Guests – Ava Chen, Betsy Smith

China Watch Wednesday: The AI Chip War

The semiconductor war between the United States and China has reached a new inflection point, with artificial intelligence at the center of the conflict. As the digital age accelerates toward an AI-driven future, control over microchip technology has become paramount. We're witnessing an unprecedented technological cold war where both nations understand that dominance in semiconductors will determine global power structures for decades to come.

With co-host Ava Chen from the New Federal State of China, we explored the intricate web of technology warfare that's reshaping the global order. This isn't just about trade disputes—it's about the fundamental question of which system will control the future: authoritarian surveillance capitalism or the free world's approach to innovation.

The Stakes: Why Microchips Matter Now

The urgency around semiconductor control stems from artificial intelligence's transformative potential. Everything we know about our digital world is crumbling and being rebuilt. The geopolitics we're familiar with, the world order, even local community dynamics—all are being upended by AI advancement.

Recent semiconductor export restrictions imposed by the Trump administration in March 2025 targeted Chinese entities with unprecedented scope, while the Biden administration had launched three major crackdowns since 2022. The latest package includes curbs on China-bound shipments of high-bandwidth memory chips critical for AI training, new restrictions on 24 chipmaking tools and three software tools, and export curbs on chipmaking equipment made in countries like Singapore and Malaysia.

Companies are pouring tens of billions into AI development. Meta's acquisition of Scale AI for $14.6 billion in July represents the largest private investment in AI history. This massive capital commitment demonstrates how seriously American tech giants view the AI race.

Microchips power every piece of modern technology we use—defense equipment, helicopters, cell phones, electric vehicles. But more critically, they're the foundation for AI systems that will determine whether societies develop under surveillance state models or maintain individual freedoms.

Huawei's Strategic Reversal

The most striking development involves Huawei's dramatic strategic shift. Huawei Technologies announced it will open-source its Compute Architecture for Neural Networks (CANN) software toolkit used to develop applications on the firm's Ascend AI processors, stepping up efforts to compete against Nvidia just days after Beijing raised concerns about Nvidia's H20 chip security.

This represents a complete reversal of the typical technology development cycle. For years, Meta had open-sourced its Llama AI model, which Chinese military forces reportedly incorporated into their weapons systems. Congressional hearings revealed how Facebook's open-source approach inadvertently aided China's Communist Party military capabilities.

Now we're seeing a cyclical pattern emerge. Meta spent $14.6 billion developing closed AI models in July, signaling a retreat from open-source distribution. Simultaneously, Huawei—a company intertwined with Chinese military interests—announced its own open-source initiative.

Huawei's brute force AI tactic appears to be working, with its CloudMatrix 384 claimed to outperform Nvidia processors running DeepSeek R1. The company's decision to make CANN open-source could accelerate China's effort to build self-sufficiency from Western chipmakers while incentivizing developers to build software for its Ascend AI GPUs.

The Corporate Hostage Dynamic

Nvidia finds itself in an impossible position, reminiscent of domestic abuse dynamics. The company faces constant manipulation and pressure from Chinese authorities who understand the psychological warfare necessary to maintain control over foreign corporations.

China accounts for around 50 percent of global chip sales by revenue, making it by far the largest single market. When Chinese authorities summoned Nvidia staff over alleged security risks, it represented classic intimidation tactics. One day they threaten, the next they offer reconciliation.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently visited China, attending technology conferences where he praised Alibaba's AI advancement—another Chinese military-controlled entity. The company's stock price can drop $600 billion in a single day based on Chinese actions, demonstrating the economic leverage China wields.

This creates a dependency trap. Nvidia wants to remain profitable and maintain market dominance, but China dangles access to their massive market while simultaneously developing competing technologies. It's financial dependency disguised as business partnership.

The Open-Source Trap

Huawei's open-source announcement isn't altruistic—it's strategic warfare. By offering free access to their AI toolkit, they're specifically targeting marginalized actors: drug addicts, criminals, terrorists, extremists, and developing nations that can't afford premium Western technology.

This creates several advantages for China:

Data Collection: Every user of their open-source tools becomes a data source. China can monitor usage patterns, collect intelligence, and potentially blackmail users later.

Ecosystem Lock-in: Similar to how Nvidia's CUDA programming language creates a tightly bound ecosystem with little support beyond Nvidia hardware, forcing developers to use Nvidia GPUs exclusively. Huawei aims to create dependence on their Ascend chip ecosystem.

Competitive Pressure: While legitimate businesses might hesitate to use Chinese military-linked technology, criminals and authoritarian regimes won't share those concerns.

Meta's Complicity and Reversal

The revelations about Meta's collaboration with Chinese authorities are particularly troubling. A former Facebook executive, Sarah Wing-Williams, published "Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism" in March, detailing how Meta worked "hand in glove" with the Chinese Communist Party.

