logo
CNBC Transcript: NVIDIA Founder, President & CEO Jensen Huang Speaks with CNBC's Jim Cramer on 'Mad Money' Today

CNBC Transcript: NVIDIA Founder, President & CEO Jensen Huang Speaks with CNBC's Jim Cramer on 'Mad Money' Today

CNBC2 days ago

WHEN: Today, Wednesday, May 28, 2025
WHERE: CNBC's "Mad Money"
Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC interview with NVIDIA Founder, President & CEO Jensen Huang on CNBC's "Mad Money" (M-F, 6PM-7PM ET) today, Wednesday, May 28. Following is a link to video on CNBC.com: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/05/28/nvidia-ceo-jensen-huang-we-are-going-to-keep-dialogue-going-with-the-trump-administration.html.
All references must be sourced to CNBC.
JIM CRAMER: Tonight, we got the single most important quarter of this entire earnings season when NVIDIA reported. There was a lot of hand-wringing about this one as usual, but NVIDIA delivered a huge set of numbers, including a sizable top and bottom line beat, healthy revenue guidance for the current quarter, even after taking an $8 billion sales hit on those export controls that prevent him from doing lots of business in China. So, how did they pull it off? Let's go straight to the source with the man I call the modern-day Leonardo da Vinci, Jensen Huang, the co-founder, president and CEO of NVIDIA. Well, Jensen, welcome back to "Mad Money."
JENSEN HUANG: Hey, Jim. It's great to be here.
CRAMER: Alright, so let's go to -- it's a remarkable quarter in every single way, but you do say, I'm going to go right there, that China is positioned to lead globally and you do not think that, unless you can sell to China, you can necessarily lead with them. And I look at this market and I'm saying there's $50 billion up for grab. I actually think it could literally be all yours if there weren't export controls. Am I wrong? And how much of that money would flow back to the United States if you could do the sales?
HUANG: NVIDIA's market share in China was about 95 percent four years ago. It's about 50 percent today because of the limitations on the products that we sell. $50 billion a year market today, it's growing, just like AI is growing everywhere. Over the course of the next, this four years, the president's administration, we're probably talking about a few hundred billion dollars worth of revenues to NVIDIA, probably tens of billions of dollars of taxes, revenues to the country, thousands of jobs, incredible, incredible opportunity. But more, strategically, more importantly, this is very important.
CRAMER: Okay.
HUANG: First of all, the China market is, of course, very large, but it's also the home of 50 percent of the world's AI researchers. The platform that succeeds is the platform with the most developers. Just like iPhone is successful because of lots of developers, Windows is successful because of lots of developers, all these platforms succeed because there are a lot of developers. China is home to 50 percent of the AI researchers in the world. And so we want the world to build on American technology stack. We want every developer in the world to prefer the American technology stacks. Once that happens, the developers develop on American technology stacks, American technology stacks will run AI the best all over the world. And so this is, that's probably the most important strategic reason to be in China, because there are so many developers there and because the world is going to adopt technology from one country or another. And we prefer it to be the American technology stack.
CRAMER: Well, you know the president has a plan. You say that. He has a vision, and you trust him. You say that. I have to believe that you think that he has to see, either see the light, or he has, and that things that look so dire right now in China may not be as dire, and there could be even as soon as next quarter more business being done than we thought after tonight.
HUANG: It's hard to tell. But the most important thing is this, Jim. Our president wants America to win. And he also recognizes that this is an important market. It's a very large market. And the revenues that it could generate for the United States is significant. It's just incredible, $50 billion this year. Look, we're talking about the size of a Boeing, not a Boeing plane, Boeing the company. This is an enormous market. And so I think the opportunity left behind is quite substantial. This is also an excellent way to improve our trade deficit.
CRAMER: It would also seem to me that there must be some people who think that they can militarize our, your chips. I can't imagine a scenario where they would decide, you know what, we're going to use NVIDIA chips in our aircraft carriers. We would put them in our submarines. Wouldn't that be foolhardy? We would never use Huawei chips in our missiles.
HUANG: That's exactly right. They have plenty of chips themselves. Obviously, we're losing market share to chips that are built locally. China is an extraordinary manufacturing capability. And they are doubling the number of chips that they're building every single year. The technology that's being offered by Huawei is extraordinary. This is an extraordinary technology company. And so we have plenty of competition there. Chinese government has plenty of choices with indigenous technology, which is their preference. So I think that the idea that any -- anyhow, go ahead.
CRAMER: But isn't it true that the president has helped you immeasurably, the huge business that you're doing in the Gulf states? When you see him, he obviously is, in many ways, NVIDIA's number one salesperson. Is it asking too much to be able to say, and not only that, Mr. President, I also want you to open China?
HUANG: Well, we're going to keep our dialogue going with the administration. And I believe that what we're explaining is ground truth. And we understand the technology best, and we understand how computing works. We understand how AI works, and we have been in China for 30 years. And so this is an area that we have a lot of expertise, and we're going to continue to share that. But let me tell you this, Jim. Listen, the president laid out a bold vision for the United States, for America to reindustrialize, to onshore manufacturing, so that we can have a more resilient supply chain, so that we can create jobs locally, very importantly, so that we become great at manufacturing again, at a time when manufacturing isn't about labor, but it's about, labor only, but it's about technology. And so that vision is incredible. This is going to be, this initiative by the president is likely going to set the United States up for a century, for this century to come.
