Trump's flip-flop on Nvidia chips is a win for China
In the past, Chinese companies, such as DeepSeek, have used Nvidia's export-controlled chips to improve their AI models. The H20 chip is specifically optimized for AI inference.
The administration is framing its decision to undo its national security controls as part of a broader trade strategy, one in which semiconductors and AI applications are part of complex 'deals" to benefit U.S. companies and the country. But the lack of clarity on what these chip sales will actually accomplish—and the obvious national security risks of deepening semiconductor business ties in China, including the funneling of chips into Beijing's security apparatus—mean this short-term 'win" is likely to become a longer-term security misstep.
Officials are defending the export control reversal by saying that Nvidia can sell H20 chips—but nothing more sensitive.
'We don't sell [China] our best stuff, not our second-best," Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick asserted. David Sacks, the White House's AI and crypto czar, has also argued that allowing Nvidia to sell H20 chips in China would undercut its competitor Huawei's ability to gain market share.
Those arguments, however, assume H20s aren't too dangerous—even in the wrong hands. The chairman of the House Select Committee on China, Rep. John Moolenaar (R.,-Mich.), made this point in a letter to the administration, in which he argued that the H20 is a powerful AI inference chip that far surpasses China's indigenous capability. Sacks' argument implies that H20s will increase Chinese capabilities: If Nvidia's H20s will steal market share from Huawei, then it is presumably a superior product than what Huawei offers.
China's huge market will be tempting for Nvidia, and the pressure to sell more products will grow. Nvidia's chief executive, Jensen Huang, said so himself at a Beijing press conference. 'I hope to get more advanced chips into China than the H20," Huang said.
And the administration's flip-flopping on chip export controls underscores how its threshold for what is considered 'too risky" can easily shift, regardless of whether the security picture actually changes. H20 sales to China today could quite plausibly become sales of even more advanced chips tomorrow.
The H20 reversal echoes another area where the White House granted risky chip sales in favour of trade deals: the Middle East. In recent years, the U.S. scrutinized the United Arab Emirates for its AI collaboration with Chinese entities. But in June, the Trump administration struck an agreement with the UAE that paved a way for U.S. companies to sell Emirati AI firms hundreds of thousands of chips. The U.S. also moved to sell chips to Saudi buyers. Saudi Arabia poses its own set of tech diffusion and security risks to the U.S., to say nothing of its economic and technological ties to China.
In some cases, the economic benefits of exporting technology outweigh the security risks. Selling to key partners or strengthening U.S. global market share of a specific security-relevant technology can actually boost security. But it is becoming increasingly clear just how much some policymakers, such as the Treasury and Commerce secretaries, are treating national security issues as bargaining chips (no pun intended) in trade negotiations.
Doing so might create a mirage of short-term, superficial wins. Diffusing security-sensitive technologies to U.S. adversaries, however, would be a bigger, long-term mistake.
Justin Sherman is the founder and CEO of Global Cyber Strategies, a research and advisory firm, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.
Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron's newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit feedback and commentary pitches to ideas@barrons.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'He has his own reasons': Shashi Tharoor on Rahul Gandhi backing Trump's ‘dead economy' remark
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Saturday said he would not comment on Rahul Gandhi's remarks about US President Donald Trump's 'dead economy' comment, but said India's trade ties with America are important and should not be affected. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor during the Monsoon session of Parliament, in New Delhi.(PTI File) Tharoor, who represents Thiruvananthapuram in the Lok Sabha, said, 'I don't want to comment on what my party leader has said. He has his own reasons for saying it. My concern is much more that our relationship with the US, as a strategic and economic partnership, is important for us.' The Congress leader said India must protect its strong trade ties with the US, emphasising that America is one of the country's biggest export markets, with around $90 billion worth of goods going there annually. 'We are exporting something like 90 billion worth of goods to America. We can't therefore be in a position where we are going to lose that or have it diminish significantly. Some people say Oh, that is only 2 per cent of our GDP, but in terms of percentage of our exports, America is one of our largest markets,' he claimed. On the issue of tariffs, Shashi Tharoor backed India's trade negotiators, saying, 'When we look at the tariff question, we must wish our negotiators strength and courage in working out a fair deal for India.' 'We should also be talking to other regions for exporting our goods. Then we could make up for some of what we might lose in the US. We have to support our negotiators,' Tharoor added. Donald Trump recently stirred controversy by calling India's economy 'dead' while announcing new 25 per cent tariffs on Indian goods. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said, 'India and Russia can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.' The remarks were seen as a sharp escalation in trade tensions and drew mixed responses from Indian politicians. Congress leader and Lok Sabha MP Rahul Gandhi appeared to agree with Trump's view, saying India's economy was indeed in poor shape. 'I don't care what Trump said. The reality is that India's economy is dead. And it has been murdered by the BJP government,' he told reporters.


