logo
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang hammers chip controls that 'effectively closed' China market

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang hammers chip controls that 'effectively closed' China market

CNBC2 days ago

As pleased as Wall Street was with Nvidia's quarterly results on Wednesday, CEO Jensen Huang said the company is leaving billions of dollars in revenue on the table because it can no longer sell to China.
"The $50 billion China market is effectively closed to U.S. industry," Huang told analysts at the beginning of his prepared remarks on the earnings call. "As a result, we are taking a multibillion-dollar writeoff on inventory that cannot be sold or repurposed."
Even without access to the world's second-biggest economy, Nvidia reported 69% year-over-year revenue growth to $44 billion in the fiscal first quarter, topping analysts' estimates. The stock rose about 4% in extended trading to a level that would be the highest since January if it stays there on Thursday.
Nvidia shares are now up for the year, after a difficult start to 2025, adding to a rally that lifted the company's market cap by almost 240% in 2023 and over 170% last year.
Still, Huang is making his displeasure with the China situation quite clear.
In April, the Trump administration told Nvidia that its previously approved H20 processor for China would require an export license, which effectively cut off sales with "no grace period," the company said on Wednesday. The U.S. government has highlighted the national security concerns of having Nvidia's sophisticated AI chips sold to a chief adversary.
The H20 was introduced by Nvidia after the Biden administration restricted AI chip exports in 2022. It's a slowed-down version intended to comply with U.S. export controls.
Nvidia said on Wednesday that sales in the latest quarter would have been $2.5 billion higher if the company could have sold H20 chips for the full quarter, instead of stopping in April when it got the government letter. It had to write off $4.5 billion in inventory it couldn't use anymore.
In the current quarter, Nvidia said it had $8 billion in planned H20 orders that now have to be scrapped. Nvidia's guidance is for $45 billion in the current period, a number that would've been roughly 18% higher if not for the restriction.
In Huang's view, the export controls not only hurt Nvidia, but the whole of the U.S. He said China will "move on" with or without Nvidia's chips, and that Chinese AI researchers will turn to homegrown chips and technology from companies including Huawei.
"The U.S. has based its policy on the assumption that China cannot make AI chips," Huang said. "That assumption was always questionable, and now it's clearly wrong."
"The question is not whether China will have AI," Huang added. "It already does."
While Huang has become increasingly public in his disagreements with the export control policy, he's very careful not to criticize President Donald Trump, who has made a habit out of making life difficult for companies and individuals that openly oppose him.
Huang thanked Trump for rescinding the pending "AI diffusion" rule that would have put AI chip quotas on most countries, and praised him for helping strike deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to build massive data centers in the Middle East. He said Nvidia was building its latest chips and systems on U.S. soil, a nod to Trump's plan to bring high-tech manufacturing stateside.
"We share this vision" of highly automated manufacturing with Trump, Huang said.
But Huang admitted that Nvidia doesn't have another answer to the China issue.
When asked on Wednesday if the company is working on a new China-focused chip to sell into the region or if Nvidia expected to get any relief from the administration, Huang said there's no replacement product at the moment, and that the latest U.S. limits are "quite stringent."
"The president has a plan," Huang said. "He has a vision, and I trust him."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Accuses China of Breaking Trade Deal, Markets React: Live Updates
Trump Accuses China of Breaking Trade Deal, Markets React: Live Updates

Miami Herald

time9 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Trump Accuses China of Breaking Trade Deal, Markets React: Live Updates

