Nvidia and AMD to pay U.S. 15% of China chip revenue, says report
The paper cited a US official as saying that Nvidia would share 15% of the revenue from sales of its H20 chip in China and AMD will deliver the same share from MI308 revenues.
It followed an earlier report from the paper that the Commerce Department started issuing H20 licenses on Friday, two days after Nvidia Chief Executive Cfficer Jensen Huang met President Donald Trump.
The Trump administration had frozen the sale of some advanced chips to China earlier this year as trade tensions spiked between the world's two largest economies.
Nvidia told the Financial Times that it follows US export rules, while AMD didn't respond to the paper's request for comment.
Separately, Intel Chief Executive Officer Lip-Bu Tan is expected to visit the White House on Monday after Trump called for his dismissal last week over his ties to Chinese businesses, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
3 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Why Is the US Punishing India – But Not China – for Buying Russian Oil?
When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine on February 22, 2022, the world was confronted not only with a brutal war of aggression but also with a dramatic reshaping of global oil flows. As Washington and its allies implemented sweeping sanctions aimed at crippling Moscow's war chest, two Asian economic powerhouses – India and China – emerged as vital lifelines for Russia's energy exports. What happened next has become one of the more puzzling episodes in recent U.S. foreign policy: the Trump administration has sharply penalized India for its expanding purchases of Russian crude – culminating in a 50 percent tariff on select exports – while allowing China – an even greater consumer of that very oil – to escape similar direct punishment. The disparity is so marked that it demands examination. It cannot be explained by reference to oil volumes alone, nor is it a simple matter of how international law is applied. Instead, it reflects a confluence of cold political calculation, relative economic leverage, and the subtle but consequential difference between how U.S. policymakers view India and China. What makes this story more complex still is the Trump administration's belief – one that shapes much of its strategic posture – that China might play a decisive role in brokering an end to the Ukraine war. India's post-invasion pivot to Russian oil has been extraordinary in scale and speed. Before the war, Russian crude accounted for less than 2 percent of India's oil imports. A year later, Russia was supplying nearly 40 percent, an all-time high that persisted into 2025. In absolute terms, India imported 88 million metric tonnes of Russian crude in fiscal year 2025, out of a total of 245 million tonnes – more than 1.7 million barrels per day, a 20-fold increase in just three years. Indian refiners, taking advantage of steep wartime discounts, adapted their facilities to handle this influx. Much of the oil was not only used domestically but refined into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel for export around the world – including to Western markets that officially barred the purchase of Russian-origin oil. China's role in Moscow's energy survival is even larger, if less conspicuous. By the middle of 2025, Chinese refiners were buying almost half of all Russian crude exports, while also absorbing vast quantities of coal, gas, and refined products. In many months, Beijing accounted for nearly 40 percent of all Russian fossil fuel export revenue. Yet China's purchases were often conducted out of the spotlight – channeled through intermediaries, mixed with other cargoes, and announced far less openly than India's. For Washington, the decision to target India and not China begins with the question of leverage. India, for all its growing assertiveness on the world stage, remains deeply dependent on Western markets, technology, and investment. The United States is one of its largest export destinations and a key source of high-tech collaboration. U.S. policymakers thus believe they can pressure India economically without risking the kind of systemic disruption that would follow a direct confrontation with China. China, in contrast, presents a different challenge. Years of trade wars, tech sanctions, and geopolitical disputes have left China-U.S. relations brittle, but they have also revealed the depth of mutual interdependence. A major U.S. tariff offensive tied to China's oil imports from Russia would almost certainly provoke retaliation on a scale that could shatter global supply chains, trigger inflationary shocks, and damage the U.S. economy in ways that would be politically costly. Moreover, China's highly opaque energy trade makes it harder to target with precision, allowing it to deflect public blame in a way India – whose oil dealings are overt and well-documented – cannot. The 'profiteering' narrative