Connect with us

News

Nvidia to take $5.5bn hit as US clamps down on exports of AI chips to China

Published

on

Nvidia to take .5bn hit as US clamps down on exports of AI chips to China

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Donald Trump’s administration is clamping down on Nvidia’s ability to sell artificial intelligence chips to China, sending the Silicon Valley giant’s shares sliding in pre-market trading and hitting Wall Street tech stocks.

Nvidia revealed new US controls on American chipmakers’ sales to China in a late-night regulatory filing on Tuesday, in which it said it expected to take a $5.5bn earnings hit as a result.

The curbs were subsequently confirmed by the commerce department, marking another escalation in Donald Trump’s trade war with Beijing.

Advertisement

The chipmaker said its H20 chip, which is already tailored to comply with Joe Biden-era export controls that prevent the sale of its most powerful chips in China, would now require a special licence to be sold to Chinese customers.

It is still unclear how many such licences will be granted, but Nvidia said it would take a $5.5bn charge in the quarter to April 27 related to H20 chips for “inventory, purchase commitments, and related reserves”.

Analysts estimate Nvidia will generate about $17bn in sales to Chinese customers in the current financial year.

Nvidia’s shares fell 7 per cent in pre-market trading on Wednesday, while futures tracking the tech-focused Nasdaq 100 index were down more than 2 per cent.

Shares in Dutch chipmaking equipment company ASML sank 6 per cent after orders of its machines fell short of expectations. Shares in US semiconductor group AMD also fell almost 6 per cent in pre-market trading.

Advertisement

Stocks in Hong Kong also fell, led by leading AI chip buyers Alibaba, down almost 4 per cent, Baidu and Tencent, which both fell about 2 per cent.

The new US chip controls mark the latest salvo in a spiralling trade war between the world’s two largest economies. Earlier this month, the Trump administration imposed additional tariffs of 145 per cent on China, with a reprieve for some consumer electronics. Beijing matched the additional duties in retaliation.

The shortage of domestic chip suppliers in China able to build products to rival those of Nvidia had meant its tech companies were flocking to buy H20s, even in the face of Beijing’s steep import duties.

But that could change under the new US controls. Since the H20 chip is less powerful than those Nvidia can sell outside China, customers in the rest of the world may also be unwilling to buy up stock that cannot be sold there.

Bernstein analysts on Tuesday said the H20 accounted for about $12bn of Nvidia’s $17bn revenues in China over the past year. They added that there was still a lack of clarity on whether licences might be granted, or whether it amounted to a full “wipeout” of the product line.

Advertisement

Nvidia said it was notified of the new controls on April 9 and was told on Monday that the licence requirement for H20 and any similar chips “will be in effect for the indefinite future”.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt urged China to cut a new trade deal with the US, saying, “the ball is in China’s court”.

The US commerce department later confirmed it was issuing new export licensing requirements for the H20, as well as AMD’s MI308 and equivalent chips. It said it was “acting on the president’s directive to safeguard our national and economic security”.

The US move underscores Nvidia’s exposure to geopolitical tensions between Washington and Beijing. The chip designer has been at the heart of the AI boom, and briefly last year became the world’s most valuable company.

On Monday, the Trump administration launched a national security probe that could lead to new tariffs on semiconductors, as it holds off from immediately applying steeper levies on chips.

Advertisement

Nvidia’s chips are manufactured in Taiwan, so they could be subject to import duties when sold to US-based customers.

The company said on Monday it would spend up to half a trillion dollars on US AI infrastructure over the next four years through partnerships with companies including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and Foxconn. The Financial Times had first reported on its investment plans.

Nvidia introduced its China-focused H20 processors last year after the Biden administration imposed export controls on its chips. They are less powerful than its top range of graphics processing units, or GPUs, coveted by Microsoft, OpenAI, Meta and Amazon.

Despite its reduced performance, the H20 has still seen solid demand in China. But Beijing has taken steps to encourage local tech companies to use homegrown chips from companies such as Huawei, and could freeze out Nvidia’s products with new energy efficiency rules.

Video: Nvidia’s rise in the age of AI | FT Film
Advertisement

News

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending