The Facts Behind Claims RFK Jr. Said COVID-19 Was Targeted to 'Spare' Jewish, Chinese People
In response, Kennedy rejected the claim, stating, "I didn't say it was deliberately targeted. I just quoted an NIH-funded and NIH-published study."
Social media users also discussed the alleged statement during the hearings, with one X post (archived) claiming "an actual NIH study was cited by Mr Kennedy that showed that COVID 19 did, indeed, seem to spare Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews."
The accusations deserved context in terms of what Kennedy actually said and the in-question study concluded.
The claim, which has circulated for months, stemmed from genuine comments Kennedy made during a July 2023 event. There, he said: "There is an argument that [COVID-19] is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately." He added: "COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese."
Meanwhile, the study referenced by Kennedy at the confirmation hearing indeed was published on the National Institutes of Health's website and listed the agency as a funder. Authors published it in 2020 with the title "New insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19: an ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis."
However, as PolitiFact reported in July 2023, the study "did not conclude that Chinese people were less affected by the virus." Instead, it noted that one of the virus's receptors appeared absent in Amish and Ashkenazi Jewish populations and speculated that certain genetic mutations might increase the severity of COVID-19. Below, you can see the in-question part of the study (emphasis added).
Here, we investigated genetic susceptibility to COVID-19 by examining DNA polymorphisms in ACE2 (OMIM 300335) and TMPRSS2 (OMIM 602060) genes. [...]
We found that the distribution of deleterious variants in ACE2 differs among 9 populations in gnomAD (v3). Specifically, 39% (24/61) and 54% (33/61) of deleterious variants in ACE2 occur in African/African-American (AFR) and Non-Finnish European (EUR) populations, respectively (Fig. 1b). Prevalence of deleterious variants among Latino/Admixed American (AMR), East Asian (EAS), Finnish (FIN), and South Asian (SAS) populations is 2–10%, while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions (Fig. 1b).
The study highlighted several limitations, noting that "current analysis examined massive genomic data from general population, not COVID-19 patient-specific populations. All genetic associations identified in current study are urgently needed to be tested in COVID-19 patients in the near future."
The quote by Kennedy appeared in a July 15, 2023, New York Post article originally headlined "RFK Jr. says COVID was 'ethnically targeted' to spare Jews." Here is a transcription of his remarks, as shared by the Post in a YouTube video (emphasis ours):
And we need to talk about bioweapons. The level, I know a lot now about bioweapons because I've been doing a book on it for the past two and a half years. And you know what? The technology that we now have to develop these microbes, we've put hundreds of millions of dollars into ethnically targeted microbes. The Chinese have done the same thing. In fact, COVID-19, there is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. The races that are most immune to COVID-19 are because of the structure, of the genetic structure, of genetic differentials among different races, of the receptors, of the ACE2 receptor. COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.
We don't know if it was deliberately targeted at or not, but there are papers out there that show, you know, the racial and ethnic differential and impact to that. We do know that the Chinese are spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing ethnic bioweapons and we are developing ethnic bioweapons. That's what all those labs in the Ukraine are about; they're collecting Russian DNA, they're collecting Chinese DNA so we can target people by race.
While Kennedy did not use the word "spare," his phrasing implied that some groups, including Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people, may have genetic factors making them less vulnerable to COVID-19. It is important to note that while some scientific research has explored variations in ACE2 receptor expression across populations, no credible evidence supports the idea that COVID-19 was engineered to target or bypass specific ethnic groups.
Also, in the quote, Kennedy himself acknowledged uncertainty, stating: "We don't know if it was deliberately targeted."
Furthermore, Kennedy accused both the U.S. and China of investing heavily in research on ethnically targeted bioweapons and referenced "labs in Ukraine" allegedly collecting DNA for this purpose. This is a contentious claim lacking verifiable evidence and aligns with long-standing conspiracy theories about alleged U.S. biolabs in Ukraine.
The American Jewish Committee told CNN in a statement that Kennedy's "assertion that Covid was genetically engineered to spare Jewish and Chinese people is deeply offensive and incredibly dangerous." The Anti-Defamation League, a nongovernmental organization founded to combat antisemitism, also condemned Kennedy's remarks, as did his sister and the White House.
