&w=3840&q=100)
How Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang won over Trump who wanted to spilt his company
In fact, Huang's personal lobbying and policy engagement has helped drive a major shift in US trade policy and cemented his place as one of the most powerful tech executives in Washington.
Why did Trump drop the idea to break Nvidia?
Speaking at an AI summit in Washington on Wednesday (local time), Trump admitted, 'I said, 'Look, we'll break this guy up,' before I learned the facts here.' He explained that aides had advised him the move would be far more difficult than anticipated, as Nvidia's dominance in the AI hardware market was underpinned by years of development that rivals would struggle to match in the near term.
'I figured we could go in and sort of break them up a little bit, get them a little competition,' Trump said. 'But I found out it's not easy in that business.'
Huang, who sat in the audience during Trump's remarks, was praised several times by the US President along with other tech leaders for their continued investments in the United States.
China chip ban spurs Nvidia into action
Nvidia holds more than 90 per cent of the market for chips that power AI systems. That dominance has helped it surpass Apple to become the world's most valuable public company, with a market cap topping $4 trillion. But it has also brought the company into the crosshairs of global trade tensions.
In April, the Trump administration blocked sales of Nvidia's H20 AI chip to China, a move that sparked concern within the company and triggered an intense lobbying campaign from Huang.
According to reports from The New York Times and CNBC, Huang responded with a full-blown lobbying campaign—meeting Trump at Mar-a-Lago, testifying before Congress, and aligning with White House insiders like AI and crypto czar David Sacks.
During these meetings, Huang argued that restricting American chip exports would do more harm than good, pushing countries toward Chinese alternatives and weakening US leadership in AI. It seems this narrative began to resonate with Trump's inner circle, especially as Chinese competitor Huawei unveiled its own competing AI chip platform and Chinese demand for AI infrastructure exploded.
The campaign culminated last week when Huang met with Trump in the Oval Office. Within days, the administration changed course. The decision was officially linked to broader trade negotiations, officially tying the change to a rare earth magnet deal with China, but insiders, as reported by US media, credit Huang's influence for the change.
Jensen Huang's foray into policy
During Trump's first term, Apple CEO Tim Cook played a key role in behind-the-scenes diplomacy. But in Trump's second administration, Huang has quietly become the most influential tech executive—surpassing Cook and Tesla's Elon Musk, both of whom have lost standing with the US president.
Cook, once seen as Trump's go-to corporate statesman, has faced criticism from the administration over Apple's supply chain strategies and its manufacturing shift to India. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, once considered Trump's right-hand man, has had a public falling out with the president.
Is Huang Trump's new best buddy?
Huang has publicly praised Trump for acknowledging the need for energy to produce artificial intelligence. In an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, Huang called Trump a "visionary" for recognising this need.
During Wednesday's AI summit, Huang was asked during his session about the US' advantage which other countries don't have.
