&w=3840&q=100)
Trump AI czar Sacks defends reversal of chip export curbs to China
White House AI adviser David Sacks defended the Trump administration's decision to allow Nvidia Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. to resume sales of some artificial intelligence chips to China, reversing export curbs imposed by the US earlier this year.
In an interview Tuesday, Sacks said that allowing Nvidia to restart shipments of its H20 chips would position the US to compete more effectively abroad and blunt efforts by Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies Co. to gain a bigger slice of the global market.
'We are not selling the latest and greatest chips to China, but we can deprive Huawei of having this giant market share in China that they can then use to scale up and compete globally,' Sacks said on Bloomberg Television. 'The policy is nuanced and it makes a lot of sense.'
The move is seen as a win for Nvidia's Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang, who met last week with President Donald Trump after spending months arguing for a letup in US restrictions on sales to Chinese customers. 'Jensen has been making the case publicly for competing in China and there are a lot of merits to the argument,' Sacks said.
Revived sales of the H20 promise to restore billions in revenue for Nvidia this year, according to the company. The H20 was originally designed to comply with export controls imposed under the Biden administration, but in April, the Trump administration tightened those rules to block sales to China of the H20 and AMD's MI308 chip without a license.
The tighter curbs prompted Nvidia to announce a $4.5 billion writedown on H20 chip inventory in its fiscal first quarter and warn of an additional potential loss of $8 billion in sales. AMD said it would take an $800 million charge for its second quarter of 2025.
Sacks pushed back on criticism that allowing H20 sales to China poses a security risk, calling the H20 'a deprecated chip.' He warned that other countries are choosing between US and Chinese technology. 'If you don't let these countries buy American tech, you're pushing them into China's arms,' he said.
Trump officials had previously insisted the H20 chip sales curbs weren't up for negotiation. Sacks said the policy shift fits into what he described as a broader push to establish an 'American AI stack' — encompassing chips, operating systems, and the AI models that run on them.
'It's a zero-sum game,' he said. 'We want it all to be American-made and American-powered. If we hobble our own companies, we're handing an advantage to China.'
The reversal follows months of diplomacy between Washington and Beijing. As part of a trade truce unveiled last month, the US has eased some restrictions on exports, including chip-design software, in exchange for greater Chinese cooperation on sales of rare-earth minerals — a key input for many high-tech products.
Earlier Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged that restrictions on Nvidia's H20 chips were part of US-China talks in London, despite his own earlier assertions that there was no such quid pro quo tying semiconductors and rare earths.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
10 minutes ago
- The Print
CJI's involvement in selection of CBI director is a safeguard, not a subversion
The insertion of judicial oversight was neither accidental nor theoretical. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) emerged from the public shock of the Jain Hawala diaries, its essence was doctrinal, not defensive. The Supreme Court held that the need of the hour is to insulate the CBI from extraneous influence. It insisted on structural measures, not temporary decrees. Parliament listened: the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 entrenched a tripartite panel for the selection of the CBI director — the PM, LoP, and the CJI or his nominee — forming a legal bond between democratic design and historical necessity. The CJI's statutory presence in appointing the head of the nation's premier investigative agency is not a fluke of legal drafting, it is a structural feature. It is a successor to experiences where power went unchecked: the Emergency's weaponisation of law, the Hawala scandal's institutional paralysis. 'Republics are formed, not found,' wrote Philip Bobbitt in The Shield of Achilles , capturing the intentional craftsmanship behind modern constitutionalism. They are not gifts of history, but acts of memory, of caution, of design. Constitutions are not accidental artefacts, they are blueprints of humility, instruments to channel and control power. When the Vice President raises concern over the Chief Justice of India's role in appointing the CBI Director, he touches not on privilege, but on architecture. This is not abstract theory; it is the grammar of a functioning republic. India did not choose the American isolation of powers or the British concentration. We chose a tensioned architecture, where each power leans against the other, not to destabilise, but to steady. Perception and principle If anyone doubts the continuing vitality of that design, recent jurisprudence confirms it. In Common Cause v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court upheld statutory requirements for fixed tenure, noting that transparency in appointment and continuity in office are 'constitutional imperatives that flow from independence.' It struck down executive efforts to circumvent the panel. In Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2023), the SC further condemned post-tenure extensions as injurious to public perception: where 'perceived capture' prevails, institutional legitimacy collapses. This is not unique to India. Across democratic orders, judicial participation in appointments to sensitive public offices is a safeguard, not a subversion. In the United Kingdom, the Judicial Appointments Commission