One of the few areas of bipartisanship left in Congress is the agreement that the People’s Republic of China presents an unprecedented, dire threat to the United States.
Chinese Communist Party planning documents explicitly state that its goal is undermining the U.S.-led global economy. Its mission is to dislodge the United States and create a new, autocratic world order, which it will dominate.
The U.S. tech industry would be wise to take note of this uniquely bipartisan concern and proceed with caution in its engagements with Chinese entities.
There is a common saying among the foreign policy and international business communities: the U.S. innovates, the EU regulates and China replicates. After all, the country’s actions to steal U.S.-created and -owned intellectual property are so numerous it’s hard to go a week without hearing about another outrageous example of their industrial espionage.
For this reason, in December, Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee introduced the Restoring Export and Security Trade Restrictions for Integrated Circuit Technologies (RESTRICT) Act, H.R. 6879. This bill is a direct response to Donald Trump’s dangerous decision made earlier that month, removing export controls on Nvidia’s H200 chips to China. If passed, our legislation would prohibit selling H200s — Nvidia’s second-most powerful chip — and other comparably advanced chips to China.
There’s still time to act before it’s too late. Two months after the president’s approval, advanced chip sales remain in limbo because the federal government has not yet completed its national security review.
With such uncertainty in the race for AI dominance, we can’t risk giving our biggest adversary tools so critical for powering advanced AI models that will determine the global balance of power.
Some in government and industry argue that allowing such sales hampers China’s own domestic chip industry and AI innovation by making the country dependent on U.S. technology; and that China will smuggle in the chips regardless of restrictions. This defeatist thinking is misguided and assumes action will be futile. Why lock the door when intruders will just kick it down anyway?
Under the current federal conditions of export authorization, Chinese customers cannot use the chips for military purposes. However, when considering the Chinese Communist Party’s national-level Military-Civil Fusion strategy, this restriction rings hollow. Under that strategy, China has a single “fused” system to mobilize all resources under state control, including economic, science, technology and military, to advance the party’s goals. Once a technology enters the Chinese ecosystem, there is no way the United States or U.S.-based firms can guarantee it won’t be used for military purposes to undermine our country.
This nation and the world owe many of the most revolutionary technologies to the innovations of companies in Silicon Valley. Many of these technologies power American and global prosperity.
I should also note that many of Silicon Valley’s most significant innovations were seeded by investments made by the U.S. government and paid for by American taxpayers. RISC-V, a critical blueprint for designing computer chips, received early-stage support and funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Today, Chinese companies are leveraging RISC-V technologies to power their self-driving cars, AI models and data centers.
Now, those investments are at risk.
If we are not careful, those same innovations could undermine the system that made them possible, all for the benefit of our chief economic competitor and geopolitical rival.
If we want to preserve our leadership in technology and innovation, we must be vigilant about how openly accessible and cutting-edge U.S.-created technology is used, particularly by China.
I urge leaders in business and academia to heed these concerns and partner with the U.S. government to ensure that openness does not come at the expense of national security.
Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He has represented the San Joaquin Valley since 2005.
Leave a Reply