"America's unique advantage that no country could possibly have is President Trump," said Huang.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals
The US tariff saga has gone through many twists and turns. And many more are likely left. The ratcheting up of tariffs last month is broader and higher than expected. In late May, the view was that while the extant US average tariff rate was around 13-14 per cent, it was headed towards 18-20 per cent. Much of the increase was expected to be focused on ASEAN, where the tariff rate would be raised to that of China's to eliminate transshipment of Chinese exports to the US via the region. While those on Vietnam and Indonesia were in line with expectations, the additional tariffs on Brazil, Canada, and Mexico were not. Nor was the higher 50 per cent rate on copper. However, negotiations are ongoing, including with India, the EU, and Korea. If this week's Japan deal is any guide, tariffs on these economies will likely be half of the threatened levels. But, even at the reduced rate, if these, along with those on EU and the likely extensions of global sectoral tariffs to semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, are realised, then the effective tariff rate could well exceed 20 per cent. All eyes are therefore on August 1, which is the new deadline set by the administration for countries to finalise trade deals. But there is an upcoming and surprisingly overlooked event that could easily make these trade deals moot and plunge the tariff discussions into more uncertainty. On May 28, the US Court of International Trade (USCIT) ruled that tariffs imposed using the provisions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) overstepped the authority granted by the Act. The ruling did not consider the current conditions in the US to be a 'state of emergency,' which is needed to invoke IEEPA, to be convincing nor the use of tariffs to address it. Tariffs could be imposed, if the government so desired, but via the other options at its disposal. Not IEEPA. A federal appeals court granted the government a stay on the order and is slated to begin hearing arguments on the appeal on July 31. All the universal, reciprocal, and fentanyl-related tariffs are based on IEEPA. The tariffs unaffected are the Section 301 tariffs on China imposed under Trump 1.0 and extended by the Biden administration, and the global sectoral tariffs on aluminum, autos and auto parts, copper, and steel that were imposed under Section 232. It is unclear how the appeals court will rule. But regardless of the decision, either party is likely to move the case to the Supreme Court. If the tariffs under IEEPA are eventually disallowed by the US Supreme Court, the government will shift to other options. Tariffs are central to this administration's economic agenda and will thus be pursued. Unlike those under IEEPA, the tariffs under the other options are more cumbersome, limited in scope, and significantly more resource intensive. But they can be implemented in a compressed time frame if the administration so desires. A potential sequence of such actions could be the following. Use Section 122 to impose tariffs of 15 per cent for 150 days on all countries (justified to address balance of payments needs or to prevent a significant depreciation of the dollar). At the same time, ratchet up the tariffs on China that were imposed under Section 301 in Trade War 1.0 by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Keep tariffs on steel and aluminum at 50 per cent (as on copper) and raise that on autos from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. Hasten the ongoing Section 232 (sector specific on grounds on national economic security) investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and lumber to bring these under the tariff net of 25 per cent – 50 per cent. Use Section 338 to impose tariffs on countries that are deemed to discriminate specifically against US commercial interests (such as digital services taxes by Australia, the EU, Canada, India, and others, although the taxes are imposed on other countries too). Complete Section 301 investigations on large trading partners (some are ongoing, for example, on the EU and Brazil). These investigations are resource intensive as they need to first identify the specific policy of a trading partner that is the basis of 'unfair competition 'and then quantify the 'harm' that such policies impose on US consumers for each product and for each country. The tariff rate needs to be commensurate with the harm caused and, thus, differ, from product to product for each country. Finally, roll all tariffs under Sections 301 and 232. As one can imagine, this is an arduous and uncertain process. However, the direction of travel is more certain — the average effective tariff rate is likely to settle close to 20 per cent. Needless to say, the country- and product-specific impact of Sections 301 and 232 tariffs could be vastly different than under IEEPA. Markets so far have largely shrugged off the announced new tariffs. This is understandable given the quick deescalation after the strong market and corporate reaction to the Liberation Day tariffs; the possibility that the August 1 deadline is postponed; and the eventual negotiated tariff rates could be different from those announced. However, a court ruling on IEEPA could well turn both the August 1 deadline and the trade deals moot, including potentially that with India. If the basis of these deals, that is, IEEPA, is no longer admissible, then we are headed for renegotiations with tariffs under sections 301 and 232. These could be starkly different than those that are being negotiated now. The uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals. US courts might well upset the best laid plans of mice and men. Continued uncertainty is the only certainty. The writer is Chief Emerging Markets Economist, J P Morgan. Views are personal
