The political storm surrounding Nvidia soon after the midterm elections in the United States is about considerably more than a company or the conduct of its former chief executive. Its timing, the congressional reaction and the legislative ambitions now gathering momentum in Washington point to a larger objective: building political support for tougher high-tech restrictions against China.
The speed with which a corporate controversy has been converted into an argument for sweeping technology restrictions is revealing. The objective is to make commercial engagement with China in high-tech sectors politically indefensible.
The timing of the congressional questioning is equally suggestive. Its proximity to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Economic Leaders' Meeting in Shenzhen, where artificial intelligence is expected to feature prominently in discussions, is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. While the APEC meeting offers an opportunity to explore practical cooperation and establish channels for AI dialogue, the political theater of the US Congress bodes otherwise.
The US administration's own rhetoric also illustrates its intention. Its promotion of "Pax Silica", an initiative designed to make AI and semiconductor supply chains less dependent on China, seeks to turn technological competition into a geopolitical alignment test for other countries. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's latest attempt to baselessly link Chinese AI models to cyberattacks that disrupted supermarket refrigeration systems in France is another example. Turning an unresolved cybersecurity incident into an "indictment" of another country's technology says more about the political anxieties of some in Washington than about the actual risks of AI.
Some US officials repeatedly invoke "security" to justify restricting Chinese technology, while the US itself continues to face its own serious AI-related cybersecurity and governance challenges. The true concern driving Washington's restrictions against Chinese AI is the vitality and competitiveness of China's AI industry. Labeling Chinese models as "dangerous", without credible evidence, is easier than explaining why US companies need to be protected from competition through political intervention rather than outperforming their competitors through innovation.
As Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning stressed, Beijing opposes the abuse of export controls, which disrupts the stability of the global industry and supply chains and serves nobody's interests.
Notably though, the channels between the two countries are continuing to produce tangible results, despite the noise from Washington. On Friday, the two sides held the first meeting of the trade council under the China-US economic and trade consultation mechanism. The video meeting featured candid, in-depth and constructive exchanges on tariffs, reciprocal tariff reductions covering approximately $30 billion worth of goods, agricultural trade and other issues of mutual concern.
The two sides pledged to strengthen communication, resolve their respective economic and trade concerns, expand cooperation and shorten the list of outstanding issues. The meeting shows that, despite their differences, the world's two largest economies can identify shared interests, negotiate workable arrangements and prevent differences from overwhelming the broader economic ties.
A similar message emerged from Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's meeting on Friday with US representatives attending the US-China Political Dialogue 2026 in Beijing. Wang called on both sides to clarify the goals of their joint efforts, expand mutually beneficial cooperation and consolidate the foundations of bilateral relations. Mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, Wang emphasized, should guide efforts to implement the consensus of the two heads of state on building a constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability based on respect, fairness and reciprocity.
AI should be an important part of this agenda, not its casualty. Differences over data governance, cybersecurity and technology standards deserve serious discussion. Unfoundedly assigning national labels of "danger" to AI models only politicizes technical questions and makes meaningful cooperation harder.
The imperative task is to preserve the diplomatic space in which the differences between China and the US in AI and other sectors can be managed and common interests advanced.
To that end, the two sides should work together to lengthen the list of cooperation, and shorten the list of issues. China and the US have the capability and responsibility to develop and manage AI for good, and ensure that the development of AI is always under human control and serves the well-being of the people.
