Is it feasible for the US to implement a worldwide ban on AI chips?

When Huawei surprised the global tech community with its Mate 60 Pro smartphone featuring a sophisticated 7-nanometer chip despite heavy US technology restrictions, it illustrated that innovation can thrive even amidst stringent sanctions. The US reaction was immediate and expected: tighter export controls and expanded restrictions.

Currently, reports suggest that Huawei's Ascend AI chips are nearing Nvidia-level performance—although the Chinese company has been notably quiet about these advancements. America has preemptively expanded its semiconductor conflict to a global scale.

The Trump administration's pronouncement that the use of Huawei's Ascend chips 'anywhere in the world' breaches US export controls reveals more than mere policy enforcement—it hints at a foundational fear that American technological dominance can no longer be solely ensured through restrictions.

The global AI chip ban was implemented on May 14, 2025, when President Donald Trump’s administration repealed the Biden-era AI Diffusion Rule without outlining a new policy.

Instead, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued guidance to 'strengthen export controls for overseas AI chips,' specifically targeting Huawei’s Ascend processors.

The new guidelines mention possible 'enforcement actions,' including imprisonment and fines for any international business using these Chinese-developed chips—a major shift from traditional export controls, which typically manage exports, not international usage.

The South China Morning Post reports that these new guidelines explicitly target Huawei’s Ascend chips after discarding the Biden administration’s country-tiered 'AI diffusion' rule. However, this global AI chip ban has implications that extend beyond US-China bilateral tensions.

By asserting authority over global technology decisions, America essentially requires sovereign nations and independent businesses worldwide to adhere to its domestic policy preferences.

This extraterritorial stance raises significant questions about national sovereignty and international commerce. Should a Brazilian AI startup be restricted from using the most cost-effective chip solution simply because the chips are made by a Chinese company?

Should European research institutions halt promising projects because they include hardware deemed unacceptable by Washington?

According to Financial Times reporting, BIS stated that Huawei’s Ascend 910B, 910C, and 910D were all subject to the regulations since they were likely 'designed with certain US software or technology or produced with semiconductor manufacturing equipment that is the direct product of certain US-origin software or technology, or both.'

Even within the United States, the chipmaking industry voices concern about Washington’s semiconductor strategies. The expansion of export controls generates uncertainty beyond Chinese firms, affecting global supply chains and long-established innovation partnerships.

'Washington’s new guidelines are essentially coercing global tech firms to choose between Chinese or US hardware—which will only deepen the tech division between the world’s two largest economies,' analysts remark. This enforced binary choice disregards the nuanced reality of modern technology development, which thrives on diverse, international collaborations.

The economic consequences are profound. Recent assessments show Huawei’s Ascend 910B AI chip provides 80% of Nvidia A100’s efficiency in training large language models, though 'in some aspects, Ascend chips can surpass the A100 by 20%.'

By obstructing access to competitive alternatives, this global AI chip ban may inadvertently curb innovation and maintain artificial market monopolies.

Perhaps most ironically, policies designed to sustain American technological leadership may undermine it. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang acknowledged earlier this month that Huawei was 'one of the most formidable technology companies in the world,' noting that China was 'not behind' in AI advancement.

Efforts to isolate such capabilities through global restrictions may hasten the development of alternate technology ecosystems, ultimately diminishing American influence instead of preserving it.

The secrecy surrounding Huawei’s Ascend chips—with the company keeping 'details of its AI chips confidential, with only public information coming from third-party teardown reports'—has intensified following US sanctions.

Amid escalating restrictions, Huawei ceased official disclosures about the series, including release dates, production timelines, and manufacturing technologies. The chips specified in current US limitations, including the Ascend 910C and 910D, haven’t been officially confirmed by Huawei.

In a report by the South China Morning Post, Chim Lee, a senior analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit, warns that 'if the guidance is enforced strictly, it is likely to provoke retaliation from China' and could become 'a negotiating point in ongoing trade talks between Washington and Beijing.'

This evaluation highlights the counterproductive nature of aggressive unilateral action in a connected global economy.

The semiconductor sector thrives on international cooperation, shared research, and open competition. Policies fragmenting this network serve no one’s long-term interests—including America’s.

As the global community faces challenges from climate change to healthcare innovation, artificial barriers that hinder the best minds from accessing optimal tools ultimately impede human progress.

The question isn’t whether nations should safeguard strategic interests—they should and must. But when export controls extend 'anywhere in the world,' we veer from legitimate national security policy into technological authoritarianism. The global technology community needs frameworks that balance security concerns with innovation priorities.

This global AI chip ban threatens to accelerate the technological fragmentation it aims to avert. History indicates markets divided by political mandate often create parallel innovation ecosystems that compete more effectively than those operating under artificial restrictions.

Rather than implementing worldwide control, a strategic approach would focus on out-innovating competitors through superior technology and international partnerships. The current trajectory towards technological bifurcation serves neither American interests nor global innovation—it merely creates a more fragmented, less efficient world where artificial barriers replace natural competition.

The semiconductor industry’s future hinges on discovering sustainable solutions that address valid security concerns without dismantling the collaborative networks driving technological advancement. As this global AI chip ban unfolds, the world awaits to see whether innovation will thrive through competition or fragment through control.