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Express View on trade pacts and agriculture: Carry forward the momentum
Now that the India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) has been sealed, the focus shifts to the more challenging deal with the US. A major stumbling block to inking even an interim free trade agreement before US President Donald Trump's August 1 deadline — to either sign or face so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 26 per cent — is agriculture. India does not want to open up its market for American soyabean, corn (maize), ethanol and dairy products. What this defensive stance misses is the potential loss from the fact that India's agricultural exports to the US, at $6.2 billion in 2024, exceeded its imports of $2.4 billion. A 26 per cent tariff will definitely hurt Indian seafood exports to the US that alone was valued at $2.5 billion. That loss would be a gain for the likes of Ecuador and Chile, slapped with only the 10 per cent baseline tariff. On the other hand, the fear of US farm imports is more about perception than reality. Take dairy, where the US isn't as big an exporter of milk powder, butter and cheese as New Zealand and the European Union. Or soyabean, where India imported over $5 billion worth of its oil during 2024-25. The bulk of that was from Argentina and Brazil, with the US share at just $126.3 million. The US is, no doubt, cost competitive in corn and the world's biggest producer as well as exporter. But corn is basically a feed grain, also increasingly being used as a biofuel feedstock. Allowing imports would benefit India's dairy and poultry farmers grappling with rising feed costs, aggravated by the diversion of corn for fuel ethanol production. The sheer demand growth makes corn imports by India inevitable, whether from the US or elsewhere. India needs a farm trade policy based not on import protection, but expanding and diversifying its exports. That happened during 2003-04 to 2013-14, when the country's agriculture exports soared from $7.5 billion to $43.3 billion and new markets were created in products from basmati rice and buffalo meat to frozen shrimps, guar gum meal, chilly and seed spices. Since then, exports have hardly grown to about $52 billion in 2024-25. Even worse have been shipment curbs — on rice, wheat, sugar or onion — clamped at the slightest indication of domestic supply shortfalls. CETA has been a refreshing departure, with India successfully negotiating duty-free access for its exports of seafood, processed foods, spices, fruit and vegetables to the UK, while simultaneously offering to cut tariffs on imports of whisky, chocolates, soft drinks and salmon from the latter. A similar confident approach of export proactiveness rather than import defensiveness is required in deals with other countries — the US included.
Economic Times
16 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Euro rises after US, EU agree to tariff deal
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The euro gained on Monday following the announcement of a framework trade agreement between the United States and the European Union, the latest in a flurry of deals to avert a global trade war Meeting in Scotland on Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal, which will result in a 15% tariff on EU goods, half what Trump had threatened to impose from August U.S. and Chinese negotiators are due to meet in Stockholm on Monday with an aim to extend a trade truce and prevent steep tariff hikes. Meanwhile, investor attention is shifting towards corporate earnings and central bank meetings in the U.S. and Japan."It could be a positive week, just purely from the fact that now we know the rules of the game, if you like," said Rodrigo Catril, senior currency strategist at National Australia Bank."Now that there is more clarity, you would think that not only in the U.S., but around the globe, there will be a little bit more willingness to look at investment, to look at expansions, and to look at where the opportunities are," he said on a NAB euro stood at $1.1763, up 0.2% so far in Asia. The common currency rose 0.2% to 173.78 said the EU plans to invest some $600 billion in the U.S. and dramatically increase its purchases of American energy and military equipment. The pact is similar to one forged with Tokyo negotiators last week that will see Japan investing some $550 billion in the U.S. and a 15% tariff imposed on its cars and other baseline 15% tariff will still be seen by many in Europe as too high, compared with Europe's initial hopes to secure a zero-for-zero tariff is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable trade pact with the U.S. No breakthrough is expected in the U.S. and China talks in Stockholm, but analysts said another 90-day extension of a trade truce struck in mid-May was U.S. dollar advanced on Friday, bolstered by solid economic data that suggested the Federal Reserve could take its time in resuming interest rate cuts. Both the Fed and the Bank of Japan are expected to hold rates steady at this week's policy meetings, but traders are focusing on the subsequent comments to gauge the timing of the next dollar was little changed at 147.68 yen. The dollar index, which tracks the greenback against major peers, fell 0.1% to traded at $1.34385, down almost 0.1%. The Australian dollar fetched $0.6576, up 0.2%, while New Zealand's kiwi dollar was flat at $0.6019.
