The United States’ use of technology restrictions as a tool of economic statecraft is entering a more fragmented and contested phase, marked by growing divergence between the White House and Congress over how to manage strategic competition with China.
A new analysis from Tech Policy Press describes a policy landscape that has shifted from a relatively coherent bipartisan consensus focused on restricting China’s access to advanced semiconductors, into what it characterizes as a “triangular standoff” among Congress, the executive branch, and the semiconductor industry.
For much of the past decade, U.S. policy followed a dual-track approach: tightening export controls on high-end chips and manufacturing equipment while investing heavily in domestic semiconductor capacity through the CHIPS and Science Act. That framework reflected a broad agreement that technological leadership in semiconductors is both economically and strategically indispensable.
That consensus is now breaking down.
The most visible shift has come from the White House. The Trump administration has moved away from the Biden-era presumption of denying exports of advanced chips to China, instead adopting a more transactional approach. In late 2025 and early 2026, regulators allowed exports of Nvidia’s H200 chips under a conditional licensing regime that includes volume caps, domestic testing requirements, and a 25% tariff on shipments.
This policy reflects a willingness to balance national security concerns with commercial interests. The China market for advanced chips remains highly lucrative, with potential annual demand estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. But the shift has alarmed national security officials, who warn that such exports could accelerate China’s military and technological capabilities, including in artificial intelligence and advanced weapons systems.
Congress, for its part, has moved aggressively in the opposite direction.
Lawmakers in both parties are advancing legislation designed to tighten restrictions and reclaim oversight of export policy. The proposed AI Overwatch Act passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January would give Congress the authority to review and block export licenses for advanced AI chips to adversaries, while imposing automatic denial thresholds for next-generation chips.
Other measures target perceived loopholes. The Remote Access Security Act passed by the full House in January aims to regulate foreign access to U.S. computing power via cloud services—closing what lawmakers describe as a “cloud loophole” that allows Chinese firms to use advanced chips without importing them physically.
Read more: U.S. Industrial Policy Needs to Focus on Market Formation
Meanwhile, the proposed MATCH Act would extend controls to semiconductor manufacturing equipment, shifting from entity-specific restrictions to countrywide bans and seeking to align U.S. policy with allies such as Japan and the Netherlands. This reflects growing concern that existing controls are insufficient to prevent China from advancing its domestic chipmaking capabilities.
The result, according to Tech Policy Press, is a policy environment characterized less by coordination than by contradiction.
WHAT’S NEXT IN ANTITRUST AND TECHNOLOGY REGULATION
While Congress is pushing for broader, more durable restrictions, the executive branch has shown reluctance to commit to sweeping multilateral controls. The administration has also withdrawn or failed to finalize several regulatory initiatives, including a replacement for the Biden-era AI diffusion rules, leaving what the analysis describes as a “policy vacuum.”
This inconsistency is having tangible effects. U.S. industry faces ongoing uncertainty as export rules fluctuate, while Chinese firms are accelerating efforts to develop domestic alternatives and diversify supply chains. At the same time, China continues to invest heavily in AI and semiconductor self-sufficiency, supported by national industrial policy and large-scale deployment advantages.
The broader implication is that technology restrictions—while now central to U.S. economic statecraft—are being deployed without a unified strategic framework.
The Tech Policy Press analysis argues that export controls alone cannot secure long-term technological leadership. Instead, a coherent strategy would require aligning congressional and executive priorities, coordinating with allies on key chokepoints such as manufacturing equipment, and sustaining domestic investment in research, talent, and industrial capacity.