When Huawei stunned the international tech scene by releasing its Mate 60 Pro equipped with an advanced 7nm chip, it defied sweeping U.S. export sanctions and proved that technological progress often finds its way around obstacles. The United States responded in a predictable manner: escalating controls and tightening regulatory frameworks.
Now, reports are emerging that Huawei’s Ascend AI processors are nearing performance levels on par with Nvidia's, though Huawei has maintained its usual silence. This has prompted Washington to further globalize its semiconductor crackdown.
On May 14, 2025, the Trump administration withdrew the Biden-era AI Diffusion Rule without presenting a substitute policy. Instead, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced new measures aimed squarely at Huawei’s Ascend chips, stating that their use “anywhere in the world” could violate U.S. regulations—a sweeping interpretation of export control unlike any prior.
A new era of extraterritorial enforcement
Traditionally, export laws apply to goods leaving a nation’s borders. But under these fresh directives, any global organization employing Huawei’s AI chips could face penalties—including incarceration and monetary fines. This marks a radical shift from governing exports to policing global usage of technologies deemed strategically sensitive.
According to the South China Morning Post, the updated BIS guidance names Ascend chips specifically, replacing a more nuanced, country-based approach to AI regulation. The new doctrine implies that even businesses entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction are expected to comply with American tech policy, raising significant concerns about sovereignty and global market autonomy.
What happens when a small AI company in Brazil selects Huawei's chips for their affordability and capability? Or when European scientists collaborate on research projects using banned hardware? Are they now subject to U.S. penalties?
As cited by the Financial Times, BIS argues that chips like the Ascend 910B, 910C, and 910D fall under these rules because they are likely made using U.S.-origin design tools or production machinery, granting the U.S. regulatory leverage.
Mounting industry pushback
Even American semiconductor stakeholders are uneasy. The aggressive nature of these export controls is injecting unpredictability into global supply chains and stifling longstanding innovation partnerships.
Analysts note that the U.S. is effectively forcing companies around the globe to choose between Chinese or American technology, thereby accelerating a split in the global tech ecosystem. This binary framing ignores the layered and collaborative nature of innovation today, where breakthroughs are often multinational in origin.
Financially, the implications are profound. Analysts estimate that Huawei’s Ascend 910B delivers around 80% of the performance of Nvidia’s A100 in large language model training tasks—and in some benchmarks, even surpasses it by 20%. Banning such competition risks not only skewing markets but curbing progress.
The innovation dilemma
Ironically, attempts to secure American leadership may instead erode it. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently admitted that Huawei represents one of the most advanced tech entities globally, acknowledging that China is not lagging behind in AI.
Rather than isolating rivals, heavy-handed sanctions could spur the rise of independent technology spheres, diminishing U.S. influence in the long term.
Huawei, in the face of mounting restrictions, has become increasingly secretive about its Ascend product line. The company no longer discloses details like chip specifications, manufacturing timelines, or release schedules. The 910C and 910D chips mentioned in current sanctions haven’t been officially confirmed by Huawei, with most available information coming from third-party hardware analyses.
Geopolitical fallout
According to Chim Lee, an analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit cited in the SCMP, strict enforcement of these global restrictions could provoke retaliation from Beijing and complicate ongoing U.S.-China trade discussions.
Such unilateral moves, especially when aimed at critical infrastructure like semiconductors, risk backfiring in a deeply interwoven global economy.
Modern chip development is the product of decades of cross-border research, commercial exchange, and technical cooperation. Fragmenting this network harms not just America’s rivals, but the entire tech ecosystem, including U.S. stakeholders.
In times when the world must unite to tackle issues like climate change or medical innovation, siloing technological development creates barriers that ultimately hinder progress.
Avoiding false binaries
It’s not unreasonable for countries to safeguard strategic technologies. But when national security policy extends its reach globally, affecting unrelated enterprises and research institutions, it begins to resemble digital imperialism more than prudent governance.
Such sweeping actions may trigger the very bifurcation they’re intended to prevent. If history is any guide, markets artificially divided by politics tend to evolve parallel, and sometimes more resilient, alternatives.
A more forward-looking strategy would involve beating rivals through innovation, not containment—offering superior products, nurturing international alliances, and fostering open collaboration. Chasing dominance through restriction may slow others temporarily, but it rarely guarantees lasting supremacy.
What lies ahead for semiconductors
The future of the chip industry depends on finding balanced strategies that safeguard national interests while preserving the cooperative frameworks that have driven decades of progress. As this global chip restriction unfolds, the world is watching closely: Will competition inspire breakthroughs, or will restriction result in a fractured, less innovative landscape?
Ultimately, success will be measured not by how well any single nation walls off its technologies, but by how effectively the global community continues to solve complex problems together—with the best tools available, regardless of origin.