The book describes Meta's attempts to build censorship systems for Chinese authorities to gain market access. While they ultimately failed to enter the Chinese market, they did open-source their Llama AI model, which Chinese military forces subsequently incorporated into weapons development.

This represents the dangers of corporate greed overriding national security concerns. American companies, in pursuit of Chinese market access, provided technology that's now being used against American interests.

Meta's recent $14.6 billion investment in closed AI models suggests they're finally recognizing the threat. But the damage may already be done—Chinese military capabilities have been enhanced using American-developed AI technology.

Intelligence Revelations: India's Dilemma

Recent intelligence indicates China's desperate attempts to counter American influence through large-scale bribery. Xi Jinping is reportedly offering Indian Prime Minister Modi significant concessions to attend China's September 3rd military parade, where Xi's daughter is expected to make her political debut, signaling dynastic succession.

The bribes are substantial:

• Advanced interference suppression technology for jamming GPS and satellite systems

• Free J-10 fighter jets for Modi's use

• Enhanced trade cooperation in grains and food supplies

• Territorial concessions in disputed Himalayan regions

This demonstrates China's willingness to sacrifice significant assets to counter American influence. They understand that every ally America loses strengthens China's position in the global technology war.

The Negotiation Trap

China's strategy relies on convincing opponents that negotiation is possible. Like an abusive relationship, they offer false hope of reasonable compromise while systematically weakening their opponent's position.

The Chinese Communist Party studies American political systems obsessively. They understand the pendulum effect—that American politics shifts every four years. Their strategy involves wasting time during each administration, knowing that political changes will disrupt long-term planning.

Trump's administration believes negotiation with China is still possible, but China views negotiations as opportunities to extract concessions while developing independent capabilities. They're not seeking win-win solutions—they're pursuing zero-sum dominance.

The Military-Industrial Convergence

Recent arrests of Chinese nationals for illegally shipping Nvidia chips to China from October 2022 through July 2025 demonstrate the systematic nature of Chinese technology acquisition. Chaon Geng and Shi Wee Yang allegedly exported millions of dollars worth of GPUs used to power artificial intelligence without authorization.

This isn't isolated criminal activity—it's part of a coordinated effort to acquire American technology through any means necessary. While engaging in public negotiations, China simultaneously pursues illegal technology transfer, cyber warfare, and industrial espionage.

China's recent announcement of stringent export restrictions on critical minerals including gallium, germanium, and antimony represents direct retaliation for American semiconductor controls. This tit-for-tat escalation shows how semiconductor competition has become central to the broader US-China conflict.

The Domestic Abuser Analogy

Understanding China's approach requires recognizing the psychological manipulation tactics they employ. Like domestic abusers, Chinese authorities alternate between aggression and reconciliation, creating dependency while maintaining control.

They beat down companies like Nvidia through market manipulation and regulatory threats, then return with promises of cooperation and market access. The victim company becomes convinced they need to maintain the relationship despite the abuse, believing they can't survive without Chinese market access.

This psychological warfare extends to entire nations. Countries become economically dependent on Chinese investment and trade, making it difficult to resist Chinese demands even when those demands contradict national interests.

American Response and Vulnerabilities

The challenge for American policymakers is recognizing that traditional diplomatic approaches won't work with an opponent that doesn't share basic assumptions about international cooperation. China isn't seeking coexistence—they're pursuing dominance.

China has established an aggressive roadmap for the semiconductor industry with "Made in China 2025" guidance, envisioning 80 percent localization of Chinese chip consumption by 2030, up from about 24 percent in 2020. They're not merely trying to compete—they're systematically eliminating dependence on Western technology while maintaining Western dependence on Chinese markets.

American companies face a fundamental choice: short-term profits from Chinese market access versus long-term national security. The semiconductor war isn't just about chips—it's about whether authoritarian systems can use economic leverage to undermine democratic institutions.

The Global Stakes

This conflict extends far beyond US-China relations. The winner of the semiconductor war will shape global governance structures for generations. China's model combines state surveillance, social credit systems, and algorithmic control over individual behavior. America's approach emphasizes individual privacy, competitive markets, and democratic oversight of technology.

Countries worldwide are being forced to choose sides. China offers immediate economic benefits through infrastructure investment and technology transfer, while America offers long-term partnership based on shared democratic values.

The semiconductor war represents the defining technological conflict of our era. Unlike traditional military confrontations, this battle is being fought through supply chains, investment flows, and technology standards. The side that controls AI development will determine whether the future is characterized by freedom or surveillance.

Conclusion: Time Running Out

China's strategy of delay and negotiation becomes more dangerous with each passing day. They're using diplomatic processes to buy time while rapidly developing independent technological capabilities. Once they achieve semiconductor self-sufficiency, economic leverage will shift dramatically in their favor.

