The Donald Trump administration is embroiled in controversy over its decision requiring leading artificial intelligence (AI) chipmakers NVIDIA and AMD to pay 15% of their revenue to the U.S. government in exchange for allowing exports to China. This measure may effectively amount to an "export tax," potentially violating the U.S. Constitution, and concerns have been raised about its expansion to other industries.
Earlier, the Financial Times reported that on the 10th (local time), U.S. semiconductor companies NVIDIA and AMD entered into an agreement to pay 15% of their semiconductor sales to China to secure export licenses to the Chinese market. NVIDIA has been allowed to resume exports of the China-exclusive AI semiconductor "H20," which had been banned due to national security concerns, in exchange for sharing part of its revenue.
It is unprecedented for the U.S. to leverage the technological superiority of its corporations not for security but as a means of generating revenue. Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation think tank, noted, "Paying 15% of revenue does not solve national security issues." Following this news, there has been criticism locally that "export controls have turned into a revenue tool for the government."
According to Bloomberg News on the 11th, Stephen Olson, a former U.S. trade negotiator and current senior research fellow at the ISEAS (Yusof Ishak Institute) in Singapore, said, "This is essentially a 'monetization' of U.S. trade policy, where U.S. corporations have to pay the government to receive export permits," adding, "We have entered a new and dangerous world."
Concerns have also been raised that the Trump administration's decision to demand money from its corporations in exchange for exports directly violates the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports." Bloomberg News reported that while NVIDIA and AMD agreed to the arrangement, it resembles the export taxes prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
The Washington Post also cited scholars, reporting, "This agreement is likely to violate constitutional provisions that prohibit export taxes." Peter Harrell, former senior director for international economics at the National Security Council (NSC) during the Biden administration, emphasized, "In addition to the policy issues related to this measure, the U.S. Constitution comprehensively prohibits levying taxes on exported products."
Some are expressing concerns that the Trump administration may extend similar demands to other corporations and industries, starting with NVIDIA and AMD. Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation think tank in Singapore, analyzed that "(the Trump administration) may create a combination of specific corporations and specific countries, saying, 'No one else can trade, but if you pay us directly, we will give you the right to trade,' and the possibilities for this are virtually infinite."
Lisa Tobin, a former National Security Council (NSC) member during the Trump administration, noted in the Financial Times, "Beijing will laugh at seeing Washington turn export permits into revenue sources," and questioned, "Is the next step going to be Lockheed Martin paying a 15% fee to sell F-35s to China?" On the other hand, CNBC mentioned that semiconductors are strategic technologies that form the backbone of numerous industries, including AI, electronics, and military sectors, predicting that "the likelihood of this agreement applying to other corporations is low."