Nvidia AMD 15% China AI Chip Deal: US Revenue Share for Export Licenses | Unprecedented Terms & Analysis

Key Takeaways

• Nvidia and AMD agreed to pay 15% of China AI chip revenue to US government

• Deal covers Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips specifically

• First arrangement of its kind in export control history

• Jensen Huang met with Trump before deal announcement

• Constitutional questions raised by legal experts

• Part of broader tariff strategy against China

• Export licenses granted in exchange for revenue sharing

• Follows Trump's 100% semiconductor tariff threats

---

The Deal Nobody Saw Coming

The phone rings at 3 AM and you answer it expecting bad news. Sometimes you get worse news. Nvidia and AMD just agreed to hand over 15% of their China AI chip revenues to the US government in exchange for export licenses.

This isn't your typical export control story. Companies don't usually cut the government in like some kind of mob protection racket. But here we are. Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips are the specific products covered under this arrangement.

The math works like this , every dollar these companies make selling AI chips to China, Uncle Sam gets fifteen cents. No complicated formulas. No sliding scales based on volume. Just straight percentage off the top.

Industry veterans are scratching their heads. Export controls usually work through licenses and restrictions. They don't typically involve revenue-sharing agreements that look more like Hollywood studio deals than national security policy.

Jensen Huang's White House Visit

Jensen Huang met with Trump last week, according to reports. The Nvidia CEO walked into those meetings knowing his company's China business hung in the balance.

Picture the scene , Huang explaining why his company needs to keep selling chips to China while Trump threatens 100% tariffs on semiconductor imports. The conversation probably went something like this: "We need access." "Fine, but we want a cut."

Nvidia's official response was diplomatic: "We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets". Translation: We'll pay what we have to pay.

The timing tells its own story. Huang flies to Washington. He sits down with Trump. Days later, this unprecedented deal emerges. Cause and effect never looked so obvious.

Nobody's calling it extortion. That would be impolite. But when the government says "pay us or lose your export licenses," the distinction gets pretty thin.

The Constitutional Question Mark

Some experts warn the arrangement may be unconstitutional. Here's why that matters , governments can regulate exports, but taking a percentage of private company revenues crosses into different territory.

Constitutional scholars are digging through precedents. They're not finding much that looks like this deal. Export controls? Sure, plenty of those. Government revenue-sharing with private companies for market access? That's new ground.

The legal challenges will come. Some ambitious law firm will file suit claiming the government can't essentially tax specific business activities without proper legislative authority. The case will wind through courts for months, maybe years.

Meanwhile, Nvidia and AMD keep paying. They can't afford to stop selling to China while lawyers argue about constitutional principles. The Chinese market is too big to walk away from over legal theories.

Courts move slowly. Business moves fast. This deal reflects that reality.

Trump's Semiconductor Strategy Unveiled

Last week, Trump threatened a 100% tariff on semiconductor imports unless companies build in the United States. Now we see how the strategy actually works , threats followed by negotiations followed by deals.

The tariff threat was the stick. This revenue-sharing arrangement is the carrot. Companies get to keep their China business, but they pay for the privilege.

Trump's team isn't just throwing random policy ideas at the wall. They're using tariff threats as leverage to extract concessions from American companies. Pay us, or face the tariffs. Your choice.

This approach turns export policy into a negotiating tool rather than a national security imperative. Companies can buy their way out of restrictions through revenue-sharing deals.

The precedent worries other industries. If chip companies have to pay 15% of China revenues, what stops the government from demanding similar deals from other sectors?

How the H20 and MI308 Chips Fit In

The arrangement covers Nvidia's H20 AI accelerator and AMD's MI308 chip specifically. These aren't random products , they're the companies' China-specific AI chips, designed to comply with existing export restrictions.

Both chips represent compromises. They're powerful enough to be useful but not so powerful they violate US technology transfer rules. Now they come with a 15% government tax built into the price.