has also placed New Delhi in Washington's crosshairs. U.S. officials have accused Indian refiners of exploiting discounted Russian crude not just to fuel their own economy, but to re-export refined products to the very countries enforcing sanctions against Russia. In 2023, India exported over $86 billion in refined oil products, prompting U.S. frustration that a strategic partner was simultaneously benefiting from Western alignment and undermining its sanctions at the same time. China engages in similar activity, but shrouds it in far greater discretion, thus avoiding the same public rebuke. Beneath these debates over sanctions and trade lies a still more controversial rationale for Washington's restraint toward China: the belief that Beijing could help bring the Ukraine conflict to a negotiated close. U.S. President Donald Trump has long cast himself as the figure uniquely capable of securing a 'deal' that ends the war. In his calculus, President Xi Jinping is not simply Russia's most important partner; he is a potential kingmaker whose tacit support could lend legitimacy to any settlement between Kyiv and Moscow. Chinese leaders have been careful to encourage this perception, offering vaguely worded proposals for peace, presenting themselves as neutral conveners at major diplomatic forums, and signaling – without making concrete moves – that they favor dialogue. It is here that the divergence in U.S. treatment of India and China deepens. For Trump's team, India has little real sway over Putin, making it a safe target for punitive measures that reinforce the credibility of U.S. sanctions policy. China, by contrast, is seen as too important to alienate while a putative negotiating track remains open. The possibility – however slim – that Beijing might someday pressure Moscow toward compromise serves as an argument for strategic patience, not confrontation. Yet this is where the policy veers into dangerous illusion. The expectation that China will act as an honest peace broker is, in reality, inconsistent with Beijing's own interests. A drawn-out war serves China well. It distracts U.S. and European strategic focus from the Indo-Pacific, allowing Beijing more room to assert itself regionally. It locks Russia into a position of economic dependence, forcing Moscow to sell oil, gas, and other resources at deep discounts, bolstering China's energy security. And it erodes Western unity and leadership by fueling fatigue, economic pressures, and political division within NATO and the EU. Officially, Beijing may call for negotiations and profess neutrality, but in practice it has done little to pressure Putin toward a settlement – and has, in many ways, expanded its support for Russia through trade, joint projects, and diplomatic cover. The longer the war continues, the more China can present itself to the Global South as a counterweight to the West while tightening its grip on a sanction-strangled Russia. This makes the Trump administration's calculation – that indulgence now could yield Chinese cooperation later – not just overly optimistic but strategically self-defeating. It hands Beijing leverage over a European security crisis that the United States and its allies ought to control, and it gives Xi every reason to prolong the very conflict Washington hopes to resolve. The result is a sanctions regime that is uneven in application and riddled with conflicting priorities. By targeting India so forcefully, the U.S. risks alienating one of its most important emerging partners – at precisely the moment when India's cooperation on technology, defense, and regional security is most needed. By sparing China, Washington sends a message that large-scale violations of the sanctions regime will be tolerated if the violator is too important – or too feared – to punish, reinforcing the cynical perception that U.S. policy is dictated less by principle than by power calculus. If there is one lesson to draw, it is that sanctions and tariffs alone cannot compel compliance when geopolitical interests run this deep. Realism demands acknowledging that China's posture toward the Ukraine war is shaped by self-interest – and that self-interest points toward prolonging the conflict, not resolving it on Western terms. Continuing to hope otherwise will only weaken Washington's position, undermine its credibility with partners, and hand Beijing another opening to exploit the West's divisions. For U.S. policy to be effective, it must abandon wishful thinking and confront the truth of this balance. India's energy choices present a legitimate challenge to the sanctions regime, but the long-term strategic threat lies in China's ability to evade pressure while shaping the conflict's trajectory to its advantage. Until Washington recognizes this and acts accordingly, its approach to both India and China will remain reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to manipulation from the very powers it seeks to influence.