President Donald Trump accused China Friday of violating a preliminary trade agreement between the two countries and suggested the U.S. may respond. The announcement came after a 90-day suspension of tariffs was agreed upon in May to ease tensions, but Trump says China has not followed through on its commitments. U.S. stock futures fell amid the escalating trade concerns. What to know: Trump claimed China broke the deal that paused retaliatory tariffs in a post on Truth Social.U.S. Trade Representative expressed serious concern about China's an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent noted that trade talks with China have 90-day tariff suspension was aimed at stabilizing trade called his tariff policies tough but necessary, saying China faced "civil unrest."The situation is causing uncertainty in markets ahead of further negotiations. Stay with Newsweek for the latest. A soldier pardoned by President Donald Trump shared an image associated with COVID conspiracy theories on his social media when thanking the president for his pardon. Former 1st Lieutenant Mark Bashaw was discharged from the Army in 2023 after being found guilty of refusing to obey orders around COVID-19 prevention in 2022. His official offense was listed as "violation of lawful orders," and although he was convicted, he was not sent to prison. Bashaw has been contacted for comment via email to his cryptocurrency company. The Trump administration, which oversaw the initial response to COVID-19 in the U.S, including the rapid research and development of vaccines in 2020, has been working to reinstate military members who refused the COVID-19 vaccine, while firing transgender military personnel. The COVID-19 pandemic has killed 1.2 million Americans since 2020 according to the World Health Organization, and approximately 300 Americans are still dying every week from COVID infections due in part to low vaccine rates and difficulties accessing medication. Read the full story by Sophia Clark on Newsweek. Trump said on Truth Social that China has "totally violated" a trade agreement he brokered to stabilize its economy after U.S. tariffs caused what he described as "civil unrest." Today on CNN, anchor Rahel Solomon interviewed Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, the nonprofit litigation firm representing small businesses challenging Trump's Liberation Day tariffs. Stephens responded to a recent appeals court decision allowing the tariffs to remain in place while litigation continues, calling it a procedural delay. "We still think that the Court of International Trade's decision was incredibly strong," he said. He argued that trade deficits do not qualify as a national emergency under the 1977 law the administration invoked, calling them "perfectly ordinary." Stephens also expressed hope the Supreme Court would reject what he called a vague and expansive interpretation of presidential power over tariffs. Trump is holding a rally in Pennsylvania on Friday to promote a deal that will keep U.S. Steel under American control, despite the Japanese firm Nippon Steel's planned investment. While Trump once vowed to block Nippon's $14.9 billion bid to buy the Pittsburgh-based company, he now supports what he described as a "partial ownership" arrangement. Details remain unclear; neither U.S. Steel nor Nippon has confirmed a finalized deal. Trump said the agreement would preserve U.S. jobs and ensure American oversight, a priority for his administration as it pushes to protect domestic manufacturing. Reports suggest the arrangement would include a board led mainly by Americans and a "golden share" allowing the U.S. government to veto decisions. Still, the United Steelworkers union and some lawmakers have voiced skepticism, questioning whether the revised plan differs meaningfully from the original proposal. Despite the uncertainty, Trump presents the potential partnership as a win for national security and workers in key states like Pennsylvania, where the steel industry remains politically and economically significant. Former Vice President Mike Pence has accused President Donald Trump of supplanting Congress' constitutional authority over trade and commerce, following a federal court ruling that sought to void the majority of his tariffs. "The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs," Pence wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "Article 1, Section 8 provides that the Congress 'shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.'" "The president has no authority in the Constitution to unilaterally impose tariffs without an act of Congress," he added. Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment outside regular hours. Read the full story by Hugh Cameron on Newsweek. President Donald Trump will appear alongside Elon Musk at a White House event Friday afternoon, marking the end of Musk's role as a "special government employee" leading the Department of Government Efficiency. Trump announced the 1:30 p.m. ET media event on Truth Social, praising Musk as "terrific" and saying, "he will, always, be with us, helping all the way." Musk's 130-day term, the maximum allowed for such appointments within a calendar year, formally ended Wednesday. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO confirmed his departure in a post on X, expressing frustration over a new domestic spending package backed by Trump. Related Articles Soldier Pardoned by Trump Shares 'Plandemic' Conspiracy ImageGovernment Worker Angry With Trump Tried To Leak Classified Material: FBIDonald Trump Accuses China of Violating Deal After He Tried to Be NiceGiant Construction Projects Boom as U.S. Lifts Syria Sanctions 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Trump Rips His Own Dark Money Buddy in Bonkers Rant Over Tariff Losses
Trump Rips His Own Dark Money Buddy in Bonkers Rant Over Tariff Losses

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Rips His Own Dark Money Buddy in Bonkers Rant Over Tariff Losses

Donald Trump unleashed a furious screed lamenting his recent tariff loss, and pointed the finger at 'sleazebag' conservative billionaire Leonard Leo, the ex-chairman of the Federalist Society. In a post on Truth Social Thursday night, Trump railed against the U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling the previous day, which found that the president had exceeded his legal authority by imposing sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries, based on vague claims of 'national emergencies.' On Thursday, the Trump administration was granted a temporary stay of the little-known federal court ruling while the government appeals—but that didn't keep Trump from flying off the handle. 'Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?' Trump wrote. Trump said that he regretted taking recommendations for judges from the Federalist Society, and lashed out at Leo specifically. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions,' Trump wrote. 'He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court—I hope that is not so, and don't believe it is!' Leo is single-handedly responsible for installing the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, and tracelessly pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into the conservative legal movement every year. While two of the judges responsible for blocking Trump's sweeping retaliatory tariffs were appointed by other presidents, one, Judge Timothy Reif, was appointed by Trump during his first term. In 2020, Leo left the Federalist Society to start his for-profit conservative consulting group, CRC Advisors. 'In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own 'thing.' I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!' Trump wrote. Trump continued in a lengthy call for the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, adding that 'Backroom 'hustlers' must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!' Trump's move to shade the conservative playmaker comes as he prepares his own judicial nominees. Crucially, the Trump administration appears to have decided they no longer want qualified judges in the first place, just political sycophants. Pam Bondi told the American Bar Association Thursday that the administration would not cooperate with its vetting process, claiming that it favored candidates put forth by Democratic administrations. This move came shortly after Trump announced that he would nominate Emil Bove, his personal lawyer in the Stormy Daniels trial, for a lifetime federal judiciary appointment.

