Huang Renxun impressed Trump? Reports say the White House is pressuring Congress to block the bill restricting AI chip exports.

The White House is taking proactive measures to intervene in the legislative process, aiming to block a new bill intended to restrict AI chip exports from being included in the annual defense budget. If this move succeeds, it would mean a major victory for semiconductor giants like NVIDIA in maintaining access to overseas markets.

On Thursday, according to reports citing four sources familiar with the matter, key White House officials are pressuring Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to exclude the "GAIN AI Act" from the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As a must-pass piece of defense legislation, if this restrictive provision fails to make it into the final version of the NDAA, its chances of being implemented would become minimal.

The current negotiations are in flux. Insiders revealed that the White House Office of Legislative Affairs has intervened, supporting “AI czar” David Sacks’s efforts and directly calling key members of Congress such as House Majority Leader Steve Scalise to explicitly ask them to oppose the bill. This has made the likelihood of the restrictive measure being included in the final bill “almost zero.”

As negotiators from both the Senate and House race to finalize the text of the annual defense policy bill before Thanksgiving, the timing of this intervention is particularly critical. Based on the current legislative schedule, both chambers plan to vote on the bill in December.

“AI Czar” Teams Up with White House to Block the Bill

According to reports, David Sacks is leading these blocking efforts, which have quickly gained strong support from the White House. Sacks has long spearheaded lobbying to drop the bill, and these efforts have now received formal backing from the White House Legislative Affairs Office.

Sources note that administration officials have taken concrete steps, directly communicating their opposition to senior Congressional figures like Steve Scalise, attempting to influence the key window while the bill is being finalized. This high-level involvement reflects the administration’s hesitancy to further tighten AI chip export policies at this time.

As of now, the bill’s proponent, Senator Jim Banks, and the White House have not responded to requests for comment.

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s Market Advocacy Recognized

This shift in the White House’s position is closely tied to ongoing lobbying by NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang. Reports indicate that if the GAIN AI Act ultimately fails, NVIDIA will be the biggest beneficiary.

Huang has persistently advocated developing the global market, and has succeeded in convincing key administration officials.

His core viewpoint: allowing U.S. companies to serve these markets will ultimately benefit the United States. Though Huang previously sparked controversy by asking Trump to allow foreign AI chip sales, his broader arguments for maintaining market access have clearly found resonance within the White House, demonstrating his influence on administration policymaking.

Core Controversy of the Bill: Prioritizing U.S. Clients over “Concerned Countries”

The controversial GAIN AI Act aims to reshape the logic behind the supply chain allocation for AI chips. The bill’s central provision requires chip companies to prioritize fulfilling orders from U.S. customers before exporting products to “concerned countries.”

In addition, the bill includes specific export license exemptions for “trusted” entities. Although a revised version of the bill previously garnered positive responses from companies like Amazon and Microsoft, for hardware manufacturers heavily reliant on the global chip export market, the bill represents a direct regulatory risk. Now, with strong intervention from the White House, this attempt to legally fix export prioritization may be on the verge of collapse.

Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market presents risks; investors should remain cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it account for individual users’ unique investment objectives, financial circumstances, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article suit their particular circumstances. Investing based on this article is at your own risk.