The US government is drafting sweeping new export regulations that would give it authority to approve nearly all global shipments of advanced AI accelerators made by American companies, including AMD and Nvidia, according to reports first published by Bloomberg.
The rules would expand existing country-based restrictions into a worldwide licensing system and will give Trump's administration power to allow or decline large-scale AI infrastructure buildouts. Under the proposed framework, smaller shipments of 1,000 GPUs or less would be subject to a cursory review; medium-sized deployments would require preclearance before applying for a licence; and sizable deployments of 200,000 GPUs or more would require certifications from government officials in the host countries.
The proposal represents a dramatic shift in how Washington exercises control over the global AI industry. The regulation would set up the US government as gatekeeper for the AI industry: companies and in some cases their governments would have to seek the blessing of the US Commerce Department to buy the precious accelerators. If enacted, the Trump administration would be able to deny export licences if UK or France-based companies deploy clusters of over 200,000 GB300 GPUs or equivalent if appropriate governments and companies do not meet their requirements.
The White House has defended the approach as commercially sensible rather than punitive. The US Department of Commerce said "The Commerce Department is committed to promoting secure exports of the American tech stack. We successfully advanced exports through our historic Middle East agreements, and there are ongoing internal government discussions about formalising that approach."
Yet the proposal diverges sharply from the Biden administration's approach. The potential rules would mark a significant departure from the approach taken during the Biden administration, which largely exempted close US allies from strict export limits. Trump officials criticised the previous framework as bureaucratic overreach. The new system would ostensibly target larger deployments while still requiring approval for most transactions globally.
The commercial stakes are enormous. Nvidia's chip sales to China totaled $17 billion and 13 percent of total sales in 2024, and after the Trump administration restricted the sale of AI chips to China in April 2025, China retaliated by banning the use of foreign chips in government-backed data centres, and nearly a year later sales of chips to China have not yet resumed.
Some national security officials argue the licensing regime addresses genuine risks. A former national security official said the rule could help the US government prevent AI chips from being diverted to China. Australia, as a Five Eyes member, would be included among 18 key partners who can access these chips with fewer restrictions, placing Australian companies and government data centre operators in a privileged position.
The framework remains in draft form and could change before finalisation. Officials across federal agencies are currently providing their input, and the draft could change substantially or be shelved for other priorities. Nvidia and AMD have declined to comment publicly on the proposal.
The core tension reflects genuine policy complexity. Tighter controls protect American technological dominance by restricting rivals' access to critical hardware. But licensing requirements could slow deployment schedules, increase costs, and push some customers toward alternative suppliers. If the restrictions prove burdensome enough, companies might look increasingly to Chinese chipmakers as a backup option, potentially hastening the very technology development Washington seeks to prevent.
Reasonable policymakers can disagree on where the balance should lie. American companies deserve predictable rules and expedient approval processes. Allies deserve certainty that their own data centre and AI development won't face arbitrary delays. At the same time, allowing unlimited flows of cutting-edge chips to authoritarian nations presents genuine national security risks. The challenge for Washington is designing a framework that achieves security objectives without becoming so restrictive that it ultimately harms American export competitiveness. The draft proposal suggests the Trump administration is testing whether it can have both.