What does Trump's 15% deal mean for Nvidia?

Mint

6 hours ago

Picture this: You're running the world's most valuable company, sitting on a $4.4 trillion market cap, and suddenly the U.S. government knocks on your door with an unusual proposition. "Hey, we'll let you sell chips to China again, but we want 15% of every sale." Welcome to Nvidia's new reality under Trump 2.0.
In an unprecedented move that has left analysts scrambling for historical comparisons, Nvidia and AMD have agreed to hand over 15% of their Chinese AI chip revenues to the U.S. government. This isn't your typical corporate tax or export duty – it's a revenue-sharing agreement that feels more like a mafia protection racket than traditional trade policy.
The deal centers around Nvidia's H20 chip, a deliberately "dumbed-down" version of their flagship AI processors designed specifically for the Chinese market. Think of it as selling a Ferrari with a speed limiter – it looks impressive but may not be able reach its full potential. The H20 was created after Biden-era export controls banned the sale of Nvidia's most advanced chips to China, citing national security concerns.
But here's where it gets interesting: Trump initially expanded these restrictions in April, effectively killing H20 sales to China entirely. Nvidia had to write off $4.5 billion in inventory and commitments – a financial gut punch that would make even the most seasoned CFO wince. Then, just as suddenly, the ban was reversed, but with a catch that almost nobody saw coming.
Trump's approach to this situation reveals his fundamental worldview: everything is negotiable, and America should get paid. Rather than maintaining the traditional binary of "national security threat" versus "safe for export," he's created a third category: "safe enough if we get our cut."
The numbers are staggering. Before the April restrictions, Nvidia was selling around $7.1 billion worth of H20 chips per quarter to China. With the 15% government take, that means Uncle Sam could pocket over $1 billion every three months from Nvidia alone. For a president who made his fortune in real estate deals, this must feel like the ultimate win-win scenario.
From Nvidia's perspective, this deal seems to represents pragmatic capitalism at its finest. CEO Jensen Huang, who has been walking a diplomatic tightrope between Washington and Beijing, understands a fundamental truth: 85% of something is infinitely better than 100% of nothing. The company's statement was diplomatically bland but revealed their strategic thinking: "We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets."
To understand why Nvidia agreed to this unusual arrangement, you need to grasp just how crucial the Chinese market is. China represented about 13% of Nvidia's total revenue in fiscal 2025 – roughly $17 billion. But it's not just about the current numbers; it's about the future of AI development globally.
Chinese tech giants like Alibaba, Tencent, and ByteDance aren't just customers – they're innovation engines driving AI advancement. When these companies can't access cutting-edge hardware, they don't just sit idle. They innovate around the constraints, potentially developing solutions that could eventually compete with American AI systems.
Here's the kicker: Nvidia's absence from China has created a vacuum that competitors appear to be eager to fill. Huawei's Ascend AI chips, once dismissed as inferior alternatives, are rapidly improving. While Nvidia's H100 delivers 2,000 BF16 TFLOPs compared to Ascend 910C's 780 BF16 TFLOPs, the gap is narrowing. More importantly, every day Nvidia stays out of China is another day for Huawei to gain market share and customer loyalty.
The market dynamics have already shifted dramatically. Nvidia once commanded 95% of China's GPU market. Under the restrictions, that number plummeted to 50%. In the high-stakes world of AI infrastructure, market share can be everything – losing it is easy, but winning it back requires years of relationship rebuilding.
Let's break down the financial impact with some real numbers. Based on Nvidia's recent performance, a typical quarter of H20 sales to China generates around $7-9 billion in revenue. Under the new arrangement, if we assume $8 billion in quarterly sales, the U.S. government would receive $1.2 billion, leaving Nvidia with $6.8 billion.
Now, this might sound like a massive haircut, but consider the alternative. During the export ban, Nvidia received exactly $0 from Chinese H20 sales. From a purely mathematical standpoint, $6.8 billion is infinitely better than zero. Moreover, this represents only about 2-3% of Nvidia's total quarterly revenue, making it more of a manageable cost of doing business than an existential threat.
The timing couldn't be better for Nvidia's financial planning either. The company has been facing downward earnings revisions, largely due to geopolitical uncertainties rather than fundamental business problems. This deal provides clarity – expensive clarity, but clarity nonetheless.
This arrangement reveals something fascinating about how Trump views technology policy. Unlike his predecessor, who treated chip exports as a binary national security issue, Trump seems to see them as bargaining chips in a larger economic game. The message is clear: American technology dominance should generate American profits, even when that technology is being used by competitors.
Critics are having a field day with this logic. Republican Congressman John Moolenaar warned that this precedent could "incentivize the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities." The concern is valid – if national security can be monetized, does it cease to be about security at all?
But Trump's supporters argue this approach is actually more honest about the real motivations behind trade policy. After all, if H20 chips were truly a national security threat, why allow their sale at all? By extracting a "tax," the administration is acknowledging that these exports are primarily about economic competition, not existential security concerns.
From an investment perspective, the market's reaction has been surprisingly muted. Both Nvidia and AMD shares closed slightly lower on the news, but appear to be approaching panic selling. This suggests investors view the deal as a net positive – expensive access may still better than no access.
The revenue-sharing arrangement also provides a strange form of insurance for Nvidia. Since the U.S. government now has a direct financial interest in these sales, there's less likelihood of sudden policy reversals. When Uncle Sam is getting $1+ billion per quarter from a business relationship, shutting it down becomes much more complicated.
However, uncertainty remains about the long-term implications. Will the government demand an even higher percentage if sales grow? Could this model extend to other technology exports? These questions are keeping analysts busy and investors cautious.
This deal represents more than just a corporate tax arrangement – it's a fundamental shift in how America approaches technological competition. Rather than using export controls purely as a security tool, the Trump administration seems to be treating them as revenue generators. This could reshape global technology trade in ways we're only beginning to understand.
For Nvidia, this arrangement provides a pathway back into the world's second-largest economy, albeit an expensive one. For the U.S. government, it creates a new revenue stream while maintaining some control over sensitive technology transfers. For China, it offers access to advanced AI chips, though at a premium price and with lingering security concerns.
The real winners and losers in this arrangement will only become clear over time. But one thing that may be certain: the intersection of technology, national security, and international trade just got a lot more complicated – and a lot more expensive.
Disclaimer: This article is sponsored content. The inputs and details accounted for in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of Mint, and Mint does not endorse or assume any responsibility for the information provided. Investing in stock markets involve financial risks, take expert advice before investing.