Nvidia CEO downplays U.S. fears that China's military will use his firm's chips
In an interview with CNN aired Sunday, Huang said "we don't have to worry about" China's military using U.S.-made technology because "they simply can't rely on it."
"It could be limited at any time; not to mention, there's plenty of computing capacity in China already," Huang said. "They don't need Nvidia's chips, certainly, or American tech stacks in order to build their military," he added.
The comments were made in reference to years of bipartisan U.S. policy that placed restrictions on semiconductor companies, prohibiting them from selling their most advanced artificial intelligence chips to clients in China.
Huang also repeated past criticisms of the policies, arguing that the tactic of export controls has been counterproductive to the ultimate goal of U.S. tech leadership.
"We want the American tech stack to be the global standard ... in order for us to do that, we have to be in search of all the AI developers in the world," Huang said, adding that half of the world's AI developers are in China.
That means for America to be an AI leader, U.S. technology has to be available to all markets, including China, he added.
Washington's latest restrictions on Nvidia's sales to China were implemented in April and are expected to result in billions in losses for the company. In May, Huang said chip restrictions had already cut Nvidia's China market share nearly in half.
Huang's CNN interview came just days before he travels to China for his second trip to the country this year, and as Nvidia is reportedly working on another chip that is compliant with the latest export controls.
Last week, the Nvidia CEO met with U.S. President Donald Trump, and was warned by U.S. lawmakers not to meet with companies connected to China's military or intelligence bodies, or entities named on America's restricted export list.
According to Daniel Newman, CEO of tech advisory firm The Futurum Group, Huang's CNN interview exemplifies how Huang has been threading a needle between Washington and Beijing as it tries to maintain maximum market access.
"He needs to walk a proverbial tightrope to make sure that he doesn't rattle the Trump administration," Newman said, adding that he also wants to be in a position for China to invest in Nvidia technology if and when the policy provides a better climate to do so.
But that's not to say that his downplaying of Washington's concerns is valid, according to Newman. "I think it's hard to completely accept the idea that China couldn't use Nvidia's most advanced technologies for military use."
He added that he would expect Nvidia's technology to be at the core of any country's AI training, including for use in the development of advanced weaponry.
A U.S. official told Reuters last month that China's large language model startup DeepSeek — which says it used Nvidia chips to train its models — was supporting China's military and intelligence operations.
On Sunday, Huang acknowledged there were concerns about DeepSeek's open-source R1 reasoning model being trained in China but said that there was no evidence that it presents dangers for that reason alone.
Huang complimented the R1 reasoning model, calling it "revolutionary," and said its open-source nature has empowered startup companies, new industries, and countries to be able to engage in AI.
"The fact of the matter is, [China and the U.S.] are competitors, but we are highly interdependent, and to the extent that we can compete and both aspire to win, it is fine to respect our competitors," he concluded.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
44 minutes ago
- CNN
Obama's blunt message for Democrats: ‘Toughen up'
Former President Barack Obama issued a call to action for Democrats at a private fundraiser in New Jersey on Friday evening, urging those frustrated by the state of the country under President Donald Trump to 'stand up for the things that you think are right.' 'I think it's going to require a little bit less navel-gazing and a little less whining and being in fetal positions. And it's going to require Democrats to just toughen up,' Obama said at the fundraiser, according to excerpts of his remarks exclusively obtained by CNN. 'You know, don't tell me you're a Democrat, but you're kind of disappointed right now, so you're not doing anything. No, now is exactly the time that you get in there and do something,' he said. 'Don't say that you care deeply about free speech and then you're quiet. No, you stand up for free speech when it's hard. When somebody says something that you don't like, but you still say, 'You know what, that person has the right to speak.' … What's needed now is courage.' Obama's comments come as the Democratic Party searches for its path forward in the second Trump term and beyond. Many in the party's base have called for a more forceful response from Democratic leaders at a time when the party is locked out of power. As Democrats debate who should lead the party, Obama encouraged them to channel their energy into the governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia, saying the off-year elections could be 'a big jumpstart for where we need to go.' 'Stop looking for the quick fix. Stop looking for the messiah. You have great candidates running races right now. Support those candidates,' Obama said, calling out the New Jersey and Virginia elections, according to the excerpts of his remarks. 'Make sure that the DNC has what it needs to compete in what will be a more data-driven, more social media-driven cycle, which will cost some money and expertise and time,' he continued. Obama spoke at a private fundraiser hosted by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and his wife, Tammy Murphy, at their home in Red Bank, New Jersey. The intimate dinner drew in $2.5 million through in-person and online donations for the Democratic National Committee, a source familiar with the event said. A portion of the haul will be allocated to Democratic efforts in the governor's race in New Jersey. The Democratic nominee, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, and and DNC Chair Ken Martin were on hand for the event. Obama described Sherrill and former Rep. Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic nominee for governor in Virginia, as 'powerful spokespersons for a pragmatic, commonsense desire to help people and who both have remarkable track records of service.' 'The most important thing you can do right now is to help the team, our candidate to win,' he said. 'And we've got to start building up our coffers in the DNC.' Obama also argued that Democrats need to focus on how to 'deliver for people,' acknowledging the different views within the party about how best to do that. 'There's been, I gather, some argument between the left of the party and people who are promoting the quote-unquote abundance agenda. Listen, those things are not contradictory. You want to deliver for people and make their lives better? You got to figure out how to do it,' he said. 