilities for training and running artificial-intelligence models — and under what conditions.

The proposed rule — which could change substantially or be shelved entirely — would require companies to seek US permission for virtually all exports of AI accelerators from the likes of Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices Inc., a global expansion of curbs that currently cover around 40 countries, according to people familiar with the matter. These chips are the most coveted components in the tech world. Companies like OpenAI and Alphabet Inc. buy them by the thousands to install in data centers that run services like ChatGPT and Gemini.

Shares of Nvidia and AMD fell to session lows on the news Thursday. Nvidia dropped as much as 1.9%, while AMD declined 2.3%.

WATCH: US Proposes Rule Requiring Licenses for AI Chip Exports

WATCH: US Proposes Rule Requiring Licenses for AI Chip Exports

President Donald Trump’s team has said repeatedly that they want the world to use American AI, and the Commerce Department’s draft rule isn’t meant to function as an Nvidia export ban. Rather, the regulations would set up the US government as gatekeeper for the AI industry: Companies — and in some cases, their governments — would have to seek Washington’s blessing to buy the precious accelerators. How Trump’s team decides to dole out those licenses would then determine whether countries are able to build critical digital infrastructure, technology that many world leaders see as key to economic growth, corporate competitiveness and military sovereignty.

The specific approval process would depend on how much computing power a company wants, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing an ongoing policy debate. Shipments of up to 1,000 of Nvidia’s latest GB300 graphics processing units, or GPUs, would undergo a fairly simple review with certain exemption opportunities. Companies building bigger clusters would need preclearance before seeking export licenses. They could face conditions such as disclosing their business models or allowing the US government site visits, depending on the specifics of the data centers in question.

Sounds a little like the Chinese export permits for the rare earths. from Oct 2025. Let's see what kind of "AMD and NVIDIA rare earth" the USA will let go into China:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/china...estrictions-threaten-us-defense-supply-chains

The Chinese Ministry of Commerce’s Announcement No. 61 of 2025 implements the strictest rare earth and permanent magnet export controls to date. The move both strengthens Beijing’s leverage in upcoming talks while also undercutting U.S. efforts to bolster its industrial base.
 
Sounds a little like the Chinese export permits for the rare earths. from Oct 2025. Let's see what kind of "AMD and NVIDIA rare earth" the USA will let go into China:
We’re in a “hot” trade war that we chose to elevate from “slo-cook”, and every country is grasping for deal-making leverage, regardless of collateral damage and long-term implications. Trump only knows how to negotiate when he can extort concessions. Sadly, China can afford to do the same.

“The US would only approve such exports to allies that make stringent security promises and “matching” investments in American AI, the people said, noting that the draft rule doesn’t specify an investment ratio.”

This is no longer about national defense - it’s about remaking trade into a commercial weapon.
 
This is no longer about national defense - it’s about remaking trade into a commercial weapon.
Back to the past:

https://tradetreasurypayments.com/a...-shaped-global-trade-and-why-it-still-matters

At first glance, mercantilism, the prevalent economic theory of the 16th to 18th century, might seem like a relic of history; a discredited doctrine relegated to the archives alongside powdered wigs, long-barelled muskets, and absolutist monarchs.

It was, after all, in the 18th century that Adam Smith famously dismantled the “mercantile system” in The Wealth of Nations (1776), critiquing its zero-sum logic, its obsession with hoarding bullion, and its web of monopolies, tariffs, and restrictions that stifled both consumers and competition. In the centuries since, liberal economic theory and global markets have largely supplanted the view of trade as a strategic contest of national advantage. Or so the conventional narrative goes.

And yet, old language is resurfacing. References to mercantilism have become more common in the lexicons of industry leaders, political economists, and trade journalists alike.

Bridgewater, the world’s biggest hedge fund, has written about the shift toward modern mercantilism since President Trump’s return to the Oval Office. As has the Harvard Kennedy School, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, the New York Times, the Financial Times, and countless other economy-watchers from around the globe.

Some apply the term to describe China’s industrial and export strategy. Others gesture toward elements of US trade and industrial policy that prioritise domestic production, restrict outbound capital, and frame economic resilience as a matter of national security.

Whether or not these developments constitute a true return to mercantilism remains an open question, but the reappearance of the term itself is something worth examining. It suggests that the core anxieties that animated mercantilist thought have not entirely disappeared. They may have simply taken new forms, under new names.


To understand what may or may not be resurfacing today, one must first return to what mercantilism was. Despite its prominence in shaping early modern Europe and the foundations of global trade, mercantilism remains one of the most misunderstood economic systems. It was never a codified school of thought, but rather a constellation of policies and principles that evolved over two centuries. Mercantilism as a concept was only ever defined in hindsight, and the term didn’t become popularised until after the publication of Swedish economist Eli Heckscher’s influential 1935 book by the same name, over a century after the era ended.

In this article, we will attempt to present a historical overview of the mercantilist era, exploring its ideological foundations, practical mechanisms, and consequences both in Europe and abroad. Ultimately, our goal is not to draw parallels to the world today, but to provide a structured lens through which you, dear reader, can assess for yourself whether the present moment echoes the past, or merely borrows its vocabulary.

..........................................................................................

So, are we entering into a new era of mercantilism?​

Let’s return now to the modern world, and revisit the question posed at the beginning of this article of whether contemporary commenters are justified in asserting claims of a return to mercantilism. Having now briefly travelled through the political, economic, social, and military history of the time, we can start to form an idea of mercantilism’s defining traits.

These include:

  • High tariffs on imports (especially manufactured goods) in order to protect domestic industries.
  • Exclusive trading rights and monopolies, particularly in overseas colonies (since colonies were forbidden from trading with other nations).
  • Export subsidies and promotion of domestic manufacturing (sometimes by importing skilled artisans or new technologies).
  • Restrictions on bullion exports in order to keep precious metals within the country.
  • Navigation Acts and laws to reserve shipping for the national fleet (i.e., barring foreign ships from carrying trade).
  • Regulation of labour and wages to keep production costs low (i.e., legally limiting wage rates).
  • The use of domestic resources to the fullest extent, and constraints on the domestic consumption of imported luxuries.
  • Colonial policies that required raw materials to be exported to the metropole and finished goods to be imported back in return.
  • Legal prohibitions on the development of certain industries in colonies to prevent competition with the mother country.
  • Population growth incentives and restrictions on the emigration of skilled labour to maximise productive capacity.
  • Creation of chartered companies (e.g., East India Companies) with quasi-governmental powers to control trade and territory.
  • State investment in infrastructure (such as roads, canals, and ports) to facilitate domestic commerce and export capacity
  • Expansion of customs duties and trade offices to monitor and enforce compliance with trade policy.
  • Emphasis on building naval and military strength to secure trade routes and protect commercial interests.
  • Promotion of a favourable balance of trade as a strategic objective of national policy and diplomacy.
Having retraced the course of history and defined these traits, it would be tempting to conclude with a neat comparison to the present. But that is not our intention here. We do not see it as our role to tell you what to think.

Some aspects of mercantilism may feel familiar: the resurgence of high tariffs, renewed emphasis on trade balances, rising military expenditures, or calls for shipping on national fleets. At the same time, many of the era’s defining traits – like state-sponsored monopolies, legal curbs on consumption, and colonial extractivism – seem far removed (at least in their historical form) from the present situation.

Nevertheless, the echoes, however fragmented they may be, are worth reflecting on. So, armed with this historical context, we leave you, dear reader, to ponder whether we are witnessing the return of mercantilist thinking or simply projecting old frameworks onto new realities.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top