The window for maintaining American technological leadership is narrowing. China's massive state investment in semiconductors, combined with their systematic acquisition of Western technology, threatens to create irreversible strategic disadvantages.

This isn't a traditional trade dispute that can be resolved through negotiation. It's a fundamental competition between incompatible governance systems. The stakes couldn't be higher—the future of human freedom depends on maintaining democratic control over the technologies that will shape the next century.

The semiconductor war demands urgent, coordinated action from American policymakers, businesses, and allies. Half-measures and diplomatic niceties won't suffice against an opponent that views this as an existential struggle for global dominance. The question isn't whether America can afford to take decisive action—it's whether America can afford not to.

Law Enforcement Update with Betsy Brantner Smith

The criminal justice landscape continues to deteriorate as we witness a disturbing pattern of violence across America, complicated by prosecutorial decisions that prioritize ideology over public safety. Speaking with Betsy Brantner Smith, spokesperson for the National Police Association, we examined recent developments that illustrate how our justice system is failing victims and their families.

Fort Stewart Military Base Shooting

Breaking news from Fort Stewart, Georgia—the largest military base on the East Coast—brought immediate concern about security vulnerabilities within our military installations. Five soldiers were shot at 10:56 AM Eastern time, though fortunately all survived and were transported to Winn Army Community Hospital.

The base, housing over 20,000 people across five counties, operates like a small city with family housing, training facilities, and comprehensive infrastructure. The shooter has been apprehended, but critical questions remain about motivation and whether this represents a broader security threat.

Fort Stewart's size and complexity make it particularly vulnerable to internal threats. The incident inevitably recalls the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, where Major Nidal Hasan, a radical Islamist physician, attacked a training class. That attack was initially not classified as terrorism despite clear ideological motivations—a decision that reflected the Obama administration's reluctance to acknowledge radical Islamic threats.

Military personnel on base are typically unarmed, making them vulnerable targets for anyone intent on violence. This policy, while understandable for safety and discipline reasons, creates security gaps that hostile actors can exploit.

The investigation must determine whether this was an isolated incident driven by personal grievances or part of a broader pattern. Unfortunately, street gang membership has infiltrated military ranks, and the military justice system regularly handles cases involving criminal behavior by service members.

Montana Manhunt Continues

The search continues for the Montana veteran who allegedly gunned down a bartender and three patrons at a bar where he lived in an apartment above the establishment. This rampage occurred in Anaconda, Montana, a town of fewer than 10,000 people, creating widespread fear in a close-knit community.

The suspect is described as a survivalist with extensive outdoor experience, complicating the manhunt in Montana's rugged terrain. The search area includes Gerrity Mountain, a remote but popular hiking and camping destination with cabins scattered throughout the wilderness.

Multiple agencies are coordinating the search: U.S. Marshals, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, and state and local authorities. The involvement of Border Patrol's tactical unit reflects concerns that the suspect might attempt to cross into Canada.

This case highlights the challenges law enforcement faces when dealing with suspects who have survival skills and intimate knowledge of remote terrain. The suspect's military background provides him with tactical awareness that makes him particularly dangerous to pursuing officers and civilian hikers who might encounter him.

The presence of tourists and outdoor enthusiasts in the search area creates additional complications. Innocent people could stumble into a confrontation with an armed, desperate fugitive who has already demonstrated willingness to kill.

Tennessee Quadruple Murder Arrest

Austin Robert Drummond, 28, was finally apprehended by U.S. Marshals in Tennessee after a tip from a vigilant citizen. Drummond stands accused of murdering four family members—a seven-month-old baby's parents, grandmother, and young uncle—while sparing the infant in what law enforcement calls a targeted attack.

The rescue of the baby represents the one positive outcome in this horrific case. The child was found in a different county from where the murders occurred, suggesting the killer may have had some vestige of conscience that prevented him from harming an infant.

Three additional suspects face charges for helping Drummond before and after the murders, indicating this wasn't a spontaneous crime but involved planning and coordination. Two people face accessory to first-degree murder charges, while a third is charged with providing assistance after the fact.

Both state and federal charges are pending, reflecting the serious nature of the crimes and potential interstate elements. The federal involvement suggests possible violations of federal statutes related to interstate flight or other federal crimes.

The relationship dynamics involved—Drummond was dating the grandmother's sister—point to domestic violence elements, though the specific motivation remains unclear. The targeting of multiple family members suggests deep-seated grievances or psychological disturbances that made this tragedy predictable to those who knew the suspect.

Washington State Family Annihilation

Travis Decker's murder of his three daughters—ages nine, eight, and five—represents one of the most disturbing cases of family annihilation we've encountered. The 32-year-old non-custodial father took his daughters on a camping trip against their mother's wishes and subsequently suffocated all three children.

The girls' bodies were discovered in a remote area of Skamania County, Washington, days after the mother reported them missing. Decker had essentially gone dark, cutting off communication with the mother in a pattern that should have triggered immediate alarm.

The most troubling aspect involves the family court system's decision to grant unsupervised visitation to a man with documented mental health issues, domestic violence history, and no stable housing. Decker was living in his car yet was awarded a three-day weekend with his minor children.

King County's liberal judicial philosophy apparently considers homelessness not disqualifying for child custody. While being homeless may not be criminal, it should absolutely preclude unsupervised access to children who need stable, safe environments.

The tragedy was preventable. Supervised visitation facilities exist specifically for situations involving domestic violence or unstable living conditions. Social workers and family court personnel have resources to facilitate safe parent-child contact without endangering children.

A $20,000 reward offered by U.S. Marshals reflects the serious effort to locate Decker, though he may already be dead by suicide. The suspect abandoned his dog alive, suggesting he may have preserved the animal while destroying his own children—a psychological profile that defies rational understanding.

Prosecutorial Malpractice in Pima County

The Good Samaritan murder case exemplifies prosecutorial incompetence that re-victimizes families while emboldening criminals. Paul Clifford was murdered on Christmas Eve after offering help to individuals who appeared to need assistance—exactly the kind of decent behavior our society should protect and honor.

Laura Conover's Pima County Prosecutor's Office has negotiated plea deals that insult Clifford's memory and endanger public safety. Wendy Scott, now 17, faces a maximum of four years for evidence tampering—a dramatic reduction from murder charges. Elmer Smith, now 20, pleaded guilty to car theft and burglary rather than murder.

The primary defendant, Jack Upchurch, supposedly bears sole responsibility for the actual killing, but this ignores the conspiracy and coordination required to execute the crime. Scott and Smith lured Clifford from his home using deception, making them active participants in premeditated murder.

Christina Clifford, Paul's widow, has been excluded from key decisions about the case despite being the primary victim of this crime. Her loss of consortium—the companionship, affection, and support of her husband—represents irreparable harm that the justice system seems determined to minimize.

Defense attorneys actually requested a gag order to silence Mrs. Clifford, an outrageous attempt to suppress her First Amendment rights. Fortunately, Judge Richard Gordon rejected this request, but the attempt reveals the contempt defense attorneys have for victims' families.

The plea agreements signal to potential criminals that murdering good Samaritans carries minimal consequences. If helping strangers results in death, and the killers receive what amounts to traffic violation penalties, rational people will stop helping others.

This prosecutorial approach undermines the social contract. Citizens expect that those who harm others will face proportional punishment. When prosecutors fail to seek appropriate penalties, they erode public trust and encourage vigilante justice.

Systematic Judicial Failures

These cases reveal systematic problems with our justice system that extend far beyond individual prosecutorial decisions. Liberal judges and prosecutors consistently prioritize criminal rights over victim rights, creating an environment where violence is effectively subsidized by lenient sentencing.

The Washington family court that awarded unsupervised visitation to a homeless domestic abuser demonstrates how progressive ideology overrides child safety. The belief that stable housing requirements constitute discrimination against the homeless ignores the fundamental duty to protect vulnerable children.

Similarly, Pima County's approach to the Good Samaritan murder reflects the progressive belief that harsh sentences don't deter crime—a theory contradicted by empirical evidence and common sense. When consequences are predictably mild, rational actors adjust their behavior accordingly.

Judges and prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for their decisions, meaning they face no personal consequences for failures that result in death or injury. This lack of accountability creates moral hazard where officials can experiment with dangerous policies without bearing any costs from their mistakes.

The victims and their families pay the price for ideological experimentation. Paul Clifford's widow will never recover her husband. The Washington mother will never see her three daughters again. These irreversible tragedies result from preventable failures by justice system officials who face no meaningful accountability.

The Need for Reform

Addressing these problems requires fundamental changes to how we select and oversee prosecutors and judges. Voters must understand that elections have consequences, and choosing officials who prioritize criminal rights over public safety produces predictable results.

Victim families need greater involvement in prosecutorial decisions. The current system treats them as inconvenient obstacles rather than primary stakeholders in justice proceedings. Victims' rights amendments exist in most states but are routinely ignored by prosecutors focused on plea bargain statistics rather than justice.

Professional accountability mechanisms need strengthening. While absolute immunity may be necessary to prevent frivolous lawsuits, there should be professional consequences for prosecutors who consistently fail to seek appropriate penalties for serious crimes.

Public safety depends on swift, certain, and proportional punishment for criminal behavior. When any of these elements breaks down, the social contract erodes and violence increases. Our current trajectory toward leniency and excuse-making for criminals will produce more Paul Cliffords and more grieving families.

The path forward requires electing prosecutors and judges who understand their primary duty: protecting law-abiding citizens from those who choose violence. This isn't complicated policy analysis—it's basic governance that our current officials are failing to provide.