In response to this criticism, and to the New York Post article in particular, Kennedy stated on July 15, 2023, shortly after the article was published: "I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews."
Below is the full text of Kennedy's statement posted on X:
The @nypost story is mistaken. I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews. I accurately pointed out — during an off-the-record conversation — that the U.S. and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021 study of the COVID-19 virus shows that COVID-19 appears to disproportionately affect certain races since the furin cleave docking site is most compatible with Blacks and Caucasians and least compatible with ethnic Chinese, Finns, and Ashkenazi Jews. In that sense, it serves as a kind of proof of concept for ethnically targeted bioweapons. I do not believe and never implied that the ethnic effect was deliberately engineered. That study is here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/
Notably, the New York Post revised its headline later that day as follows (emphasis added): "RFK Jr. says COVID may have been 'ethnically targeted' to spare Jews."
The following day, Kennedy further addressed the controversy in a conversation with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, during which he underscored his opposition to antisemitism and commitment to Jewish advocacy, calling the accusations "a disgusting fabrication."
Kennedy also shared a question allegedly sent by the New York Post to his press office.
In a press release, then-presidential candidate Kennedy denounced the accusation as "disgusting and outlandish." He stated: "It was [Jon Levine, the Post's reporter], not myself, who invoked anti-Semitic tropes by attributing words to me ('spare the Jews') that I never said."
In sum, due to the ambiguous nature of Kennedy's remarks, we have opted not to assign a specific rating to the claim that Kennedy said COVID-19 was created to spare Jewish and Chinese people. While he did not use the word "spare," one could fairly infer that his comments about "bioweapons" being designed to "target people by race" meant he was implying that COVID-19 could have been created to target some populations and not others.
Snopes has investigated similar claims regarding Kennedy in the past. For instance, we fact-checked whether he said he would send people addicted to legal and illegal drugs to "wellness farms" where they would grow organic food.
- YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHyHQiKS3f0. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.
Evon, Dan. "Ukraine, US Biolabs, and an Ongoing Russian Disinformation Campaign." Snopes, 24 Feb. 2022, https://www.snopes.com//news/2022/02/24/us-biolabs-ukraine-russia/.
Hou, Yuan, et al. "New Insights into Genetic Susceptibility of COVID-19: An ACE2 and TMPRSS2 Polymorphism Analysis." BMC Medicine, vol. 18, no. 1, July 2020, p. 216. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01673-z.
Ibrahim, Nur. "RFK Jr. Proposed Sending People with Drug Problems to 'Wellness Farms'?" Snopes, 21 Nov. 2024, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/rfk-wellness-farms/.
July 16 and 2023. "RFK, Jr. Hits Back at New York Post Accusations." Kennedy24, https://www.mahanow.org/rfk_jr_hits_back_new_york_post_accusations. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.
Levine, Jon. Exclusive | RFK Jr. Says COVID Was "ethnically Targeted" to Spare Jews. 15 July 2023, https://nypost.com/2023/07/15/rfk-jr-says-covid-was-ethnically-targeted-to-spare-jews/.
Putterman, Samantha. "RFK Jr's Baseless Claim on COVID Sparing Jews, the Chinese." @politifact, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jul/19/robert-f-kennedy-jr/covid-19-wasnt-targeted-to-spare-jewish-and-chines/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.
Shelton, Lauren Koenig, Shania. "Jewish Groups Denounce RFK Jr.'s False Remarks That Covid-19 Was 'Ethnically Targeted' to Spare Jews and Chinese People | CNN Politics." CNN, 15 July 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/15/politics/rfk-jr-covid-jewish-groups/index.html.