CRAMER: Okay.
HUANG: This is going to be a very big deal.
CRAMER: Well, let's—
HUANG: I also think that he, when he rescinded the AI diffusion rule, it was a visionary move, it was a bold move, and he recognizes that there's an AI race, and we're not alone. And he wants America to win. And so it's not about AI diffusion limitation. It's about AI diffusion maximizing American technology.
CRAMER: Okay, so let's—
HUANG: And so he sees that. Yes.
CRAMER: Okay. so let's talk about the Blackwell ramp, which was amazing, and, of course, we're going to have Ultra, which is incredible, and the demand. Is the demand as, when I saw you the last few times, it sounds like you're running out of superlatives, but demand seems even stronger than GTC. It's even stronger than COMPUTEX.
HUANG: The demand keeps growing because there's just more companies. Number one, inference has taken off. That is number one. Inference has taken off. This reasoning AI capability is genuinely a breakthrough. It is now so popular, solving so many problems. And the amount of computation necessary for reasoning, for thinking is 100 times, 1,000 times more than a couple of years ago, when ChatGPT was a one-shot answer AI. And so now these reasoning AIs requires a lot of thinking, a lot of compute. The demand is just incredible.
CRAMER: Now, you're telling me even since GTC?
HUANG: In the meanwhile, of course, we're getting more customers. Oh, yes, much—
CRAMER: But even since GTC, you just increased it. It was 100 times at GTC. Now it's possibly even 1,000?
HUANG: Yes.
CRAMER: How is this possible, Jensen? And what, why are there still people who are holding back and not seeing what you're doing? We will all have robots. We will all have free, we will have hands-free driving. All of this is going to come about much faster than people realize because of what you're working on.
HUANG: It's completely true. It's completely, robotics is definitely within the next three to four, five years. The technology works today. It's starting to work very well today. Now, within -- once a technology becomes realized, becomes possible, it's only a couple of two, three ticks for an engineer to crank it and turn it into something that could be really scaled out in volume. And so self-driving cars are here. That, we know. Robotics is going to be right around the corner, robotics factories being built around the world. Yes, this is the next great growth opportunity.
CRAMER: Alright, so let's talk software. I don't think enough is talked about software. I don't think -- we're not talking about Omniverse enough. And we're not talking about the idea that we're not -- you're just not selling these devices. You're selling a full platform that's not duplicatable, which is why you're so far ahead of everybody else. It's not just about the hardware.
HUANG: We used to be a chip company, and then we became a systems company. And, Jim, now, we're an entire infrastructure company. If you take a look at what we build, it's an entire factory. And you can't just load up a factory with chips. You have got computing systems. You have got networking systems and switches. But what you have mostly is a mountain of software to get it all to run. When you have got a $50 billion infrastructure, the software necessary to keep it humming and to make it, make the utilization and the efficiency and its throughput as high as possible, that piece of software is invaluable. If the utilization was 10 percent off, that's worth $5 billion. And so this is a very big deal now. Software is just a giant part of our business.
CRAMER: Okay, how about what, we have to talk about society. And when I hear what you can do, when I hear what the robots can do, when I know what Boston Dynamics, 1X, when I see what these companies can do, I wonder, is the CEO of Anthropic going to be right when he talks about a bloodbath of white-collar workers, unemployment spiking 10 to 20 percent, mass elimination of jobs? Or isn't your vision that productivity, like whether it be the loom, whether it be the canal, whether it be the steam engine, these were all generators of jobs, not retractors of jobs?
HUANG: It's a generator of jobs. There are surely different views. Let me give you this view.
CRAMER: Okay.
HUANG: The, there's a labor shortage between now and the end of the decade that's measured in some 30, 40, 50 million short. If you just translate 50 million people short in labor force and translate that to GDP growth, it's extraordinary. It's approximately about the size of the United States. And so the ability for us to expand what is today a limited and short labor shortage, we around the world should be able to expand our GDP. And that's our future, to be able to turn these agents, which are essentially work force robots, information robots, and human robots, physical robots, to expand the world's GDP.
CRAMER: Alright, one last question from me. I want to be sure that we have a smooth transition to the next iteration, to Ultra, and then even to Rubin. How are we feeling? Because I know that there was a glitch. I got a little too aggressive in thinking everything would be smooth. I got ahead. I don't want to get ahead of myself this time. We looking good?
HUANG: Well, first of all, Jim, remember, we made last quarter. We made the quarter before that. So it was not easy. It was not easy. And let me tell you why it wasn't easy. In the case of Grace Blackwell, because of this thinking machine we wanted to create, this reasoning AI factory we wanted to create, we changed the architecture of these AI supercomputers.
CRAMER: Right.
HUANG: The architecture is completely different. And it's extraordinarily complex. And so, anyways, now the entire supply chain, not only that. We enabled a very, very large supply chain to be able to build these things, every ODM, every OEM, CSPs, they have now got it up and running.
CRAMER: Okay.
HUANG: Now, here's the really great thing. Ultra is exactly the same architecture, exactly the same chassis. And so we will just slip it right in and keep running.
CRAMER: Alright, we're going to leave it there. I wish you the best of luck. Congratulations on an amazing quarter. And let's see if the president's plan includes opening China back for you. Thank you so much, Jensen Huang.
HUANG: Thank you, Jim.
CRAMER: Absolutely, president, founder, CEO of—
HUANG: Off to the races.
CRAMER: Alright, NVIDIA. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Appreciate it.
HUANG: Thank you, Jim. Good to see you.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump signals fresh trade tensions with China
Trump signals fresh trade tensions with China

