In a move that has sent shockwaves through the global technology sector, U.S. semiconductor giants Nvidia and AMD have agreed to remit 15% of their revenues from AI chip sales in the Chinese market to the United States government. According to multiple sources, this revenue-sharing arrangement is the key condition for both companies to regain export licenses for their high-end chips, which have been under strict export restrictions since April 2025. Analysts have described this agreement as unprecedented, representing an extraordinary convergence of export control policy, national security strategy, and economic interests.

The deal comes against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, which continue to exert significant influence on the global economy, and underscores the White House’s willingness to deploy exceptions as a bargaining instrument. In exchange for 15% of AI chip sales revenue, the two semiconductor manufacturers will be granted export licenses to sell Nvidia’s H20 and AMD’s MI308 chips in China. This “quid pro quo” arrangement is without precedent. According to export control experts, no U.S. company has ever agreed to surrender a portion of its revenue in exchange for an export license. However, the deal aligns with the Trump administration’s model, in which the president has urged companies to take measures such as investing domestically to avert tariff imposition while generating jobs and revenue for the United States.

The turning point occurred when Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang met directly with President Trump to discuss the economic impact of the export ban. Following a series of negotiations, the U.S. Department of Commerce decided to reinstate the export licenses, conditional upon Nvidia and AMD remitting 15% of their AI chip revenues from the Chinese market to the federal government. According to The Washington Post, this arrangement closely resembles an “export tax” a measure heavily constrained by the U.S. Constitution and has sparked debate over its legality. Some experts have raised concerns that imposing such a levy could undermine the integrity of export control regimes by effectively creating a mechanism to “purchase market access” rather than maintaining restrictions purely on national security grounds.

From an economic perspective, the agreement offers both Nvidia and AMD a substantial opportunity for revenue recovery. With renewed access to the Chinese market where demand for AI chips remains surging Nvidia could recoup between $15–20 billion in lost sales, while AMD would be able to restore revenue from its second-largest global customer base. Nevertheless, the 15% revenue levy payable to the U.S. government will inevitably compress profit margins, compelling both firms to reassess pricing strategies and resource allocation plans.

The strategic implications of the agreement extend far beyond financial metrics. On one hand, it reinforces U.S. authority over critical technologies while compelling leading tech corporations to directly share economic benefits with the national budget. On the other hand, it signals to China that access to American technology remains possible if political negotiation channels exist a message that could reshape Beijing’s strategic calculus. In the long term, this model could be applied to other advanced technology sectors where national security and trade policy are tightly interlinked.

In conclusion, Nvidia and AMD’s decision to allocate 15% of their AI chip revenues from China to the U.S. government is not merely a financial concession; it stands as a symbol of a new era in the global technology rivalry. As the boundaries between export control policy and economic interests become increasingly blurred, technology corporations are compelled to engage in complex arrangements where profitability, market access, and geopolitical considerations are deeply intertwined. In this high-stakes arena, technology is no longer just a product it has become a strategic instrument of national power.

If you want, I can also prepare a more legal-policy-focused translation that frames the text for use in a trade law or international policy report. That would give it a more formal, treaty-and-regulation tone.
(Cre: CNBC)