White House Condemns RFK, Jr. COVID Comments as "Vile" | Video | C-SPAN.Org. https://beta.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/white-house-condemns-rfk-jr-covid-comments-as-vile/5078104. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
COVID Revenge Is Supercharging the Anti-Vaccine Agenda
Four and a half years ago, fresh off the success of Operation Warp Speed, mRNA vaccines were widely considered—as President Donald Trump said in December 2020 —a 'medical miracle.' Last week, the United States government decidedly reversed that stance when Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. canceled nearly half a billion dollars' worth of grants and contracts for mRNA-vaccine research. With Kennedy leading HHS, this about-face is easy to parse as yet another anti-vaccine move. But the assault on mRNA is also proof of another kind of animus: the COVID-revenge campaign that top officials in this administration have been pursuing for months, attacking the policies, technologies, and people that defined the U.S.'s pandemic response. As the immediacy of the COVID crisis receded, public anger about the American response to it took deeper root—perhaps most prominently among some critics who are now Trump appointees. That acrimony has become an essential tool in Kennedy's efforts to undermine vaccines. 'It is leverage,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-law expert at UC Law San Francisco, told me. 'It is a way to justify doing things that he wouldn't be able to get away with otherwise.' COVID revenge has defined the second Trump administration's health policy from the beginning. Kennedy and his allies have ousted prominent HHS officials who played key roles in the development of COVID policy, as well as scientists at the National Institutes of Health, including close colleagues of Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (and, according to Trump, an idiot and a 'disaster'). In June, Kennedy dismissed every member of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which has helped shape COVID-vaccine recommendations, and handpicked replacements for them. HHS and ACIP are now stacked with COVID contrarians who have repeatedly criticized COVID policies and minimized the benefits of vaccines. Under pressure from Trump officials, the NIH has terminated funding for hundreds of COVID-related grants. The president and his appointees have espoused the highly disputed notion that COVID began as a leak from 'an unsafe lab in Wuhan, China'—and cited the NIH's funding of related research as a reason to restrict federal agencies' independent grant-awarding powers. This administration is rapidly rewriting the narrative of COVID vaccines as well. In an early executive order, Trump called for an end to COVID-19-vaccine mandates in schools, even though few remained; earlier this month, HHS rolled back a Biden-era policy that financially rewarded hospitals for reporting staff-vaccination rates, describing the policy as ' coercive.' The FDA has made it harder for manufacturers to bring new COVID shots to market, narrowed who can get the Novavax shot, and approved the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for only a limited group of children, over the objections of agency experts. For its part, the CDC softened its COVID-shot guidance for pregnant people and children, after Kennedy—who has described the shots as 'the deadliest vaccine ever made'—tried to unilaterally remove it. Experts told me they fear that what access remains to the shots for children and adults could still be abolished; so could COVID-vaccine manufacturers' current protection from liability. (Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, said in an email that the department would not comment on potential regulatory changes.) The latest assault against mRNA vaccines, experts told me, is difficult to disentangle from the administration's pushback on COVID shots—which, because of the pandemic, the public now views as synonymous with the technology, Jennifer Nuzzo, the director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health, told me. Kennedy justified the mRNA cuts by suggesting—in contrast to a wealth of evidence—that the vaccines' risks outweigh their benefits, and that they 'fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.' And he insisted, without proof, that mRNA vaccines prolong pandemics. Meanwhile, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya argued that the cancellations were driven by a lack of public trust in the technology itself. In May, the Trump administration also pulled more than $700 million in funds from Moderna that had initially been awarded to develop mRNA-based flu vaccines. The mRNA funding terminated so far came from HHS's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; multiple NIH officials told me that they anticipate that similar grant cuts will follow at their agency. (In an email, Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, defended the administration's decision as a way to prioritize funding with 'the most untapped potential'; Nixon echoed that sentiment, casting the decision as 'a necessary pivot in how we steward public health innovations in vaccines.') COVID is a politically convenient entryway to broader anti-vaccine sentiment. COVID shots are among the U.S.'s most politicized vaccines, and many Republicans have, since the outbreak's early days, been skeptical of COVID-mitigation policies. Although most Americans remain supportive of vaccines on the whole, most Republicans—and many Democrats—say they're no longer keen on getting more COVID shots. 