Bessent faults Commerce over delayed Nvidia China chip controls

By James Calloway

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday in Washington that four government bodies had backed adding Singapore-based Megaspeed International to a U.S. export control list for months. The Treasury, State and Defense departments and the U.S. Trade Representative supported the move, but Bessent said Commerce held the decision.

Bessent said he was frustrated by Commerce’s delay in implementing controls over certain Nvidia chips to China. Export controls (government restrictions on shipping sensitive or high-tech goods abroad) determine which advanced chips can reach Chinese buyers, and Commerce oversees the U.S. process.

He also tied the dispute to President Trump’s stated policy. “I am frustrated when President Trump made it very clear China should not receive any Nvidia chips above H100s,” Bessent said on CNBC. Commerce “has the pen, and you will have to ask them about their internal processes.”

The exchange was an unusually public rebuke of Commerce, with Bessent publicly assigning the delay to the department that oversees the process. He named four supporting agencies and said their position had lasted for months.

His account did not identify who led Commerce’s review, when it began or why it had not produced a decision. It also supplied no proposed implementation date or detailed export-control rule.

What did Bessent say?

On CNBC, Bessent described a dispute involving multiple government agencies over Megaspeed, the Singapore company proposed for an export-control listing. He placed Treasury, State, Defense and the U.S. Trade Representative on one side and Commerce on the side holding authority.

“Months” was the only measure Bessent gave for the internal discussions. He did not identify who led Commerce’s review, when it began or whether anyone there opposed the proposed listing.

Bessent also separated the policy goal from the mechanism under discussion. Trump’s stated position covered chips above H100, while Bessent’s complaint centered on the delayed addition of Megaspeed to a control list.

H100 was the only Nvidia model Bessent named, and the account did not identify chips expected to fall within “above H100s.” The practical scope of the proposed restrictions therefore remained unspecified.

Bessent directed questions about Commerce’s internal processes to the department. Commerce did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The plain conclusion is that Commerce controls the process and has not publicly explained the delay.

Why does Megaspeed matter?

Megaspeed is a Singapore-based company whose website prominently promotes its partnership with Nvidia. The New York Times reported that Chinese firms have accessed Nvidia chips through companies such as Megaspeed. That makes the intermediary (a company that helps move chips between buyers and sellers) central to controls on advanced-chip sales to China.

Last year, Megaspeed faced accusations that it illicitly shipped advanced Nvidia computer chips into China. In December, the company said there was “no evidence” of such exports, directly rejecting the allegation as presented at that time.

On Thursday, Megaspeed maintained that it takes its obligation to comply with American export control laws “extremely seriously.” It said it was committed to working “constructively and transparently” with the U.S. government.

Those statements assert institutional commitment, but they do not answer the narrower questions raised by the report. Megaspeed did not say whether it acknowledged those customers, whether any shipments violated specific rules, or how its Nvidia partnership interacted with Commerce’s review.

The company’s December response also came without supporting details in the account. No government findings, shipment records or customer names were provided to test the competing claims about illicit exports. Megaspeed sits at the center of the dispute, but its public response does not resolve the allegations.

What links Lutnick, Jensen Huang and Megaspeed?

The New York Times reported Thursday that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick resisted placing greater limits on sales of Nvidia’s more advanced chips to China. Lutnick has also come under scrutiny because of his reportedly close relationship with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang.

Bessent’s CNBC account and the Times report point in the same institutional direction. Both place Commerce at the center of China-chip policy, though Bessent discussed a listing effort involving several agencies while the Times described Lutnick resisting tighter sales limits.

The Times did not quote Lutnick about either issue in the account. It therefore did not establish his reasons for resisting additional restrictions or show whether his position differed from other officials within Commerce.

The contrast matters because Bessent alleged a process delay, while the Times described active resistance. Those descriptions overlap, but neither shows that Lutnick alone blocked the policy or withheld broader controls. The reporting raises questions about Lutnick’s role without showing how he handled the decision.

What did Jensen Huang’s resignation involve?

Jensen Huang resigned Thursday after news that he had an affair with former Megaspeed executive Alice Huang. According to The New York Times, U.S. intelligence suspects Alice Huang is a Chinese spy.

The account reported the resignation and the alleged affair, while attributing the Chinese-spy claim to U.S. intelligence. It did not report a charge, conviction or official finding.

The source report said Nvidia’s ties to Megaspeed, including the prominently advertised partnership, played a prominent role in Huang’s resignation. It did not set out how the corporate relationship and the allegations against Alice Huang were connected.

That gap leaves the resignation’s policy significance difficult to quantify. A chief executive’s departure and a national-security allegation now sit beside a Commerce review of the intermediary named in both episodes. The personal allegations add scrutiny, but the report does not show that they changed export-control policy.

What remains unresolved?

The largest unanswered issue is whether Commerce will add Megaspeed to the export control list and when. Bessent said four agencies had supported that step for months, but the source gives no final rule, implementation date or revised timetable.

The account also leaves three narrower questions open. It does not identify the “certain Nvidia chips” covered by Bessent’s remarks, the model names above H100, or the legal mechanism behind existing China restrictions.

Commerce’s silence matters because the department controls the export-control process and therefore holds the next formal step. A public explanation would clarify whether the delay involved policy review, coordination among agencies, compliance checks or another process.

For Nvidia and its distributors, the immediate stakes are access to Chinese buyers and the risk of tighter restrictions on advanced-chip sales. The Megaspeed review also puts the balance between export enforcement and Nvidia’s commercial ties under scrutiny.

The next verifiable milestone is an export-control action naming Megaspeed and the chips covered. Until Commerce provides that detail, Bessent’s central accusation remains an unresolved claim about a delay the department has not publicly explained.