Export policy sparks legal debate

The plan would require Nvidia and AMD to return a share of China chip revenue to the U.S., a move with constitutional questions.

Trump Frames Export Tax Style Deal as Bold Economic Move

President Trump described a potential agreement with Nvidia and AMD that would require a 15 percent share of export revenue in exchange for licenses to sell certain chips to China. The package centers on Nvidia's H20 AI chips and AMD's MI308, and it comes as discussions over lifting export restrictions continue. Officials say the aim is to balance national policy with keeping American chip makers in the global market, while Nvidia and AMD have not provided detailed comments on the specifics. The country’s approach not only lifts certain export bans but also raises questions about how such a revenue share would be implemented and what legal basis would justify it.

Legal scholars say the arrangement could run afoul of the export clause in the Constitution, which prohibits duties on exports. Past Supreme Court cases on export taxes, such as IBM and U.S. Shoe, are cited to doubt the legality of a targeted cholesterol-like levy. Some experts note that while the government has used subsidies and other tools, a fixed percentage of export revenue as a precondition for market access would be unprecedented. Treasury officials describe the model as unique and potentially expandable, though others warn it could invite lawsuits and international pushback.

This move tests a new boundary between national policy and corporate access. If it stands, the government would be effectively monetizing market access, a concept that could unsettle traditional trade norms and invite challenges from opponents who see it as government overreach.

If the model spreads, investors and firms may rethink where they deploy capital, fearing renegotiations of access tied to revenue. Critics argue the policy risks undermining confidence in a stable, rule-based market and could provoke international complaints or retaliation. Supporters say it could provide a template for using policy tools to align strategic priorities with domestic industry goals.

Highlights

The policy debate now hinges on whether lawmakers will defend a new, potentially risky norm in tech trade.