Hermes Vector

Tech

Nvidia privately said it could track chips to fight smuggling

Nvidia representatives told Representative Bill Foster that chip-tracking requirements under the Chip Security Act are technically possible, even as an industry group called them potentially infeasible.

By Hermes Vector

Also in: Español · Português

Checked against 2 sourcesMIT Tech Reviewmlq.ai
Illustration for: Nvidia privately said it could track chips to fight smuggling

In brief

  • Nvidia privately told Representative Bill Foster that chip-tracking requirements are technically possible.
  • The Semiconductor Industry Association publicly called the mandates “new, untested, and potentially infeasible.”
  • The Chip Security Act would require verification of where advanced AI chips are located after export.
  • Foster plans to introduce legislation next year requiring licenses to operate advanced GPUs.

Nvidia privately said it could track chips to fight smuggling

Nvidia representatives told Illinois Representative Bill Foster that the company could technically implement the anti-smuggling measures in the Chip Security Act, Foster told MIT Technology Review in an interview on Thursday, November 12, 2026. Foster is a Democrat on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and a cosponsor of the act.

The Chip Security Act, introduced in May 2025, would introduce geotracking requirements to verify the location of advanced AI chips in order to prevent their smuggling to China. It is one of three chip-security bills under consideration for inclusion in the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act.

When the bill was introduced, lawmakers said the technology to implement it existed, something Nvidia has not publicly confirmed. In March 2026, the Semiconductor Industry Association, of which Nvidia is a member, explicitly opposed the bill and wrote that its mandates for chip tracking were “new, untested, and potentially infeasible.”

But privately, Nvidia representatives working with Foster told the lawmaker that the company could implement them. “They never put anything in writing,” Foster says, but during technical discussions on the possibility of such safeguards, their reaction was “yeah, of course we can do this.” This private acknowledgment to Foster goes further than anything Nvidia has previously made public.

Other technology Nvidia has built for its customers suggests that the company can indeed offer accurate tracking of its chips’ locations. In December 2025, for example, it announced a new tool called Fleet Intelligence that would allow customers to monitor how its advanced chips were performing across different data center locations. In doing so, the tool could indicate which country chips were in, Nvidia confirmed to Reuters, but the company would not elaborate on whether this technology could be used to prevent smuggling.

Nvidia did not respond to requests for comment or confirmation of Foster’s characterization.

In early October, when lawmakers were reportedly increasingly concerned about Nvidia’s role in smuggling, MIT Technology Review asked the company if Fleet Intelligence could be used to prevent the practice. It declined to answer directly, instead sending a statement: “Governments and media have found insignificant diversion of controlled US products—a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of domestic compute China already has.”

The recent fallout at Nvidia involves a number of people and companies alleged to be involved in chip smuggling. Alice Huang, with whom Jensen Huang reportedly had an affair, runs Megaspeed, a Singaporean firm now under investigation for smuggling advanced GPUs to China. A US Commerce Department inquiry into the company was reportedly halted after intervention by Nvidia. Megaspeed reportedly bought chips from Supermicro, a company that packages Nvidia’s chips onto servers.

The Chip Security Act as drafted would require a mechanism to track the locations of chips, either by inspections of facilities, attestations by companies, or ping-based location mechanisms. The ping-based technique, the hardest option to circumvent, would require the GPU to send a signal of its location when it comes online. In September, the Center for Security and Emerging Technology found it would be the most cost-effective option.

Foster said he did not ask Nvidia’s representatives why they weren’t voluntarily adopting such chip-tracking tools if they could technically do so.

But if the requirements of the bill pass as part of the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act, the new tracking mechanisms would only tell investigators where the chips are, not offer a way to disconnect them if it’s revealed they have been smuggled. Foster told MIT Technology Review he intends to introduce new, stricter legislation in the new year that would offer a workaround. The new rule would require licenses to operate advanced GPUs, and before a GPU could connect, its valid license would need to be verified.

In the meantime, the controversy at Nvidia, Foster says, has fueled support among his colleagues for the rules in the bill: “There will be a lot of political pressure, in the wake of everything that’s happened, on the companies to actually do a very good job of the geographic validation of where the chip actually is.”

Why it matters

The private confirmation from Nvidia contrasts with the Semiconductor Industry Association’s public opposition to the bill. If the tracking requirements pass as part of the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act, investigators would know where chips are located but could not remotely disconnect them. Foster plans to introduce stricter legislation in the new year requiring licenses to operate advanced GPUs, verified before a GPU can connect.


Sources

This article was drafted with AI assistance and checked against the sources above. Company claims are reported as claims. Cover image is AI-generated.

Questions readers ask

Who confirmed that Nvidia can technically implement chip tracking measures?
Illinois Representative Bill Foster stated that Nvidia representatives privately confirmed they could implement the anti-smuggling measures during technical discussions.
What is the purpose of the Chip Security Act introduced in May 2025?
The bill would introduce geotracking requirements to verify the location of advanced AI chips in order to prevent their smuggling to China.
How does Nvidia's private stance on chip tracking differ from its public position?
While Nvidia privately told Representative Foster it could implement tracking, the Semiconductor Industry Association publicly opposed the bill in March 2026, calling the mandates untested and infeasible.
What limitation exists in the current Chip Security Act regarding smuggled chips?
If the requirements pass, the tracking mechanisms would only tell investigators where the chips are located, not offer a way to disconnect them if they have been smuggled.
What stricter legislation does Representative Foster plan to introduce in the new year?
Foster intends to introduce new rules requiring licenses to operate advanced GPUs, where a valid license must be verified before a GPU can connect.

The day's checked news, by email

One short email a day with the top stories. Free, and you can unsubscribe in one click.

Or follow for the latest news:

How do you feel about this story?

Comments 0

No comments yet. Start the discussion.