'People trust the COVID vaccines less,' Nuzzo told me, which makes it easy for the administration's vaccine opponents to use attacks on those vaccines as purchase for broader assaults. For all their COVID-centric hype, mRNA vaccines have long been under development for many unrelated diseases. And experts now worry that the blockades currently in place for certain types of mRNA vaccines could soon extend to other, similar technologies, including mRNA-based therapies in development for cancer and genetic disease, which might not make it through the approval process at Kennedy's FDA. (Nixon said HHS would continue to invest in mRNA research for cancer and other complex diseases.) Casting doubt on COVID shots makes other vaccines that have been vetted in the same way—and found to be safe and effective, based on high-quality data—look dubious. 'Once you establish that it's okay to override something for COVID,' Reiss told me, 'it's much easier to say, 'Well, now we're going to unrecommend MMR.'' (Kennedy's ACIP plans to review the entire childhood-immunization schedule and assess its cumulative effects.) Plenty of other avenues remain for Kennedy to play on COVID discontent—fear of the shots' side effects, distaste for mandates, declining trust in public health and medical experts —to pull back the government's support for vaccination. He has announced, for instance, his intention to reform the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which helps protect manufacturers from lawsuits over illegitimate claims about a vaccine's health effects, and his plans to find 'ways to enlarge that program so that COVID-vaccine-injured people can be compensated.' Some of the experts I spoke with fear that the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee—the agency's rough equivalent of ACIP—could be remade in Kennedy's vision. The administration has also been very willing to rescind federal funding from universities in order to forward its own ideas: Kennedy could, perhaps, threaten to withhold money from universities that require any vaccines for students. Kennedy has also insisted that 'we need to stop trusting the experts'—that Americans, for instance, shouldn't have been discouraged from doing their own research during the pandemic. He could use COVID as an excuse to make that maxim Americans' reality: Many public-health and infectious-disease-focused professional societies rely on at least some degree of federal funding, Nirav D. Shah, a former principal deputy director of the CDC, told me. Stripping those resources would be 'a way to cut their legs off'—or, at the very least, would further delegitimize those expert bodies in the public eye. Kennedy has already barred representatives from professional societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, from participating in ACIP subcommittees after those two societies and others collectively sued HHS over its shifts in COVID policy. The public fight between medicine and government is now accelerating the nation onto a path where advice diverges over not just COVID shots but vaccines generally. (When asked about how COVID resentment was guiding the administration's decisions, Desai said that the media had politicized science to push for pandemic-era mandates and that The Atlantic 'continues to fundamentally misunderstand how the Trump administration is reversing this COVID era politicization of HHS.') The coronavirus pandemic began during the first Trump presidency; now its legacy is being exploited by a second one. Had the pandemic never happened, Kennedy would likely still be attacking vaccines, maybe even from the same position of power he currently commands. But without the lightning rod of COVID, Kennedy's attacks would be less effective. Already, one clear consequence of the Trump administration's anti-COVID campaign is that it will leave the nation less knowledgeable about and less prepared against all infectious diseases, Gregory Poland, a vaccinologist and the president of Atria Research Institute, told me. That might be the Trump administration's ultimate act of revenge. No matter who is in charge when the U.S. meets its next crisis, those leaders may be forced into a corner carved out by Trump and Kennedy—one from which the country must fight disease without adequate vaccination, research, or public-health expertise. This current administration will have left the nation with few other options.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'
THE LAB Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says conducting so-called gain-of-function research shouldn't be dismissed. He discussed the controversial topic with his boss, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, on the latter's 'Director's Desk' podcast this week. What is it? Gain-of-function involves genetically altering pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible to better study them. But the research is a lightning rod issue for President Donald Trump and many Republicans in Congress who believe the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. That thinking puts them at odds with most of the scientific community who believe the virus most likely spilled over from animals into humans. In May, Trump signed an executive order banning all 'present and all future' federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries like China,which Trump said has insufficient research oversight. He also ordered the National Institutes of Health to review and possibly halt experiments the administration believes could endanger Americans' lives. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) Risky Research Review Act, which hasn't yet been taken up by the full Senate, would create a panel to review funding for gain-of-function research. Not black and white: During the podcast, Bhattacharya asked Taubenberger how the institute should approach gain-of-function research. 