Published 12/08/2025 18:09 | Edited 12/08/2025 19:04
Donald Trump’s decision to reverse restrictions and authorize the sale of Nvidia’s H20 chip to China – on the unprecedented condition of passing 15% of revenue to the US government – was presented as a commercial triumph. However, Beijing’s immediate response, guiding companies to avoid these chips in strategic sectors, emptied the political and economic effect of the measure. For investors, it was clear that Trump’s turn was not accompanied by guarantees on real demand in the Chinese market.
The requirement, also accepted by AMD, would make way for companies to resume billionaire business with the Chinese market, suspended since April for blockages imposed by the White House itself. The market, perplexed, sees in the gesture the consolidation of a dangerous model: that of trade policy transformed into a business counter.
The operation is not classified as tax or tariff – prohibited by the US Constitution on exports – but as a “voluntary agreement.” In practice, however, the arrangement acts as a committee paid to the White House to unlock previously blocked export licenses.
The Beijing Countergolpe
China has not decreed a formal ban, but its communications discouraging companies – especially state -owned companies – using H20 in government or national security projects create a practical blockade. The measure preserves room for household manufacturers, such as Huawei, and expands the pressure to replace US technology with local solutions. In practice, Trump’s gesture opened a door that Beijing has already tried to narrow.
What began as a rigorous control policy to prevent China from having access to advanced technology intended to become a source of revenue for Washington. Analysts heard by CNN International and the Financial Times pointed out that there are no historical precedents for this type of transaction, nor clarity about their legality
There is no historical record for a government to demand foreign sales percentage without taking action. CSIS consultant Scott Kennedy questions Trump’s argument that justified the blockade for national security reasons: “If the risk of national security is real, the rate does not solve anything. If there is no risk, the government should simply release exports.”
Perplex market
The Chinese reaction, coupled with the unpredictability of Trump’s policy, accentuated volatility in the semiconductor sector. Analysts point out that US strategy seems to oscillate between technological confrontation and the search for short-term gains, confusing allies and rivals. Meanwhile, Beijing transforms regulatory uncertainty into an instrument to strengthen his industry and control the pace of dependence on foreign chips.
The agreement exposes a contradiction in US politics: on the one hand, the discourse of containing Chinese advancement in IA; On the other hand, the release of technology in exchange for recipe for the White House. The logic that died on the beach: better sell officially than losing the market to clandestine routes.
The case also opens a dangerous precedent for the global commercial order: If a superpower conditions strategic exports to direct payments to your government, others may adopt similar measures, corroding the WTO pillars.
If Trump’s triumph was confirmed, he already waved the possibility of release – even more hard conditions – export of the Blackwell chip, the most advanced in Nvidia. The president suggested selling a “reduced” version and considered demanding up to 50% of “fee” on sales. The Chinese’s ability, however, not only neutralized gains, but has guaranteed irreparable losses to Trump.
More than a sales dispute, the clash reflects the erosion of the rules that have supported global technology trade for decades. By treating export controls as a direct coverage for budget revenues, the Trump government signals that national security principles can be negotiable. China’s response shows that in this new board, immediate gains can be quickly annulled – and that the balance of power in the race of artificial intelligence is far from defined.
Source: vermelho.org.br