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump signals fresh trade tensions with China

US President Donald Trump signaled renewed trade tensions with China on Friday, arguing that Beijing had "violated" a deal to de-escalate tariffs, at a time when both sides appeared deadlocked in negotiations. Trump's post on his Truth Social platform came hours after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that trade talks with China were "a bit stalled," in an interview with broadcaster Fox News. The world's two biggest economies had agreed this month to temporarily lower staggeringly high tariffs they had imposed on each other, in a pause to last 90 days, after talks between top officials in Geneva. But on Friday, Trump wrote that: "China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US," without providing further details. Asked about the post on CNBC, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer took aim at Beijing for continuing to "slow down and choke off things like critical minerals." He added that the United States' trade deficit with China "continues to be enormous," and that Washington was not seeing major shifts in Beijing's behavior. On Thursday, Bessent had suggested that Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping could get involved in the situation. He said there could be a call between both leaders eventually. Since Trump returned to the presidency in January, he has imposed sweeping tariffs on most US trading partners, with especially high rates on imports from China. New tit-for-tat levies from both sides reached three digits before the de-escalation earlier this month, where Washington agreed to temporarily reduce its additional tariffs on Chinese imports from 145 percent to 30 percent. China, meanwhile, lowered its added duties from 125 percent to 10 percent. The US tariff level remains higher as it also includes a 20 percent levy that the Trump administration recently imposed on Chinese goods over the country's alleged role in the illicit drug trade -- an issue that Beijing has pushed back against. The high tariff levels, while they were still in place, forced much trade between both countries to grind to a halt, as businesses paused shipments to try and wait for both governments to reach an agreement to lower the levies. Trump's tariff plans are also facing legal challenges. A trade court ruled this week that the president overstepped his authority in tapping emergency economic powers to justify sweeping tariffs. It blocked the most wide-ranging levies since Trump returned to office, although this ruling has since been put on hold for now as an appeals process is ongoing. The ruling left intact, however, tariffs that the Trump administration imposed on sector-specific imports such as steel and autos. bys/st

