Key Takeaways
- Four individuals charged in Nvidia AI chip smuggling scheme to China
- 400 Nvidia A100 GPUs successfully exported; attempts to ship H100 and H200 GPUs intercepted
- House Republican pushes urgent passage of Chip Security Act for better tracking
- Case highlights challenges in enforcing U.S. high-tech export restrictions
The U.S. Justice Department has charged four people for illegally exporting Nvidia AI chips to China, leading to urgent calls for chip-tracking legislation.
House China Committee Chair John Moolenaar emphasized the need for immediate action, stating the bipartisan Chip Security Act is essential to protect American AI superiority.
“China recognizes the superiority of American AI innovation and will do whatever it must to catch up,” said John Moolenaar, the chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on China. “That’s why the bipartisan Chip Security Act is urgently needed.”
What the Chip Security Act Would Do
Introduced in May with 30 cosponsors, the legislation would:
- Require location verification for chips
- Mandate chipmakers report potential diversion
- Explore additional methods to prevent U.S. chips from reaching unauthorized hands
The Smuggling Operation Details
According to the indictment, two U.S. citizens and two Chinese nationals conspired to export Nvidia GPUs without required licenses. They used fake contracts and false documentation to ship chips through third countries.
Between October 2024 and January 2025, the group successfully exported 400 Nvidia A100 GPUs to China via Malaysia. Law enforcement intercepted attempts to ship 10 Hewlett-Packard supercomputers with Nvidia H100 GPUs and 50 separate Nvidia H200 GPUs through Thailand.
The Florida-based conspiracy used a Tampa company as a front and involved nearly $4 million in wire transfers from China to fund the operation.
Broader Implications
This case demonstrates the difficulties in enforcing U.S. export restrictions designed to limit China’s military development and maintain American technological advantage. China has consistently criticized these measures as economic weaponization.
Legal representatives for two defendants either declined comment or didn’t respond, while the other defendants couldn’t be reached.