Chinese customers will ultimately pay this tax through higher chip prices. Nvidia and AMD aren't absorbing 15% margin hits out of goodness of their hearts. They'll pass the cost along, like any business expense.

The chips create an interesting dynamic. US companies design specialized products for the Chinese market, then pay the US government for permission to sell those products. It's export control meets protection racket.

Chinese competitors are probably celebrating. Every dollar in US government fees makes American chips less competitive against domestic alternatives.

Market Reactions and Industry Impact

Export controls for sensitive products are nothing new, but this revenue-sharing model breaks new ground. Wall Street is trying to figure out what this means for other technology companies.

If the government can demand 15% of China revenues from chip companies, why not software companies? Or telecommunications equipment manufacturers? The precedent suggests no industry is immune from similar deals.

Share prices haven't collapsed, but investors are nervous. Revenue-sharing agreements with governments don't typically boost profit margins. They do the opposite.

The broader market impact extends beyond individual companies. This deal signals that US-China technology trade now operates under different rules. Government revenue-sharing becomes part of doing business.

International competitors are watching closely. European and Asian chip companies don't face these revenue-sharing requirements when selling to China. That creates a competitive advantage.

China's Response and Strategic Implications

Beijing hasn't issued official statements about the deal, but the implications are clear. Chinese companies now know that buying American AI chips includes a 15% surcharge that goes directly to the US government.

This creates incentives for China to accelerate domestic chip development. Why pay extra fees to the US government when you could buy local alternatives? The revenue-sharing deal might accelerate China's semiconductor independence efforts.

Chinese customers face a choice , pay higher prices for American chips that come with government fees, or invest in domestic alternatives. The long-term strategic implications favor domestic development.

The deal also sets a precedent for other countries. If the US can demand revenue-sharing from companies selling to China, what stops other governments from making similar demands?

Trade relationships become more complicated when governments take cuts of private business transactions.

What This Means for Future Export Policy

"This seeming quid pro quo is unprecedented from an export control perspective", according to experts. We're entering uncharted territory where export controls include profit-sharing requirements.

Traditional export controls work through restrictions and licenses. Companies either can or cannot sell certain products to specific countries. This deal adds a third option , you can sell, but we want a cut.

The model could spread to other sensitive industries. Defense contractors, telecommunications equipment manufacturers, and software companies might face similar arrangements for sales to restricted markets.

Government officials are probably drafting lists of other industries where revenue-sharing deals might make sense. The precedent is set. The mechanism exists.

Future administrations will inherit this policy tool. Once governments start taking cuts of private business transactions, they rarely stop.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly are Nvidia and AMD paying the US government? 

Both companies agreed to pay 15% of revenues from AI chip sales to China. This covers Nvidia's H20 chip and AMD's MI308 chip specifically.

Is this arrangement legal? 

Some experts warn the arrangement may be unconstitutional, but no legal challenges have been filed yet. The constitutional questions center on government revenue-sharing requirements for market access.

Why did these companies agree to this deal? 

The alternative was losing export licenses to sell AI chips in China entirely. Trump threatened 100% tariffs on semiconductor imports unless companies built in the US, so this deal provides a way to maintain China market access.

Will this affect chip prices? 

Companies typically pass government fees and taxes to customers through higher prices. Chinese customers will likely see increased costs for American AI chips.

Could other industries face similar deals? 

The precedent suggests other technology sectors could face revenue-sharing requirements for sales to restricted markets. No other deals have been announced yet.

What happens if companies refuse to pay? 

Refusal to pay would likely result in export license revocation, effectively blocking sales to China. Companies need these licenses to legally sell AI chips to Chinese customers.

How does this compare to traditional export controls? 

This arrangement is "unprecedented from an export control perspective". Traditional controls use restrictions and licenses, not revenue-sharing agreements.

What's China's likely response? 

Higher costs for American chips could accelerate Chinese development of domestic alternatives, reducing dependence on US semiconductor technology over time.