Trump Needs to Get Real on Trade
Trump Needs to Get Real on Trade

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Needs to Get Real on Trade

U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order during a tariff announcement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. Credit - Jim Lo Scalzo—EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images The roller coaster that is President Donald Trump's trade war steamed ahead this week. On Wednesday, a federal district court dealt a major blow to Trump when it ruled that his sweeping global tariffs were illegal. On Thursday, an appeals court ruled the levies could remain in place for now. And then, on Friday, Trump accused China of violating a preliminary trade deal and suggested he would respond. As all this unfolds and the U.S. legal system lumbers toward a final verdict, one thing is clear: the White House needs to get a real trade strategy, and fast. Read More: The Five Small Businesses That Helped Block Trump's Tariffs Few issues are more fundamental to Trump's worldview than trade. For Trump, trade is not merely an economic issue, but a litmus test of whether America is winning or losing on the world stage. Even matters of war and peace, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, have seemingly taken a back seat to Trump's stubborn fixation on China's trade surplus with the U.S. During his first term, Trump launched a trade war against China with a goal, as he framed it, of punishing China's unfair trade practices. The trade war ended with a Phase-one deal wherein China promised to increase its future purchases of American products and enact structural reforms. Ultimately, this deal failed to deliver. The Chinese underperformed on their pledges. Trump blamed the Biden Administration for not enforcing the deal. Unbowed by the disappointment of his first trade war with China, Trump launched a second one when he returned to office earlier this year. This time, he surrounded himself with loyalists who supported his instincts for public confrontation and rapid escalation to force China to the negotiating table. Trump's approach appeared to be built on an assumption that China's economy was brittle, and Beijing would buckle under pressure. Read More: Why Trump Will Blink First on China That bet backfired. China retaliated with counter-tariffs. Beijing also implemented novel new export controls on critical minerals and magnets upon which U.S. industries depend. Chinese policymakers moved swiftly to shore up China's economy while expanding trade ties with other partners. Rather than fold, China punched back. As the economic costs of the trade war mounted on both sides of the Pacific, Trump designated his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to negotiate a 90-day truce. The Chinese accepted. Trump's trade war with China is not over. It is merely paused. Trump will continue returning to the well of grievance about America's trade imbalance with China until he can secure a deal that he can sell as a win to the American public. But therein lies the rub. Based on my recent exchanges with Chinese officials and experts, it seems Beijing has taken America's measure in recent weeks and concluded that China has greater capacity to withstand economic pain than the U.S. China's leaders lack confidence that any agreement with the mercurial Trump will last. At a more fundamental level, China's leaders are unclear on what specifically Trump seeks—and what he would offer in return. On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Bessent said that U.S.-China talks were 'a bit stalled' and suggested Trump and Xi Jinping 'have a call.' But until the Trump Administration can articulate its concrete objectives, its strategy for achieving them, and its vision of a productive process for doing so, the U.S.-China trade war will stay stalemated. Read More: It's Time for Trump and Xi to Meet To be clear, the Trump Administration has legitimate grievances about China's unfair economic practices. China's market access barriers, forced technology transfers, and state-directed subsidies to preferred industries and businesses have created massive global trade distortions. But grievance is not a strategy. And daily improvisation is not a formula for progress in negotiations. The 90-day trade truce gives the Trump Administration time and space to do its homework. That means discarding the failed assumptions that Xi will cave under pressure and instead doing the hard work of homing in on what specifically Trump is aiming to achieve and what he is prepared to give in return. In the end, trade policy is not about scoring points or undermining competitors. It is about making America stronger, safer, and more prosperous. If Trump wants to succeed, he will need to move beyond theatrics and prepare for the grinding process of negotiating with China that awaits. Contact us at letters@

Trump Is Attempting a ‘Reverse Nixon'
Trump Is Attempting a ‘Reverse Nixon'

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Is Attempting a ‘Reverse Nixon'