America might finally make childbirth free
America might finally make childbirth free

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

America might finally make childbirth free

As politicians grapple with declining birth rates, the financial burden of giving birth in America — where privately insured families face out-of-pocket costs of nearly $3,000 on average — has captured widespread attention. Last month, when news broke that the Trump administration was considering $5,000 baby bonuses for new parents, comedian Taylor Tomlinson captured the national frustration: 'That's like spritzing a volcano with a water gun.' A recent viral TikTok showing one mother's $44,000 hospital bill shocked viewers worldwide, underscoring the uniquely brutal pressures facing American families. Now, a rare bipartisan solution could directly address at least the problem of expensive childbirth. The Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, introduced in the Senate last week, would require private insurance companies to fully cover all childbirth-related expenses — from prenatal care and ultrasounds to delivery, postpartum care, and mental health treatment — without any co-pays or deductibles. (Medicaid, which insures roughly 41 percent of American births, already covers these costs.) The bill was introduced by Republican Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) and Josh Hawley (MO), and Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (VA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY). A companion bipartisan version is expected in the House soon, with Democratic Rep. Jared Golden (ME) among the forthcoming cosponsors. Perhaps most striking are the bill's endorsees: organizations that typically find themselves on opposite sides of reproductive health debates. Supporters include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, alongside prominent anti-abortion groups including Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, and Live Action. While the White House has not yet weighed in, Vice President JD Vance championed the idea during his Senate tenure. He publicly called the free childbirth proposal 'interesting' in January 2023, and his office had been preparing bipartisan legislation on the issue last year before being tapped to join the Trump campaign. Notably, Vance's former Senate staffer Robert Orr, who led the childbirth bill initiative, now works for Hawley. Some abortion rights advocacy groups, too, have expressed approval. Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director at Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, told me her organization 'proudly supports' the bill. Dorianne Mason, the director of health equity at the National Women's Law Center, said they are 'encouraged' to see the bipartisan effort. A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Action Fund said the group is still reviewing the bill but 'generally supports legislation to make the cost of maternal health care and parenting more affordable.' Reproductive Freedom For All declined to comment. While questions remain about whether eliminating childbirth costs would actually boost birth rates or reduce abortions — as various supporters hope — there's little doubt it would provide crucial relief to families who have already chosen to have children. The unlikely alliance behind the bill traces back to an unexpected source: a journalist's challenge to the anti-abortion movement. The Affordable Care Act already requires insurers to cover essential health benefits, like birth control and cancer screenings, at no cost to patients. This new bill would expand the list of essential health benefits to include prenatal, birth, and postpartum care, and require these services also to be free. The costs would be paid by insurance companies and modest increases in premiums for the 178 million people primarily covered by private plans. On average, premiums would go up by approximately $30 annually, according to an analysis from the Niskanen Center think tank. Lawson Mansell, the Niskanen policy analyst who ran the cost modeling, told me he thinks this proposal is the simplest way, on an administrative level, to make birth free. The trade-off, though, is instability: employer-sponsored coverage can disappear just when families need it most, since people often lose their jobs during pregnancy. The bill to cover childbirth costs under private health insurance has an unusual origin story compared to most pieces of legislation in Washington, DC, and reflects evolving factions within the anti-abortion movement. In early July 2022, shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Elizabeth Bruenig, a staff writer at the Atlantic, published a piece urging the anti-abortion movement to take up the cause of making birth free. 'It's time the pro-life movement chose life,' Bruenig, who identifies as pro-life but opposes criminal bans on abortion, wrote. She recommended expanding Medicare to cover the costs, just as Medicare was expanded to cover dialysis and kidney transplants in the early 1970s. Her article cited examples of staggering medical bills, such as one couple charged $10,000 for delivering in Texas and another $24,000 in Indiana. The piece made waves within an anti-abortion movement that was grasping for its next move after the Supreme Court struck down Roe. 'She was really challenging the pro-lifers on this issue, and we found the idea super interesting,' said Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life of America. Catherine Glenn Foster, then the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, responded a week after publication, praising Bruenig's piece and adding, 'Making birth free should be table stakes as a political matter. I'll work to advance this.' Democrats for Life and Americans United for Life teamed up, and in January 2023 the two organizations released a white paper, fleshing out the 'Make Birth Free' policy in more detail. The authors thanked Bruenig in the acknowledgements for pushing them to take on the idea, and it was this white paper that caught the eye of Vance in the Senate. John Mize, who succeeded Glenn Foster as CEO of Americans United for Life in January 2024, said the Bruenig article arrived at exactly the right moment. He acknowledges his movement 'missed the mark' by being so singularly focused on banning abortion for so many years. 