Japan Today
3 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump's takeover of Washington law enforcement begins as National Guard troops arrive
A member of the District of Columbia National Guard arrives at the District of Columbia National Guard Headquarters, Tuesday, Aug. 12, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) By ASHRAF KHALIL and LINDSAY WHITEHURST The new picture of law enforcement in the nation's capital began taking shape Tuesday as some of the 800 National Guard members deployed by the Trump administration began arriving as police and federal officials took the first steps in an uneasy partnership to reduce crime in what President Donald Trump called — without substantiation — a lawless city. The influx came the morning after the Republican president announced he would be activating the guard members and taking over the District's police department, something the law allows him to do temporarily. He cited a crime emergency — but referred to the same crime that city officials stress is already falling noticeably. Mayor Muriel Bowser pledged to work alongside the federal officials Trump has tasked with overseeing the city's law enforcement, while insisting the police chief remained in charge of the department and its officers. 'How we got here or what we think about the circumstances — right now we have more police, and we want to make sure we use them,' she told reporters. The tone was a shift from the day before, when Bowser said Trump's plan to take over the Metropolitan Police Department and call in the National Guard was not a productive step and argued his perceived state of emergency simply doesn't match the declining crime numbers. Still, the law gives the federal government more sway over the capital city than in U.S. states, and Bowser said her administration's ability to push back is limited. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on social media that the meeting was productive. The law allows Trump to take over the D.C. police for up to 30 days, though White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested it could last longer as authorities later 'reevaluate and reassess." Extending federal control past that time would require Congressional approval, something likely tough to achieve in the face of Democratic resistance. About 850 federal law enforcement officers were deployed in Washington on Monday and arrested 23 people overnight, Leavitt said. The charges, she said, included gun and drug crimes, drunk driving, subway fare evasion and homicide. The U.S. Park Police has also removed 70 homeless encampments. People who were living in them can leave, go to a homeless shelter or go into drug addiction treatment, Leavitt said. Those who refuse could face fines or jail time. While Trump invokes his plan by saying that 'we're going to take our capital back,' Bowser and the MPD maintain that violent crime overall in Washington has decreased to a 30-year low after a sharp rise in 2023. Carjackings, for example, dropped about 50% in 2024 and are down again this year. More than half of those arrested, however, are juveniles, and the extent of those punishments is a point of contention for the Trump administration. Bowser, a Democrat, spent much of Trump's first term in office openly sparring with the Republican president. She fended off his initial plans for a military parade through the streets and stood in public opposition when he called in a multi-agency flood of federal law enforcement to confront anti-police brutality protesters in summer 2020. She later had the words 'Black Lives Matter' painted in giant yellow letters on the street about a block from the White House. In Trump's second term, backed by Republican control of both houses of Congress, Bowser has walked a public tightrope for months, emphasizing common ground with the Trump administration on issues such as the successful effort to bring the NFL's Washington Commanders back to the District of Columbia. She watched with open concern for the city streets as Trump finally got his military parade this summer. Her decision to dismantle Black Lives Matter Plaza earlier this year served as a neat metaphor for just how much the power dynamics between the two executives had evolved. Now that fraught relationship enters uncharted territory as Trump has followed through on months of what many D.C. officials had quietly hoped were empty threats. The new standoff has cast Bowser in a sympathetic light, even among her longtime critics. 'It's a power play and we're an easy target,' said Clinique Chapman, CEO of the D.C. Justice Lab. A frequent critic of Bowser, whom she accuses of 'over policing our youth' with the recent expansions of Washington's youth curfew, Chapman said Trump's latest move 'is not about creating a safer D.C. It's just about power.' Bowser contends that all the power resides with Trump and that local officials can do little other than comply and make the best of it. As long as Washington remains a federal enclave with limited autonomy under the 1973 Home Rule Act, she said, it will remain vulnerable to such takeovers. Trump is the first president to use the law's Section 740 to take over Washington's police for up to 30 days during times of emergencies. For Trump, the effort to take over public safety in D.C. reflects an escalation of his aggressive approach to law enforcement. The District of Columbia's status as a congressionally established federal district gives him a unique opportunity to push his tough-on-crime agenda, though