U.S. Eases AI Chip Exports to China with Revenue-Sharing Deal for Nvidia and AMD
Staff Editor A Transactional Turn: How Revenue-Sharing Deals Are Redefining U.S.-China Tech Policy
The tectonic plates of global technology policy shifted this week with the Trump administration’s announcement of a revenue-sharing agreement involving Nvidia, AMD, and Chinese buyers. At the heart of this arrangement lies a simple but provocative premise: U.S. chipmakers may sell select AI chips—albeit not their most advanced designs—to China, provided the U.S. government receives 15% of the sales revenue. What appears, on the surface, as a shrewd compromise between economic opportunity and national security, in fact signals a deeper transformation in the logic of U.S. export controls and the nature of technology diplomacy.
The Calculus of Revenue Versus Security
For decades, U.S. export restrictions have been animated by a clear strategic imperative: keep cutting-edge technology out of the hands of geopolitical competitors. The Trump administration’s own record, especially following the April export ban, seemed to double down on this doctrine. Yet, the new revenue-sharing model marks a striking departure—a move that reframes the conversation around what constitutes acceptable risk, and who gets to profit from it.
By monetizing the export of sensitive technology, the U.S. government is, in effect, putting a price tag on security. This transactional approach, where revenue metrics are elevated alongside—or perhaps above—strategic calculations, invites both intrigue and unease. It is a signal to global markets that access to American innovation can be negotiated, so long as the numbers add up. This shift may well reflect the realities of a multipolar world, but it also opens the door to a more fluid, less predictable regulatory environment.
Private Sector Power and Policy Misalignment
The presence of Nvidia, AMD, and Apple at the center of these negotiations is no accident. Silicon Valley’s giants have become the beating heart of U.S. economic competitiveness and technological leadership. Tim Cook’s recent visit to the White House, coupled with a timely tariff exemption for Apple, speaks volumes about the administration’s desire to secure domestic manufacturing and investment. Yet, this juxtaposition—of courting homegrown innovation while permitting sensitive exports for a price—raises uncomfortable questions about the coherence of U.S. policy.
Are financial incentives now the ultimate arbiter of national interest? The risk is that, in the race to maximize short-term gains, the U.S. could inadvertently undermine the very technological edge it seeks to defend. The specter of legal challenges, as the Department of Commerce reviews the deal’s legality, underscores the tension between economic pragmatism and the foundational principles of trade and security policy.
Precedents, Pitfalls, and Geopolitical Ripples
The implications of this revenue-sharing precedent stretch far beyond the immediate parties. If export controls are seen as negotiable, other nations may seek similar arrangements, potentially diluting the effectiveness of global nonproliferation efforts. The risk of a competitive spiral—where sensitive technologies become commodities traded for government revenue—cannot be dismissed.
Moreover, while the AI chips on offer are not the most advanced, their integration into China’s technological ecosystem could have far-reaching consequences. Applications in surveillance, military, and industrial domains are not easily contained. U.S. lawmakers’ anxieties about potential lobbying for broader access to advanced technologies reflect a broader debate: how to reconcile economic openness with the imperative of safeguarding critical capabilities.
The New Normal in Tech Diplomacy
This revenue-sharing deal is not merely a footnote in the annals of U.S.-China trade relations. It is a harbinger of a new, more transactional era in technology diplomacy—one where economic, strategic, and regulatory interests are increasingly entangled. The challenge for policymakers and industry leaders will be to navigate this evolving landscape without sacrificing long-term competitiveness or regulatory integrity. As the world watches, the choices made today will shape not only the contours of U.S.-China tech competition, but the very framework of global technology governance in an age defined by both connectivity and contestation.