'I don't care how much you love working people. They can't afford a house because all the rules in your state make it prohibitive to build. And zoning prevents multifamily structures because of NIMBY,' he said, referring to 'not in my backyard' views. 'I don't want to know your ideology, because you can't build anything. It does not matter.' Obama has spoken selectively since Trump's return to power in January. He has criticized the president's tariff policy and warned the White House was infringing on Americans' rights. Last month, Obama warned the country was 'dangerously close' to a more autocratic government. At the closed-press fundraiser on Friday, the former president said he has not been 'surprised by what Trump's done' or that 'there are no more guardrails within the Republican Party.' He repeated his calls for institutions, including law firms and universities, to push back on intimidation efforts by the Trump administration. 'What's being asked of us is make some effort to stand up for the things that you think are right. And be willing to be a little bit uncomfortable in defense of your values. And in defense of the country. And in defense of the world that you want to leave to your children and your grandchildren,' he said. 'And if we all do that, if we do our jobs over the next year and a half, then I think we will rebuild momentum and we will position ourselves to get this country moving in the direction it should.'
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
America's wealthy have too much power. It's hurting democracy – and our economy.
What do you think of this conspicuous power of America's billionaires? USA TODAY readers sound off in our Opinion Forum. If there's one thing the Trump administration has a surplus of, it's billionaires. President Donald Trump himself is America's first billionaire president, boasting a net worth of $5.3 billion, according to Forbes. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found the median weekly earnings for U.S. workers was $1,194 in the first quarter of 2025 – or $62,088 a year. At that rate, it would take the average American roughly 85,350 years to reach Trump's net worth. Meanwhile, the total net worth of the billionaires who make up Trump's changing administration – including former friend Elon Musk, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent among them – equals at least $450 billion. And that money buys a lot of influence – and power. Maybe too much. That's the question we asked you. As part of our Opinion Forum, we asked USA TODAY readers what you thought about the growing power of billionaires: in our corporations, in our markets and, yes, in our government. Is this exorbitant wealth something to aspire to? Or is it a threat? Read the responses below. They've got yachts. We're just trying to keep our canoes afloat. I do think the wealthy have too much power. Who listens to someone making minimum wage? (I'm speaking, by the way, as a former sociology professor, jail administrator and jail standards specialist.) Having a large number of very wealthy people in political power also has a negative effect on our democracy. The richer people are, the less they are in tune with the common people they are supposed to represent. Another view: America's problem isn't billionaires. It's what we let them to get away with. | Opinion Forum The growth in the number of billionaires and in their collective wealth is not a sign of a healthy economy. A healthy economy is defined by a more equal income distribution. In the 1980s, CEOs earned about 40 times more than their hourly employees. Today it's about 300 times. There is something horribly wrong with this picture! I do think taxes should be raised on the the richest people in our country. The wealthy are not paying their fair share. They sit back in their mansions and yachts while the rest of us are desperately trying to keep our canoes afloat. — Bev Scott, Trinity, Texas Let's stop assuming the wealthy are criminals Without data directly on hand about how much people in different income strata contribute to the federal budget, it's hard to answer questions like whether we should raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. But I'm in my 70s and have witnessed many things. My parents and their parents worked until they died. That work ethic comes with compensation. Some do better than others. The common thread is working. I support the work requirements for Medicaid recently approved by Congress and signed into law. The details are rarely published. The headlines are almost always divisive and incomplete. Musk proposes America Party: Do you think the US needs a third party? Tell us. | Opinion Forum Let's stop accusing the wealthy as if they are criminals. They pay most of the taxes and give a tremendous amount to philanthropy. Google it! Get the best education you can afford. Get a job that adds value to your life and work hard. Vote in every election. And try your best to live a good life. Stop judging others. — Rick Bateman, Loveland, Ohio Infinite wealth is fine, if everyone has a roof Our distribution of wealth is completely out of balance and will have dire consequences. I have no argument against infinite personal wealth as long as every citizen has access to basic essentials. Food, medical care, shelter, public safety, etc. should be a foundation for the populace. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ You can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. The uber wealthy can have all the mansions they want once everyone has a roof. Wealth is achieved through more than business acumen. Billionaires exist because they utilize economic and civic infrastructure, provided collectively by all of us. Their argument that "I did it" is, at best, specious. Without fundamental change, this will end badly. — Sam Collins, Gainesville, Florida Even those hurt by billionaire policies seem to support the billionaires The increased involvement of billionaires in our government has a huge effect on how our system operates. The ultra rich have always held sway over American democracy, but the days of their political dealings being done behind the scenes are long gone. Now, it's not only out in public every day that billionaires are controlling the government and looking to alter the country in such a way to elevate themselves even further above the average person, but it's also that a huge portion of the American public, most of them people who will be affected negatively by these actions, is still hugely supportive of this regime. This means that the country can continue to be run in such a way that the marginalized are stomped on while the rich get richer. It is now to the point that the Trump regime can brazenly break laws and defy courts with few to no repercussions, and this is, surely enough, eroding away the foundation of American democracy. — Ben Rivera, Salt Lake City You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Is Elon Musk's America Party for real? Don't bet against a billionaire.
