Tim Cook’s Golden Gift and Trump’s AI Chip Deal: Tech, Power, and Money Collide in Washington
Apple CEO Tim Cook walked into the White House with an unusual present for the president. Holding up a box, Cook proudly declared, “This box was made in California.” Inside was a glass plaque engraved for the recipient, resting on a 24-karat gold base crafted in Utah.
Donald Trump seemed genuinely moved by the gesture—but the gift wasn’t all Cook had to offer. That same day, Apple pledged a massive $100 billion investment into US manufacturing, securing a warm reception from the administration. Hours later, Trump announced Apple would be exempt from new tariffs on imported computer chips.
For Trump, it was another chapter in his deal-making playbook, reminiscent of his real estate days—only now the stage is global trade and technology.
Nvidia, AMD, and Trump’s “Revenue-Sharing” Chip Deal
Just two days after Cook and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang held a closed-door meeting with Trump, the president unveiled a stunning reversal. Nvidia and its rival AMD would now be allowed to sell certain AI chips to China—but only if they hand over 15% of their revenue to the US government.
This was a sharp about-face from April, when Trump had blocked those exports outright. Critics quickly suggested that Nvidia essentially paid its way out of US-China trade tensions.
Trade experts warned the move sets a dangerous precedent. Martin Chorzempa of the Peterson Institute for International Economics cautioned:
“If licenses are perceived as being for sale, you invite lobbying for dangerous, sensitive technologies. That’s a very risky precedent.”
The White House, however, framed the arrangement as a “revenue-sharing agreement”, though many noted it looks more like an export tax—a measure whose legality remains uncertain.
The Bigger Picture: AI Arms Race
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Nvidia and AMD’s AI chips are at the center of the global technology arms race between the US and China. Nvidia, now worth over $4 trillion, makes the powerful processors that fuel artificial intelligence development.
For years, Washington has tried to slow Beijing’s AI progress by restricting chip exports. But despite those barriers, China has been catching up, raising tough questions about how far US policy should go.
The chips Trump approved for export aren’t top-tier training chips—they’re older models mainly used for inference on already trained AI systems. Still, hardliners argue even these “old chips” could give China an edge. Others believe banning them outright is unnecessary and even counterproductive.
Trump’s compromise? Pay to play. Companies can sell to China, but only if they share revenue with the US. Both supporters and critics agree—it’s a fragile balancing act.
A Dangerous Transactional Precedent?
Critics say Trump’s approach makes national security look like just another business deal. Representative John Moolenaar warned:
“Export controls should protect national security—not become a tool to sell licenses to China for profit.”
Yet Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent praised the arrangement, calling it a “model” that could expand to other industries.
Julia Powles of UCLA’s Institute for Technology, Law and Policy warned that such quid pro quo politics could erode trust in tech companies:
“If government pressures companies into transactional deals, it risks undermining their reputation for privacy and security.”
Trump himself bragged about the negotiations in classic Trumpian style:
“I told Huang, ‘I want 20%.’ He said, ‘Would you make it 15?’ So we made a little deal. For the country—for our country.”
The saga highlights how the White House now operates like a marketplace, where gifts, investments, and revenue cuts can unlock policy wins. For Trump, the art of the deal is alive and well—but the consequences for global tech, trade, and national security may be enormous.