he has not proposed solutions to the root causes of homelessness or crime. Trump's declaration of a state of emergency fits the general pattern of his second term in office. He has declared states of emergency on issues ranging from border protection to economic tariffs, enabling him to essentially rule via executive order. In many cases, he has moved forward while the courts sorted them out. Bowser's claims about successfully driving down violent crime rates received backing earlier this year from an unlikely source. Ed Martin, Trump's original choice for U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, issued a press release in April hailing a 25% drop in violent crime rates from the previous year. His recently confirmed replacement candidate, former judge and former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, brushed aside the data to argue that violent crime remains a significant issue for victims. 'These were vibrant human beings cut down because of illegal guns,' she said. Associated Press writers Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington, Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix and Ali Swenson in New York contributed reporting. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Japan Today
3 hours ago
- Japan Today
U.S. consumer inflation holds steady but tariff risks persist
The consumer price index rose 2.7 percent from a year ago in July, slightly below the 2.8 percent that analysts expected By Beiyi SEOW U.S. consumer inflation held steady in July, with an uptick in underlying price pressures that could spell trouble for President Donald Trump and his promises of an economic boom. The 2.7 percent consumer price index (CPI) figure was probably not high enough to derail a potential interest rate cut in September, but Trump responded with yet another direct attack on Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, whom he blames for not lowering rates fast enough. In a separate Truth Social post, Trump claimed that "even at this late stage, Tariffs have not caused Inflation." But analysts warn that the pass-through from Trump's duties is not yet complete. CPI rose 2.7 percent from a year ago in July, the same rate as in June, said the Department of Labor on Tuesday. But, excluding the volatile food and energy segments, "core" CPI in July accelerated to 0.3 percent on a month-on-month basis, up from a 0.2-percent rise before. From a year ago, underlying inflation rose 3.1 percent, picking up pace too from 2.9 percent in June. "Many companies have announced plans to pass along higher costs to their customers soon," said Navy Federal Credit Union chief economist Heather Long. "It's only a matter of time before more goods become more expensive," she added in a note. Analysts are closely watching CPI numbers amid increasing fears over the reliability of economic data from the Trump administration, which fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently after a jobs report showed significantly lower hiring numbers. They are also monitoring for weakening amid Trump's trade war, as he tries to reshape the global economy. The president has ordered a 10-percent tariff on goods from almost all trading partners. For dozens of economies including Japan, South Korea and the European Union, this level rose to various higher rates last Thursday. Sectors that have been targeted individually -- or are under investigation by officials -- have been spared from these countrywide levies so far. But Trump has been progressively imposing steep duties on different sectors. "Brace for more price hikes as we move into late summer and early fall," said KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk. "The pass-through of the most recent rise in tariffs is expected to be faster than the initial round because there was less time to stockpile," she added. While Swonk believes a September interest rate cut remains possible, she expects this would only happen if "if we see much weaker demand, notably from the labor market, between now and then." CME's FedWatch tool has investors seeing a 92.2-percent chance of a quarter-point cut at the Fed's next policy meeting in September. On Tuesday, Trump said he was considering allowing "a major lawsuit against" Powell to proceed, taking aim at the Fed chair's oversight of the central bank's renovations in Washington. Trump has repeatedly lashed out at Powell recently, floating the idea of ousting him over the Fed's revamp, as he criticized the bank's decisions to keep rates unchanged this year. Tuesday's headline CPI figure was a touch below the 2.8-percent rate expected in a median forecast of analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal. But experts have cautioned that a cooler figure could also point to a slowing economy. For now, policymakers are trying to balance between supporting the jobs market and keeping cost increases under control. While businesses have stocked up in anticipation of Trump's tariff hikes this year and may not have raised consumer costs directly, economists warn that companies will not be able to do so indefinitely. While the indexes for energy and gasoline dropped in the month, shelter costs rose in July. Indexes that rose over the month included medical care, airline fares and household furnishings, the Labor Department report showed. "It remains the case that prices have risen the most since January for goods that are primarily imported," said Samuel Tombs, chief U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. © 2025 AFP