'It's not a simple black-and-white issue,' replied Taubenberger, a senior investigator in virology who's a leading expert on the 1918 flu pandemic and sequenced the virus that caused it. He's also co-leading the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, backed with $500 million from the Trump administration. 'Very reasonable, very well-informed people could fall on opposite sides of the line, wherever you draw the line,' he said. 'Having a wide variety of people with different levels of expertise — not just logic expertise, but safety, national security, all sorts of other questions — having them weigh in on this is really important.' Regardless of where people fall, gain-of-function work shouldn't be shut down, he said. 'Work on nasty bugs that have the potential to kill people, for which we want to develop better therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics, treatments and preventatives, needs to happen. That's important for global health. It's important for U.S. health,' Taubenberger said. But that research has to be done very carefully, with oversight and should be evaluated on a risk-benefit basis, he warned. While the pandemic turbocharged the issue, the controversy over gain-of-function predates Covid-19. The government paused funding for the research roughly a decade ago, Taubenberger pointed out, while they put stronger oversight mechanisms in place. 'I favor this kind of work being done, where possible, in U.S. government labs, by U.S. government scientists, monitored by U.S. government safety officials and regulators — with openness and transparency.' What didn't come up in conversation: The implementation of Trump's executive order hasn't gone as smoothly as the podcast discussion might have suggested. A July post on the NIH's X account implied that staff at the NIAID had acted inappropriately by omitting certain grants while compiling a list of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research experiments in compliance with the order. Contacted by POLITICO at the time, an official at HHS described the behavior as 'malicious compliance' and said the administration wouldn't tolerate it. NIH Principal Deputy Director Matt Memoli, according to The Washington Post, overrode staff by classifying tuberculosis studies NIH reviewers deemed safe as potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) described undergoing mental health treatment with the psychedelic drug ibogaine to the New York Times. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. TECH MAZE Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has moved faster than other states to regulate artificial intelligence, including signing a bill last year barring health insurers in the state from using AI to deny claims. Now, a prominent AI company is urging the Democratic governor to consider a less rigid regulatory approach. In a letter to Newsom, obtained by our POLITICO colleagues at California Decoded, OpenAI suggests that California should consider AI companies that sign onto national and international AI agreements as compliant with state AI rules. The letter, dated Monday, from OpenAI's Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, comes as Sacramento continues to debate key AI legislation, including Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's bill SB 53, which would require large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols on their websites. Lehane recommended that 'California take the lead in harmonizing state-based AI regulation with emerging global standards' when it comes to the technology, dubbing it the California Approach. World view: OpenAI and other developers have already signed, or plan to sign, onto the EU's AI code of practice and have committed to conducting national security-related assessments of their programs. Lehane said that 'we encourage the state to consider frontier model developers compliant with its state requirements when they sign onto a parallel regulatory framework like the [European Union's] CoP or enter into a safety-oriented agreement with a relevant US federal government agency.' Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said, 'We have received the letter. We don't typically comment on pending legislation.' Worth noting: The EU code is a voluntary way for companies to comply with the bloc's AI Act and is nonbinding in the U.S., which has no equivalent. Commitments to work with federal regulators don't necessarily cover all the areas, like deepfakes or chatbots, where Sacramento wants to regulate AI. But the letter offers Newsom something of an off-ramp, after he vetoed Wiener's broader AI safety bill last year that would have required programs to complete prerelease safety testing. Last week, Newsom spoke with cautious positivity about Wiener's effort this year, saying it was in the spirit of an expert report on AI regulation he commissioned. But SB 53 — which would establish whistleblower protections for AI workers and require companies to publish their own internal safety testing — still faces opposition from the tech industry. Lehane's letter puts an industry-sponsored solution on the governor's desk. He framed the simplified California Approach as a way to give 'democratic AI' an edge in the race with Chinese-built programs by removing unnecessary regulation, a key priority for the Trump administration. 'Imagine how hard it would have been during the Space Race had California's aerospace and technology industries been encumbered by regulations that impeded rapid innovation,' Lehane wrote.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's unconventional chip gambit might leave Nvidia and AMD with more questions than answers
