Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump Reverses Nvidia Chip Ban, Greenlights H20 AI Sales to China

U.S. pivots on export restrictions amid rare earth diplomacy and billion-dollar lobbying push.

News

Trump Reverses Nvidia Chip Ban, Greenlights H20 AI Sales to China

U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters from the Resolute Desk after signing an executive order to appoint the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the Oval Office at the White House on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Nvidia, now the largest corporation in the world, just received the green light from the Trump administration to resume sales of its H20 AI chips to China—marking a dramatic reversal from April’s export restrictions.

The H20 Chip and Its Limits


The H20 is a scaled-down version of Nvidia’s top-tier AI chips, specifically engineered to comply with U.S. export controls. It’s powerful enough to handle AI “inference” tasks but falls short of the benchmarks used to train cutting-edge models—making it legally exportable.

Policy Flip

In April, the administration clamped down, requiring special licenses for H20 exports over fears that even these reduced-performance chips might be leveraged for strategic military or surveillance purposes. Nvidia warned that the move could cost billions. Then came intensive lobbying efforts—including a high-profile dinner between Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and President Trump at Mar-a-Lago. By July, the administration reversed course. Nvidia began filing applications to resume shipments with confidence that licenses would be granted.

Strategic Importance

China represents a substantial share of global demand for AI chips. This policy reversal carries enormous implications not only for Nvidia but for the broader question of technological rivalry and national security. As Huang put it, “Half the world’s AI researchers are in China”—making it clear that U.S. companies cannot afford to be absent from such a vital and dynamic market. The move could reshape the global AI supply chain and ease tensions in an intensifying semiconductor trade war.

The Reversal Rationale

At its core, this shift illustrates a tension between national security imperatives and economic priorities—and for now, economics appears to have won.

  • In April, the administration invoked national security concerns, fearing that H20 chips could empower Chinese supercomputers or frontier models like DeepSeek R12.
  • Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick summed it up sharply: “Of course they want them. And of course we said ‘absolutely not.’”
  • Concerns also emerged around potential smuggling and third-party transshipment.

By July, the landscape shifted. Nvidia’s pledge to invest $500 billion in domestic AI infrastructure may have helped reframe the company as a strategic asset rather than a liability in the administration’s eyes.

A Delicate Balancing Act

This pivot reflects deeper fault lines in U.S. tech policy. On one side, national security hawks push for rigid restrictions to blunt China's AI momentum. On the other side, industry leaders warn that overregulation risks isolating American firms and ceding global influence. The chips didn’t change—but the political calculus did. The administration is betting that economic leverage and domestic investment can coexist with strategic caution. Skeptics, though, see only a temporary détente.

Rare Earths: The Hidden Chess Piece

Behind the scenes, China’s rare earth diplomacy may have helped tip the scales.

  • Beijing recently relaxed export controls on these critical materials, essential for semiconductors, EVs, and military tech.
  • This softening coincided with the U.S. lifting restrictions on chip design software and allowing Nvidia to resume H20 sales.

It’s difficult to prove direct causality, but the timing suggests a mutual de-escalation. Washington likely viewed China’s flexibility as an opening to stabilize supply chains and avoid driving Beijing toward self-sufficiency or alternative suppliers like Russia. Even Huang emphasized the importance of preserving U.S. influence in China’s AI ecosystem—an objective threatened by rising trade barriers.

Looking Ahead

While nothing is conclusive, it’s clear that rare earth policy is part of the larger chessboard—a subtle but significant backdrop to Nvidia’s reentry. What comes next—whether related to tariffs, TikTok, or the broader balance of power between the world’s two largest economies—is almost certain to reshape the global tech landscape.

Stay tuned.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

On Live Facial Recognition in the City: We Are Not Guinea Pigs, and We Are Not Disposable

New Orleans fights a facial recognition ordinance as residents warn of privacy risks, mass surveillance, and threats to immigrant communities.

Getty Images, PhanuwatNandee

On Live Facial Recognition in the City: We Are Not Guinea Pigs, and We Are Not Disposable

Every day, I ride my bike down my block in Milan, a tight-knit residential neighborhood in central New Orleans. And every day, a surveillance camera follows me down the block.

