A National Security Shakedown: Inside the Administration’s Unprecedented and Unconstitutional AI Chip Deal

4 minutes read time.

In the high-stakes world of global technology, the United States government has long played the role of regulator, promoter, and sometimes, adversary. Now, under the Felonious Punk administration, it has taken on a new and deeply sinister role: the silent partner in a shakedown. In an unprecedented and constitutionally dubious arrangement, the administration has reportedly forced major American chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to agree to pay a 15% tribute on their sales to China in exchange for vital export licenses. This is not a story about trade policy; it is the story of a government holding a vital American industry hostage. It is a tale of a constitutional crisis, a national security disaster, and a presidential abuse of power so flagrant that it demands the most severe condemnation.

Part I: The Quid Pro Quo Timeline

The anatomy of this shakedown, as pieced together by reporting from The New York Times and other outlets, is a masterclass in coercive statecraft. A month ago, the Punk administration publicly gave a green light for Nvidia and AMD to sell specially designed, less-powerful AI chips to the massive Chinese market. But behind the scenes, the actual export licenses needed to make those sales possible were never issued. They were held hostage.

The stalemate was broken last week. Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, met with President Punk at the White House. According to multiple sources familiar with the deal, it was at this meeting that the agreement for the 15% “cut” was finalized. Two days later, the Commerce Department miraculously began granting the licenses. The timeline is as clear as it is damning: the licenses and the billions in revenue they represent were only released after the companies agreed to pay the President’s tribute. This is not diplomacy; it is a quid pro quo. It is the kind of deal one expects from a protection racket, not the government of the United States.

Part II: The Constitutional Crisis – An Illegal Tax

This “unusual arrangement” is more than just bad policy; it appears to be a direct and flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution. The power to levy taxes is one of the most fundamental and jealously guarded powers of the legislative branch. As Investor’s Business Daily correctly pointed out, Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the Constitution is unambiguous: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”

This 15% “remittance” is, for all intents and purposes, a targeted tax on the exports of specific American companies. It is a duty being levied not by an act of Congress, but by the unilateral decree of the executive branch. This is not a legal gray area; it is a stunning violation of the separation of powers. It is part of a dangerous pattern for this administration, which has also used “golden shares” to take direct, mob-style financial stakes in other private enterprises like U.S. Steel. It is the behavior of a government that believes it is above the law.

Part III: The National Security Betrayal

If the deal’s constitutionality is a crisis, its impact on national security is a catastrophe. The entire premise of U.S. export controls on AI chips is to slow China’s development of military and surveillance technologies. Yet, this deal actively undermines that goal. As one expert from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology stated, this quid pro quo “risks invalidating the national security rationale for U.S. export controls,” because it shows that the administration is willing to “trade away those same national security concerns for economic concessions.”

The criticism from the President’s own former national security officials has been even more devastating. Liza Tobin, who served on the National Security Council, called the deal a strategic “own goal,” delivering the most damning verdict possible: “You’re selling our national security.” While the administration claims it is only allowing the sale of less-powerful, “third-best” chips, other former officials like Matt Pottinger co-authored a letter warning that the chip in question is a “potent accelerator of China’s frontier A.I. capabilities, not an outdated chip.” The administration is, by the account of its own former experts, actively aiding its primary geopolitical rival, all for a few billion dollars.

A High Crime and a Dangerous Precedent

This is not just a story of bad policy or a corrupt deal. It is a textbook example of the very behavior the founders sought to prevent when they wrote the impeachment clause. Using the immense power of the presidency to extort a private American company, in direct violation of the Constitution’s explicit prohibitions, for the financial gain of the state, all while knowingly endangering the nation’s long-term security, is not just a political scandal. It is, by any reasonable definition, a high crime and misdemeanor. This episode is yet another clear and compelling article in the ever-growing case for the impeachment and removal of the President of the United States, before his reckless and lawless actions do irreparable damage to the Republic.