News18
38 minutes ago
- News18
'He Has His Own Reasons': Shashi Tharoor On Rahul Gandhi Backing Trump's 'Dead Economy' Jibe
Last Updated: Shashi Tharoor declined to comment on Rahul Gandhi backing Donald Trump's "dead economy" jibe towards India, a stance that was criticised by several BJP leaders. Congress leader Shashi Tharoor declined to comment on his party colleague Rahul Gandhi's endorsement of US President Donald Trump's 'dead economy" jibe towards India amid trade talks, saying the priority was on a fair deal for New Delhi. Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Tharoor said, 'I don't want to comment on what my party leader has said. He has his reasons for saying so. My concern is that our relationship with the US, as a strategic and economic partnership, is important for us." 'We are exporting around $90 billion worth of goods to America. We can't be in a position to lose that or have it diminish significantly," he said. 'We must wish our negotiators strength to get a fair deal for India." #WATCH | Mumbai | On Lok Sabha LoP and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi agreeing with US President Donald Trump's 'dead economy' remark, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, 'I don't want to comment on what my party leader has said. He has his reasons for saying so. My concern is that our… — ANI (@ANI) August 2, 2025 Tharoor also said India should be talking to other regions for exporting Indian goods to make up for some of what it may lose to the United States. 'We already have an FTA with the UK, which has tremendous potential. We are well advancing in talks with the EU. If we have a good agreement with the EU, Japan and other countries, we could make up for some of what we might lose in the US, but we cannot lose everything," he added. 'Dead Economy' Tharoor's remarks came after Donald Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Indian goods, along with an unspecified penalty, citing its refusal to open up agricultural markets and oil imports from Russia, which Washington says is fuelling the Ukraine conflict. In a harsh statement, Trump later said, 'I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care." Rahul Gandhi agreed with Trump's statement, saying, 'Everybody knows that the Indian economy is a dead economy. I am glad that President Trump has stated a fact. The entire world knows that the Indian economy is a dead economy. BJP has finished the economy to help Adani." His statements drew a fierce response from the BJP, with top leaders accusing him of speaking against the nation. However, Tharoor disagreed with Trump's views and said, 'No, not at all. That is not the case, and we all know it." Several Congress and Opposition leaders also did not back Rahul Gandhi's endorsement of Trump's views and said that the 'Indian economy is not dead". view comments First Published: August 02, 2025, 17:52 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
44 minutes ago
- First Post
India–China thaw: Strategic signalling, not concession
Earlier this month, it was announced that India is resuming the issuance of tourist visas for Chinese citizens. Just before this, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval visited China for meetings of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar travelled to China shortly after and met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. This was the first such meeting since the Galwan Valley clash of 2020. This is a strategic signal from India amidst new circumstances created by some of the most powerful states in the existing international system. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's recent uptick in diplomatic ties with China is not a concession; instead, it reflects India's calculated posture of strategic signalling. With the bilateral trade agreement with the US currently stalled and the global economic landscape shifting rapidly, India is engaging with China not to resolve old disputes but to gain strategic leverage through the creation of optics. Since late 2024, India and China have entered into a deliberate but structural phase to engage with each other to reduce tensions along the Himalayan border. After experiencing four years of protected standoff following the deadly Galwan face-off, the diplomatic levers have shifted. The latest phase began with an important breakthrough on October 21, 2024, when both countries agreed on a border pact, letting each other patrol at previously restricted friction points like Depsang and Demchok. The agreement helped significantly in restoring trust and establishing communication between two powerful neighbours. After this agreement there has been a flurry of diplomatic exchanges between both the powers. These consistent meetings, though, suggest a pattern in which both nations are trying to reduce mistrust and restore a dialogue to prevent further crisis. Both nations are engaging at a greater pace than they ever were doing. For India, this is about asserting sovereignty while avoiding conflict. For China, it is about projecting stability along its southern frontier as it faces growing pressure in the Western Pacific and domestic economic headwinds. Yet the question remains: Why is India doing this now when the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is still contested? New Delhi is pursuing economic de-risking, not decoupling from China. Despite all the geopolitical friction, India remains deeply entwined with Chinese capital, tech, and rare earth dependencies. India acknowledges this fact and is opting for stability management. Chasing a compartmentalised relationship that seeks to discuss boundary questions without foreclosing economic activities. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, India finds itself in utmost precarity when China also responded with bans and curbs on rare earth materials. Additionally, in an attempt to limit technology transfers to India, along with skilled workers, the Chinese government has recalled hundreds of Chinese engineers and technicians from Foxconn's iPhone factories in India. Foxconn is meeting the shortages by bringing in Taiwanese technicians. India is neither unaware nor unresponsive. Similarly, the suspicion runs through: Will this ongoing round of discussions succeed in producing lasting peace, or is it merely a tactical de-escalation? Historical experience suggests otherwise. The Galwan incursions occurred in the backdrop of the Wuhan summit in 2018 and the Chennai informal summit in 2019, which were also celebrated as turning points. Also, the fundamental issue, the differing perceptions of the LAC, remains unresolved. Confidence-building is underway, but confidence itself remains fragile. The recent diplomatic engagements in Beijing, including discussions on 'de-escalation' and 'normalising people-to-people exchange', occur against a backdrop where India perceives the complete resolution of the border issue as a prerequisite for normal relations, while China prefers to compartmentalise the border issue, pushing for cooperation while maintaining territorial claims and even military posturing. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While both sides have expressed a desire for a 'positive trajectory' and optimism for 'stable and constructive ties', the talks were steered towards managing disagreements rather than fundamentally resolving them. Opening direct air services and the Kailash Manasarovar yatra are positive steps but do not address the core issue of strategic and territorial disputes. Beijing, on the other hand, strongly objected to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's public birthday greeting to the Dalai Lama in July 2025, reiterating its opposition to any official engagement with the Tibetan spiritual leader. While both nations appear to agree on the need for immediate stability, their long-term goals diverge. India seeks a restoration of the pre-2020 border status and a rules-based order in Asia and elsewhere; China, meanwhile, aims to assert regional influence with and without direct confrontation, and examples range from Doklam to Galwan to China trying to wipe out the identity of Tibet, building the biggest dam on the Yarlung Tsanpo to throttle the downstream Brahmaputra River in India, and so on. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Operation Sindoor also served as an indirect test of tensions between India and China. Beijing's response, calling India's retaliation against terrorism 'unfortunate', caused a rift in New Delhi. While urging 'restraint on all sides", China notably refrained from denouncing the terror provocation or addressing India's security concerns. After Operation Sindoor, the deputy chief of army staff for India also issued a warning on Sino-Pakistan collusion during the operation. If there's one significant shift in India's approach, it is a more layered diplomacy—engaging China bilaterally but also within the framework of multilateral forums like the SCO and Brics, while continuing strategic balancing elsewhere. It is not containment nor alignment, but calibrated coexistence. For Beijing too, stabilising ties with Delhi serves a larger goal: preventing a second front while managing the US pressure in East Asia. Given that the US has lifted export restrictions on Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) tools and software bound for Chinese buyers, and the EU is desperately engaging with China, there is no clarity on whether India can ever count on Western powers. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India understands China as a threat and has been at the receiving end of more conflicts, military and otherwise, with China than any other country in the world. However, it is also a neighbour and a powerful one, with which India will have to manage its relationship. There is no better way in such a complex scenario except diplomacy and optics. Sriparna Pathak is a professor of China Studies at OP Jindal Global University and a senior fellow at the Jindal India Institute. Gaurav Sen is a senior research fellow at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. He is the author of the book 'Peril of the Pacific: Military Balance and Battle for Taiwan'. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.