'I think there's been a little bit of paradigm shift in some of the movement — not by all, by any means — but certainly by some parts' to better support women and families. He pointed to the Blueprint for Life coalition which launched in June 2024 to promote more holistic family policies, and he noted that some anti-abortion groups are newly advocating for policies like expanding the Child Tax Credit and paid family leave. Still, many leading anti-abortion advocates and lawmakers have been leading the push to cut federal spending on programs like child care, food assistance, and maternal health care. The Heritage Foundation called the original proposal to make childbirth costs free an 'unjust wealth transfer' and others protested the risk of more 'socialism' in health care as too great. When Bruenig's piece was originally published, she faced fierce pushback from the left. Critics felt the article was insensitive, implicitly endorsing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe, and offering 'fanfic' for a right-wing movement historically opposed to a robust welfare state. Political science professor Scott Lemieux called the piece 'cringe' and 'embarrassing' and 'deluded.' Others said she was pitching 'forced birth but make it free.' The left-wing backlash ultimately prompted Bruenig to quit Twitter. Bruenig says she never expected much uptake on the idea, but is encouraged by recent changes. 'For the last 10 years or more I have contended that the best way to deal with abortion is on the demand side, by creating a welfare system that gives people an honest choice,' she told me. 'There's been, for better or worse, a shift in the way Republicans are thinking about these kinds of things…and in the center, and I'm very impressed to see some uptake on the idea.' She says she's not surprised there was criticism, but was writing for 'people who are persuadable when it comes to what the pro-life movement should be about.' She added that she embraces the 'pro-life' label despite opposing abortion bans because 'I don't think the pro-ban people should get to decide what counts as pro-life policy or philosophy.' Bill supporters are cautiously hopeful about the road ahead for the legislation. The timing reflects converging forces that have created an unusual window for bipartisan family policy. President Donald Trump's election, combined with growing concerns about declining birth rates, has coincided with a shift among some conservatives toward more proactive family policies. Meanwhile, Democrats see an opportunity to advance maternal health goals. The legislation also benefits from political cover on both sides. Republicans can champion it as pro-family policy that potentially reduces abortions, while Democrats can support it as expanding health care access. Crucially, because it doesn't require new government spending but instead redistributes costs through the existing private insurance system, it sidesteps typical fights over federal budget increases. But challenges remain. The upcoming reconciliation process will test whether Republicans prioritize fiscal restraint or family policy when forced to choose. And while Vance previously supported the free birth idea, the administration faces pressure from fiscal conservatives who view any insurance mandates as market interference. Not all conservatives will be thrilled at the idea of tinkering with the Affordable Care Act or facing accusations of supporting socialized medicine. Bill supporters hope the momentum for pronatalist policies might help to combat those kinds of criticisms, though other conservatives have pointed to falling birth rates in places with single-payer health care, too. Still, the legislation has attracted support from heavyweight conservative intellectuals. Yuval Levin, the director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a policy brief earlier this year urging Congress to embrace making childbirth free, even if it doesn't affect birth rates. 'Substantively and symbolically, bringing the out-of-pocket health care costs of childbirth to zero is an ambitious but achievable starting point for the next generation of pro-family policies,' he wrote. Patrick Brown, a family policy analyst at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center tells me he thinks it's 'the right instinct' to share the costs of parenting more broadly across society, though he hopes it does not 'distract from more broad-based efforts to help parents' such as a larger Child Tax Credit. Mize, of Americans United for Life, has been in 'the planning phases' of working with the White House on family policy. He thinks once the reconciliation bill is done, Republicans and Democrats could either retreat to their camps ahead of the midterms or decide to work together on achievable wins. 'You could see level-headed people say, 'Hey, this is one opportunity for us to put a feather in our cap and say that we're working on a bipartisan basis with our constituents,'' he said. A Senate staffer working on the bill, who requested anonymity to more candidly discuss their plans, said their intention is to move the bill through normal order and attach it to a must-pass legislative package. Both Hawley and Kaine sit on the Senate HELP committee, which holds jurisdiction over the bill. Rep. Golden, who is working on preparing the House version, said they're hoping to introduce their bill within the next week or two. 'While some debates over what [family policy] should look like can be complicated or contentious, this idea is simple and powerful: Pregnancy and childbirth are normal parts of family life,' he told Vox. 'So, insurance companies should treat it like the routine care it is and cover the cost, not stick people with huge medical bills. That's the kind of simple, commonsense reform that anyone can get behind. '

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