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon made history by drawing Communist China closer to the United States, giving Washington an advantage in its Cold War contest with the Soviet Union. Half a century later, President Donald Trump seems to be eyeing a similar diplomatic maneuver, but in reverse: drawing Russia closer to the United States in order to give Washington an advantage in its geopolitical competition with Communist China. If Trump were to pull this off, he, too, would change the course of history—isolating China, guaranteeing European security, and solidifying American global primacy. But the plan—known as a 'reverse Nixon' in foreign-policy circles—could easily backfire. On the face of it, trying to peel Russia off from China has a certain logic. The two countries have forged a partnership in recent years that could pose a serious threat to U.S. interests—Beijing's support for Moscow's invasion of Ukraine exemplifies this. 'The one thing you never want to happen is you never want Russia and China uniting,' Trump said in an October interview, citing one of his college professors. 'I'm going to have to un-unite them, and I think I can do that.' This imperative could help explain why the Trump administration has sought rapprochement with Russia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that Russia may otherwise become subservient to China. 'If Russia becomes a permanent junior partner to China in the long term, well, now you're talking about two nuclear powers aligned against the United States,' he said in a February interview. Russian leaders could be forced 'to do whatever China says they need to do because of their dependence on them,' he continued. 'I don't think that's a good outcome for Russia, and it's not a good outcome for America or for Europe or for the world.' [Michael Schuman: Trump hands the world to China] Publicly, Chinese officials have dismissed the possibility of losing Russia to Trump. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called the reverse-Nixon idea 'the obsolete Cold War mindset' and insisted that ties between Beijing and Moscow were 'as solid and unshakable as mountains.' Yet the fact that he felt the need to address the possibility may betray a degree of insecurity. Less than two weeks after Trump and Vladimir Putin spoke by phone in February, China's leader, Xi Jinping, had his own conversation with the Russian president and made sure to stress that 'our two countries are true friends' whose partnership had 'unique strategic value,' according to the summary of his comments issued by the Chinese foreign ministry. Nixon's task in the '70s was in some ways easier than the reverse Nixon promises to be today. The Chinese leaders Nixon wooed had already split with the Soviets and perceived them as a threat. Now China and Russia are closer than they have been in decades, and Putin has not evinced much inclination to change that. In early May, Putin hosted Xi at a World War II Victory Day celebration in Moscow and called the Chinese leader his 'dear friend.' Nor has Putin shown much enthusiasm for a deal with Trump to end the war in Ukraine (Vice President J. D. Vance complained earlier this month that the Russians were 'asking for too much'). The Trump administration may not fully appreciate the depth of the bond between America's adversaries. In his October interview, Trump expressed the belief that Russia and China have drawn close mainly as a result of faulty U.S. policies, especially those of President Joe Biden. Trump was most likely referring to Washington's tough stance on Ukraine, including sanctions on Russia, which arguably led Moscow to seek support and reprieve from China. 'We united them. Biden united them,' Trump said. 'The stupidity of what they've done.' But focusing on Ukraine gives short shrift to the many political, economic, and strategic interests that Putin and Xi share—chief among them a mutual antipathy toward the United States. 'Their common mistrust of Washington and their hopes of becoming more powerful in an emerging multipolar order—at the United States' expense—are likely to provide a strong enough foundation to keep the Chinese-Russian partnership stable and growing,' Alexander Gabuev, the director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, argued in a December analysis. Then there are the economic links. At this point, Putin may not be able to break free from China even if he wanted to. According to Gabuev, China now buys 30 percent of Russian exports; 40 percent of Russian imports come from China. China now buys more oil from Russia than from any other country. Even if the U.S. removes sanctions as part of a settlement of the Ukraine war, these arrangements might not change. 'Putin has no reason to give up China's extensive, concrete, and reliable support to Russia's civilian economy and defense industry in exchange for ties to Washington that may not last past the end of Trump's term,' the scholars Michael McFaul and Evan Medeiros argued in an essay in April. [Paul Mason: Trump brings Britain's 'moron premium' to the U.S. economy] If Trump and Xi wind up competing for Putin's attention, the Russian leader could play the U.S. and China off each other, to his own benefit. 'Russia could assume the pivot position in the triangular relation among the United States, China, and Russia,' Bonnie Glaser, the managing director of the German Marshall Fund's Indo-Pacific program, told me, meaning that Moscow would have better ties with Beijing and Washington than either would with the other. A successful reverse Nixon could work to the advantage of the United States. But it's a long shot, and failing means fracturing the American alliance with Europe without splitting Russia from China. With its large nuclear arsenal, Russia would remain a threat to global security, and by placing Putin in the pivot position, Trump would strengthen and embolden both him and Xi to increase their pressure on the United States. Article originally published at The Atlantic

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store