If Musk is serious about doing this, and it's not clear that he is, he could truly alter the next election, if not more. Could Elon Musk revolutionize American politics with his new American political party? The odds are wildly against it, but ... it's Elon Musk. What were the chances he could become the richest man in the world? Start the first major American car company in decades? Create a reusable rocket booster? Betting against Musk has seldom been a winning strategy. That said, politics is very different from anything he's done before. In politics, there's much more equality than there is in the market. Sure, a billionaire can buy a much bigger megaphone, but it's the voters who decide if they like what they're hearing. A few months ago, Musk turned a Wisconsin judicial election into the most expensive judge election in the history of American politics – and lost pretty big. Also, his involvement in DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, was a notable failure by almost any measure. So money doesn't guarantee success in politics. It just helps a lot. Third parties, even well-funded ones, have almost never succeeded in American politics. The last one to emerge and win the presidency was the Republicans in 1860. So, it's been a minute since that happened. Do you want a third party? Musk says America needs to form a third political party. Do you agree? Tell us. | Opinion How Musk's new political party could have an impact Nevertheless, Musk has a chance, in this polarized moment, to make a difference in 2026. If he does that, his party could set it itself up quite well for 2028. The margins in the House of Representatives and Senate are very tight. If Musk could find a couple states, a couple of districts and the right candidates to run, he could deny either Democrats or Republicans the majority needed to control those chambers. Right now, it would take as few as three seats to be the power broker in the House, and three to four in the Senate. Then, the America Party could bargain with both parties, in one or both chambers. A tiny party could demand the top leadership post in return for support. And it could shift its votes from issue to issue. Chaotic? Almost certainly. The other great advantage that Musk has is a near-record number of Americans are unhappy with our political system. A new party that isn't the Democrats or the Republicans, but works with both to get things done? That sounds like what a lot of Americans say they want. Opinion: Musk wants a new political party. This could be the moment for it to work. True, the same polarization that makes American politics so unpopular, ugly and gridlocked right now will make it harder for any of Musk's candidates to win. Most folks on the left won't vote for Musk's party if they think it will mean victory for Trump's MAGA movement. Most folks on the right won't vote for Musk if they believe it will lead to liberal Democrats winning. Musk himself would need to demonstrate qualities he's never really shown, even at the apex of his business successes: message discipline, compromise, shared leadership and, yes, some degree of humility. Is America really going to support a political party led by a multibillionaire South African immigrant, widely known to be a fan of several exotic intoxicating substances, who has fathered at least 14 children by at least four women? Trump has changed the rules of politics Well, another thing that Musk has going for him is Trump's example. Trump has altered American politics forever by breaking so many of the norms and rules of our system. When America reelected a convicted felon billionaire who allegedly had sex with adult video stars, who allegedly cheated on all of his wives, who bragged about getting into the dressing room of teenage pageant stars, who partied with Jeffrey Epstein, who tried to overturn a legal election, who bragged about avoiding taxes … it expanded the scope of the possible. When it comes to scandal, Musk is an amateur compared with Trump. An interesting thing about Musk's party: He can start a party. He can lead it. And he certainly can afford to fund it. But he can never be president. The Constitution forbids it. As an immigrant naturalized U.S. citizen, Musk will have to find a native-born American to run for president in 2028 at the top of his ticket. And then, trust and work with that person. Tall order for a man used to just giving orders from an Olympian height. Yet if Musk is serious about doing this, and it's not clear that he is, he could truly alter the next election, if not more. With just a fraction of his hundreds of billions, he could affect 10 to 20 congressional races in ways we simply have never seen before. With the right candidates and issues, he just might do it. If he does, American politics will get even weirder. Buckle up, America. Jeremy Mayer is professor of political science in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.
