Congress Advocates for GPS Monitoring on All Exported Semiconductors

Over recent years, the United States has ramped up efforts to prevent China from accessing its advanced semiconductor technology, employing measures from export bans to imposing global restrictions. Now, Congress is contemplating an unprecedented step.

U.S. lawmakers propose embedding mandatory GPS-like tracking systems in every AI chip exported from the country. This innovation would effectively transform high-tech semiconductors into devices that transmit their location back to the U.S. government.

On May 15, 2025, a group of eight bipartisan House members introduced the Chip Security Act. This act would see companies like Nvidia required to include location verification technologies in their chips before these can be shipped overseas.

This represents perhaps the most invasive step yet in the technological competition between the United States and China, advancing from merely restricting chip destinations to actively tracking their ultimate location.

According to the Chip Security Act, AI chip surveillance would become obligatory for a variety of "covered integrated circuit products," which include several classifications under the existing Export Control Classification Numbers. Companies such as Nvidia must thus embed location verification in their chips prior to export, reexport, or transfer within foreign nations.

Michigan Republican Representative Bill Huizenga, who introduced this legislation in the House, emphasized the necessity of safeguards to ensure these sophisticated AI chips don't end up in malicious hands.

His co-lead, Representative Bill Foster—a former physicist and chip designer from Illinois—asserted confidence that existing technical measures could prevent powerful AI technologies from being acquired by adversaries.

The legislation extends beyond simple tracking, demanding ongoing surveillance from companies, necessitating them to report on any credible instances of chip diversion, including unauthorized usage or attempts at tampering.

This initiative effectively establishes a continuous monitoring framework that persists long after a chip is sold, changing the relationship between manufacturers and their products fundamentally.

A key aspect of this AI chip surveillance proposal is its bipartisan nature, with widespread support from both political parties. The bill is spearheaded by House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi, among other cosponsors.

Moolenaar remarked how the Chinese Communist Party has exploited weaknesses within the U.S. export control system, using methods like shell companies to redirect sensitive technologies.

The bipartisan consensus on AI chip surveillance underscores the depth of the challenge that China presents to American politics, crossing over typical partisan divides.

The Senate has already put forward a similar proposal under Senator Tom Cotton, indicating broad support for chip surveillance in Congress. The legislative coordination between the two chambers suggests that some variant of AI chip surveillance could be poised to become law.

Technical challenges in implementing chip surveillance raise questions about viability, security, and performance implications. While the bill insists on feasible location verification methods within a determined timeframe, specifics on enabling such systems without degrading performance or adding vulnerabilities are sparse.

Industry giants like Nvidia may face profound changes in product design and manufacturing due to mandatory surveillance systems. Chips would require embedded localization measures, likely increasing components, power consumption, and processing demands—pressures that might impact performance, particularly undesired in AI applications.

The bill also provides the Secretary of Commerce with significant authority to verify ownership and the location of exported chips, potentially creating a worldwide, real-time chip surveillance web, spurring discussions on data privacy and sovereignty.

The proposal intertwines national security concerns with commercial technology, differentiating from traditional export controls by evolving into perpetual surveillance, blurring the line between business and governmental oversight.

Representative Foster's scientific expertise adds technical credibility to the act but also illustrates how scientific acumen is folded into strategic competition. The legislation embodies the belief that technical interventions can provide resolutions to political dilemmas by embedding monitoring systems in chips.

However, the proposed framework poses fundamental questions about the global landscape for technology exports. Should every advanced chip be a potential surveillance apparatus?

What impact will mandatory AI chip surveillance have on countries relying on American technology for innovation? What precedent does it set for other nations aiming to monitor their high-tech exports?

Should the U.S. enforce AI chip tracking, an alternative semiconductor landscape may emerge. Nations might pursue developing local technologies or acquiring them from sources without such obligations.

China, already moving towards semiconductor independence in reaction to previous U.S. restrictions, could interpret these surveillance requirements as further reason to decouple technologically. Ironically, this could diminish the desirability and market presence of U.S. chips internationally.

Allied countries might also question their dependence on chips subject to U.S. government tracking, as the law's wording suggests applicability across all foreign nations, possibly straining relations with those prioritizing technological independence.

As the Trump administration plans to replace Biden's AI Diffusion Rule, Congress seems ready to act independently. The Chip Security Act depicts a shift from traditional export restrictions to active surveillance, potentially reshaping the global semiconductor industry.

This signifies broader changes in the geopolitical views on technology exports amid high-stakes global dynamics, where geopolitical motives rather than market logic increasingly dictate industry operations.

Whether or not AI chip surveillance becomes law will hinge on congressional action and industry reaction. With bipartisan support, some level of semiconductor monitoring seems likely, introducing a new era where technology, commerce, and security intersect.

The pertinent query for industry now is not whether the U.S. will regulate technology exports but to what extent it will monitor chips after they leave American territory. In this new reality, every chip might become part of a larger intelligence network, every export a potential data source.

The semiconductor industry is thus at a crossroads: adapt to a new model where products include tracking systems or potentially lose access to the U.S. market altogether.

As Congress advances with mandatory AI chip tracking systems, we might be approaching a juncture where the notion of anonymized chips ends, ushering in an epoch where every processor tracks its own location and reports back accordingly.