On Monday, President Donald Trump surprised the markets with a large -scale deal as unusual: Nafidia AMD will contribute 15 % of China’s chips sales to the United States government.
Treasury Secretary Scott Payeta bent in this new export revenue participation deal, saying it could serve as a plan for other industries. In a television interview with Monitor Bloomberg, Pesin praised Trump’s “unique solution”.
“I think we can see it in other industries over time,” Pesen said. “Currently, this is unique, but now that we have become a model and a beta test, why don’t we expand it?”
The historical agreement mainly allows NVIDIA export of hurried chips H20 and AMD Mi308 processors – designed specifically to comply with American export controls – for hungry Chinese buyers of advanced artificial intelligence technology. The semiconductor chips, on the one hand, and rare ground materials, on the other hand, were the lifting points in America and China, where the two countries seek a new commercial understanding. Bessent claimed in the interview that the revenues collected from the sales of the chips will go directly to the payment of national debts, and hinted at the possibility of directing additional money to the taxpayers if the program proves success.
Hot discussion deal
The same deal, however, sparked a big debate. For years, Washington’s approach to exporting controls focuses on direct ban and restricting some of the double -use commodities or sensitive to national security. The Trump administration had previously suspended all advanced chip sales to China, noting the dangers of helping the Chinese army and AI. But the new model seeks to find a medium ground: it allows sales while capturing American value and providing influence in continuous negotiations with Beijing.
Bessent, the former hedge fund manager and George Soros Protigi, who became one of the closest Wall Street allies in Trump, has long been arguing about a strategic approach directed towards results in American trade. His idea is that American companies can continue to compete worldwide without giving up the leverage – or security.
The same arrangement is unusual. It is not a tax in the traditional legislative sense, but rather a condition related to the export license – a point that has sparked controversy among legal experts.
“It is strange in many respects and is disturbing because Congress did not have anything to say about this,” He said Hill. He pointed out that the agreements to share direct revenue negotiated by the president and individual companies are not a precedent in the history of American trade.
For this story, luck The artificial intelligence is used to help with a preliminary draft. Check an editor of the accuracy of the information before publishing.
https://fortune.com/img-assets/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/GettyImages-2229134517-e1755114407854.jpg?resize=1200,600
Source link