Despite the rosy rhetoric of pro-surveillance politicians and facial recognition vendors, that camera doesn’t make me safer. In fact, it puts everyone in New Orleans at risk.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Manosphere Is Bad for Boys and Worse for Democracy
a skeleton sitting at a desk with a laptop and keyboard
Photo by Growtika on Unsplash

The Manosphere Is Bad for Boys and Worse for Democracy

15-year-old Owen Cooper made history to become the youngest male to win an Emmy Award. In the Netflix series Adolescence, Owen plays the role of a 13-year-old schoolboy who is arrested after the murder of a girl in his school. As we follow the events leading up to the crime, the award-winning series forces us to confront legitimate insecurities that many teenage boys face, from lack of physical prowess to emotional disconnection from their fathers. It also exposes how easily young men, seeking comfort in their computers, can be pulled into online spaces that normalize misogyny and rage; a pipeline enabled by a failure of tech policy.

At the center of this danger lies the manosphere: a global network of influencers whose words can radicalize young men and channel their frustrations into violence. But this is more than a social crisis affecting some young men. It is a growing threat to the democratic values of equality and tolerance that keep us all safe.

Keep ReadingShow less
Your Data Isn’t Yours: How Social Media Platforms Profit From Your Digital Identity

Discover how your personal data is tracked, sold, and used to control your online experience—and how to reclaim your digital rights.

Getty Images, Sorapop

Your Data Isn’t Yours: How Social Media Platforms Profit From Your Digital Identity

Social media users and digital consumers willingly present a detailed trail of personal data in the pursuit of searching, watching, and engaging on as many platforms as possible. Signing up and signing on is made to be as easy as possible. Most people know on some level that they are giving up more data than they should , but with hopes that it won’t be used surreptitiously by scammers, and certainly not for surveillance of any sort.

However, in his book, "Means of Control," Byron Tau shockingly reveals how much of our digital data is tracked, packaged, and sold—not by scammers but by the brands and organizations we know and trust. As technology has deeply permeated our lives, we have willingly handed over our entire digital identity. Every app we download, every document we create, every social media site we join, there are terms and conditions that none of us ever bother to read.

That means our behaviors, content, and assets are given up to corporations that profit from them in more ways than the average person realizes. The very data and the reuse of it are controlling our lives, our freedom, and our well-being.

Let’s think about all this in the context of a social media site. It is a place where you interact with friends, post family photos, and highlight your art and videos. You may even share a perspective on current events. These very social media platforms don’t just own your content. They can use your behavior and your content to target you. They also sell your data to others, and profit massively off of YOU, their customer.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel next to a computer chip with the words "AI" on it.

Often, AI policy debates focus on speculative risks rather than real-world impacts. Kevin Frazier argues that lawmakers and academics must shift their focus from sci-fi scenarios to practical challenges.

Getty Images, Just_Super

Why Academic Debates About AI Mislead Lawmakers—and the Public

Picture this: A congressional hearing on “AI policy” makes the evening news. A senator gravely asks whether artificial intelligence might one day “wake up” and take over the world. Cameras flash. Headlines declare: “Lawmakers Confront the Coming Robot Threat.” Meanwhile, outside the Beltway on main streets across the country, everyday Americans worry about whether AI tools will replace them on factory floors, in call centers, or even in classrooms. Those bread-and-butter concerns—job displacement, worker retraining, and community instability—deserve placement at the top of the agenda for policymakers. Yet legislatures too often get distracted, following academic debates that may intrigue scholars but fail to address the challenges that most directly affect people’s lives.

That misalignment is no coincidence. Academic discourse does not merely fill journals; it actively shapes the policy agenda and popular conceptions of AI. Too many scholars dwell on speculative, even trivial, hypotheticals. They debate whether large language models should be treated as co-authors on scientific papers or whether AI could ever develop consciousness. These conversations filter into the media, morph into lawmaker talking points, and eventually dominate legislative hearings. The result is a political environment where sci-fi scenarios crowd out the issues most relevant to ordinary people—like how to safeguard workers, encourage innovation, and ensure fairness in critical industries. When lawmakers turn to scholars for guidance, they often encounter lofty speculation rather than clear-eyed analysis of how AI is already reshaping specific sectors.

Keep ReadingShow less