includes judges in appointments beyond the bench, extending into review boards for oversight bodies. In Canada, judicial members sit on selection panels for integrity commissioners, privacy regulators, and national security review boards. South Africa's Chief Justice serves as the chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission, which advises on prosecutorial oversight. In Israel, the Attorney General, akin to the CBI Director, emerges from a multi-stakeholder process that includes judicial members. Indeed, to place entire control of coercive institutions within the executive is not an act of democracy, it is Hobbes without honesty. It is a rehearsal of Leviathan, cloaked in constitutional formalities but stripped of institutional conscience. The CJI's seat at the table is not a throne, it is ballast. It prevents the investigative state from drifting toward political shores. As constitutional scholar Aharon Barak noted in the Israeli context, 'Judicial participation in public appointments is not to blur the boundary between powers, but to clarify their mutual restraint.' Concerns around post-retirement appointments of judges are not frivolous. They strike at the heart of perceived impartiality. But to conflate that concern with the statutory presence of the judiciary in a democratic appointment process is both analytically lazy and constitutionally unsound. The answer lies in reform, not removal. If Parliament is indeed serious, it may codify a cooling-off period, apply it prospectively and uniformly, and preserve both perception and principle. Also read: Shantonu Sen's CBI tenure was a long battle against corruption—and political interference A quiet reminder In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, the SC acknowledged that even unproven allegations can erode public confidence in the judiciary. But that danger cannot justify the dismantling of institutional checks elsewhere. Perception is vital but it must not overpower constitutional intention. One must also resist the urge to confuse participation with dominance. The CJI is one of the three members on the panel for the appointment of the CBI director. He does not hold a veto. His presence is not a counter majoritarian triumph, it is a quiet reminder that public power must not be shaped behind closed doors. To deride that presence as judicial intrusion is to forget the very scandals that demanded it. Yes, constitutions evolve, but they do so by memory, not amnesia. The appointment structure being criticised was crafted after inquiry committees, court orders, and parliamentary deliberation. It came not as an innovation but as an inheritance. To question it casually is to misremember our own institutional biography. As John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton warned, 'The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.' That includes the Bench, the executive, and the legislature. Which is why the framers, and later Parliament, placed each beside the other, not to dominate, but to co-discipline. This is not the judiciary conquering executive space, nor the executive retreating into symbolism. This is equilibrium earned through political pain, preserved through constitutional memory. The author is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India. Views are personal. (Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. Senate passes aid, public broadcasting cuts in victory for Trump
The U.S. Senate, early on Thursday (July 17, 2025), approved U.S. President Donald Trump's plan for billions of dollars in cuts to funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, handing the Republican president another victory as he exerts control over Congress with little opposition. The Senate voted 51 to 48 in favor of Mr. Trump's request to cut $9 billion in spending already approved by Congress. Most of the cuts are to programs to assist foreign countries suffering from disease, war and natural disasters, but the plan also eliminates all $1.1 billion the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was due to receive over the next two years. Mr. Trump and many of his fellow Republicans argue that spending on public broadcasting is an unnecessary expense and reject its news coverage as suffering from anti-right bias. Standalone rescissions packages have not passed in decades, with lawmakers reluctant to cede their constitutionally mandated control of spending. But Trump's Republicans, who hold narrow majorities in the Senate and House, have shown little appetite for resisting his policies since he began his second term in January. The $9 billion at stake is extremely small in the context of the $6.8 trillion federal budget, and represents only a tiny portion of all the funds approved by Congress that the Trump administration has held up while it has pursued sweeping cuts, many ordered by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. As of mid-June, Mr. Trump was blocking $425 billion in funding that had already been appropriated and previously approved by Congress, according to Democratic lawmakers tracking frozen funding. However, Mr. Trump and his supporters have promised more of the "rescission" requests to eliminate previously approved spending in what they say is an effort to pare back the federal government. The House of Representatives passed the rescissions legislation without altering Mr. Trump's request by 214-212 last month. Four Republicans joined 208 Democrats in voting no. But after a handful of Republican senators balked at the extent of the cuts to global health programs, Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said on Tuesday that PEPFAR, a global program to fight HIV/AIDS launched in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, was being exempted. The change brought the size of the package of cuts to $9 billion from $9.4 billion, requiring another House vote before the measure can be sent to the White House for Trump to sign into law. The rescissions must pass by Friday. Otherwise, the request would expire and the White House will be required to adhere to spending plans passed by Congress. Republican 'No' Votes Two of the Senate's 53 Republicans - Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine - joined Democrats in voting against the legislation. "You don't need to gut the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting," Ms. Murkowski said in a Senate speech. She said the Trump administration also had not provided assurances that battles against diseases such as malaria and polio worldwide would be maintained. Most of all, Murkowski said, Congress must assert its role in deciding how federal funds were spent. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota called Mr. Trump's request a "small, but important step toward fiscal sanity." Democrats scoffed at that, noting that congressional Republicans earlier this month passed a massive package of tax and spending cuts that nonpartisan analysts estimated would add more than $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt. Democrats charged Republicans with giving up Congress' Constitutionally-mandated control of federal spending. "Today, Senate Republicans turn this chamber into a subservient rubber stamp for the executive, at the behest of Donald Trump," Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said. "Republicans embrace the credo of cut, cut, cut now, and ask questions later," Mr. Schumer said. The cuts would overturn bipartisan spending agreements most recently passed in a full-year stopgap funding bill in March. Democrats warn a partisan cut now could make it more difficult to negotiate government funding bills that must pass with bipartisan agreement by September 30 to avoid a shutdown. Appropriations bills require 60 votes to move ahead in the Senate, but the rescissions package needs just 51, meaning Republicans can pass it without Democratic support.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
10 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Decoded: What are Epstein files and why is Trump admin not releasing them?
US President Donald Trump lashed out at his supporters, accusing them of being 'weaklings' who are falling prey to Democratic 'bullshit' about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, adding that he no longer wants their support, CNN reported. This comes at a time when Trump is facing criticism over his administration's role in the Epstein probe, which he has called a 'hoax'. Taking to social media platform Truth Social, he called it 'Jeffrey Epstein Hoax' and blamed the 'Lunatic Left' for misleading his supporters. What is the Epstein case? In 2006, Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy American financier, was charged with sex offences after the parents of a 14-year-old girl informed the police that Epstein molested their daughter at his Florida home. A report by The New York Times mentions, Epstein paid teenage girls money to perform sexual acts, and also used his one-time girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, to recruit and manage his stable of victims. An investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Florida police led to Epstein's indictment in the same year. In 2008, he pleaded guilty to two felony charges, which included soliciting a minor, under a plea deal that allowed him to avoid federal prosecution and much harsher prison time. In 2019, he was arrested again by the federal agents in New York and was accused of trafficking girls, some as young as 14 years old, and engaging in sexual acts with them. According to an AFP report, prosecutors alleged that Epstein worked with associates and employees to ensure a 'steady supply of minor victims to abuse'. Epstein denied the charges filed against him. On August 10, 2019, while awaiting trial in custody, he was found dead in his jail cell, having died by suicide. Maxwell, Epstein's one-time girlfriend, is serving a 20-year prison sentence and was jailed in 2022 for helping him abuse girls. She revealed details of his connections with some prominent figures like Britain's Prince Andrew and former US president Bill Clinton. Both have denied any wrongdoing. Conspiracy theories in the Epstein case Media reports suggest that authorities are deliberately hiding details in the Epstein file case to protect rich and powerful people, including Trump. A central theory in the case involves the alleged existence of a client list naming individuals who may have committed offences in connection with Epstein. However, the Trump administration has maintained that no such list exists. Citing an unsigned memo last week, The New York Times report states that the US Justice Department and the FBI said that the Epstein files did not contain the kind of evidence that would justify investigating other people. The video recordings of child sexual abuse material found by investigators were not, as some have suggested, videos that Epstein recorded of crimes by himself or his friends, but material he downloaded, Attorney General Pam Bondi said. Donald Trump's role in the Epstein case Media reports suggest that Trump and Epstein were friends for years; they saw each other frequently at high-society parties in Florida and New York. Trump was dragged into the controversy after his former ally, Elon Musk, accused him of being in the Epstein files. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, Trump spoke highly of Epstein and called him a friend whom he had known for 15 years. He added, 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' Trump has dismissed the controversy as 'sordid and uninteresting'; however, until Wednesday, the US President had not gone so far as to distance himself from some of his staunch supporters, who continue to demand more information related to the case.