President Trump has had a busy week making moves across the US chip industry. And it's only Wednesday. On Monday, Trump revealed his administration will take a 15% cut of sales of Nvidia (NVDA) and AMD's (AMD) chips to Chinese companies in exchange for allowing the AI hardware to flow back into the country. He also met with Intel (INTC) CEO Lip-Bu Tan on Monday after calling for his ouster last week. At the end of the day, Trump appeared to back away from his initial demand, saying Tan's 'success and rise is an amazing story.' On their face, the developments appear to be positive for the trio of chip giants. But Trump's lightning-fast whiplash between stances raises important questions about the companies' futures, including whether Nvidia and AMD will be able to continue selling their chips in China, despite the administration's prior protestations about national security concerns, and what kind of toll the president will extract from Intel moving forward. Nvidia and AMD get a win… for now Trump's decision to restart the sale of Nvidia and AMD chips into China for a fee means both companies will be able to recoup some of the losses they took when he initially banned processor shipments there in April. Nvidia had to write off $4.5 billion due to the ban in Q1, with an additional $8 billion hit expected in Q2, while AMD reported an $800 million loss in Q2. '[The] companies can use some part of their prior written-off inventory so even with 15% penalty they get some gross profit recovery, and … China resumption maintains the original goal of engaging with an important (China) AI ecosystem and of potentially keeping competitors (Huawei) in check,' BofA Global Research analyst Vivek Arya wrote in a research note following Trump's announcement. Nvidia, in particular, could end up passing along the 15% fee to its China-based customers, thanks to the strong demand for its offerings. 'From my perspective, it is a positive for those companies,' Forrester senior analyst Alvin Nguyen told Yahoo Finance. 'As you know, it opens a market where there's still high demand. Nvidia, especially, still has a lot of cache with their name.' But Trump's latest AI chip move also introduces some thorny questions. The first of which is whether Nvidia and AMD will continue to be able to sell their AI processors into China moving forward, or if Trump will change his mind again. After all, the administration originally pulled Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 on national security grounds, and as Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon explained to Yahoo Finance, this deal doesn't appear to address the matter. Arya similarly warns against getting too comfortable with the idea of China as a reliable source of revenue for either company. 'It isn't clear if [the US government] will continue to provide approvals next year,' he wrote in a research note. 'Restarting supply chains to produce more AI chips could take 8-9 months … [and the] rapidly evolving AI landscape could reduce demand from certain China customers.' There's another problem lurking for Nvidia, though. According to The Information, Chinese officials are urging companies like ByteDance, Alibaba Group (BABA), and Tencent Holdings (TCEHY) to suspend the purchase of Nvidia chips over potential security concerns. Nvidia says its chips don't pose any kind of security threat. 'As both governments recognize, the H20 is not a military product or for government infrastructure. China has ample supply of domestic chips to meet its needs,' an Nvidia spokesperson wrote in an email to Yahoo Finance. 'It won't and never has relied on American chips for government operations, just like the U.S. government would not rely on chips from China. Banning the sale of H20 in China would only harm US economic and technology leadership with zero national security benefit.' All of this comes amid the backdrop of the US and China's ongoing trade negotiations, leaving Nvidia and AMD uniquely vulnerable to further political intrigue. Intel's Trump meeting Intel is also contending with its own Trump-related issues. Last week, the president said in a Truth Social post that Tan was 'highly conflicted and must resign,' adding that there was 'no other solution to this problem.' Trump's statement came after Republican Sen. Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel questioning Tan's investments in Chinese companies. It didn't help that the Justice Department announced in July that Cadence Design Systems, where Tan previously served as CEO, would pay a $140 million settlement related to charges about shipping chip design products to a Chinese military university. Tan also has a number of investments in Chinese companies. Intel responded in a statement saying Tan, the company, and its board are aligned with Trump's 'America First agenda.' After Tan's meeting with the president on Monday, the company released an additional statement saying, 'We appreciate the president's strong leadership to advance these critical priorities and look forward to working closely with him and his administration as we restore this great American company.' Trump, for his part, said in a Truth Social post that the meeting was interesting and that his members will meet with Tan to give him suggestions over the next week. It's unclear what the suggestions would be for. In a research note, Rasgon wrote that Intel could petition for 'further support, both monetary and, conceivably, through customer 'encouragement' either for volume … or more direct investment.' The biggest question then is what Trump will seek from Intel in return for his help. 'We do know [Trump] tends to be transactional, and loves making deals where he (and, hopefully, the US too?) come out ahead,' Rasgon wrote. 'Would a successful Intel be enough all by itself to satiate that desire? We aren't sure, but given recent behavior (just yesterday extracting dollars from [Nvidia] and AMD to sell AI chips into China) we feel that his largesse, if obtained, likely won't come free.' Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on X/Twitter at @DanielHowley. Sign in to access your portfolio
