Trump’s Tariffs vs Tech: Why Harris slammed ex-Prez for selling US semiconductor chips to China

Trump reiterated his longstanding claim that his administration had "taken in billions and billions of dollars" through tariffs on China

“You want to talk about his deal with China? What he ended up doing is, under Donald Trump’s presidency, he ended up selling American chips to China to help them improve and modernise their military.” “He basically sold us out when a policy about China should be in making sure the United States of America wins the competition for the 21st century.”

This is what the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, remarked on September 10 during her first Presidential debate against Donald Trump in a heated exchange over China policy. As the conversation around semiconductor chips took center stage, Trump defended his trade policies, particularly his imposition of tariffs on China, while Harris condemned him for allegedly aiding China’s military advancement by allowing the sale of American-made semiconductor chips during his presidency.

Trump reiterated his longstanding claim that his administration had "taken in billions and billions of dollars" through tariffs on China, which he says were necessary to level the playing field. He even proposed increasing these tariffs, including blanket tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent, and on some goods, as high as 60 percent to 100 percent. He believes, other nations, including China, have exploited the US for decades, and these tariffs would finally force them to "pay back" America.

When faced with concerns that tariffs might flare up consumer prices, Trump dismissed the notion, insisting it would be China and other countries that would bear the financial brunt. Interestingly, Trump pointed out that the Biden-Harris administration had left many of his tariffs in place, hinting that they knew the policy had financial benefits.

Harris, however, used the debate to spotlight what she viewed as Trump’s hypocrisy, accusing him of selling semiconductor chips to China, which she implied, could be aiding China's military development. This was a strong statement, especially given the Biden administration's current efforts to block the sale of advanced semiconductors to adversaries like China. Harris’s criticism tapped into a broader fear: that during Trump’s presidency, China could have used American technology to bolster its military capabilities, something that goes against US national security interests.

Her focus wasn’t just on chips. Harris also argued that a comprehensive China policy should aim to ensure US dominance in key areas of 21st-century competition like AI and quantum computing. She emphasised the need for stronger relationships with allies, ensuring that US-based technology leads the global race, and investing in the American workforce.

Harris's point about semiconductors carries weight because of how critical these chips are for both the US and China. Semiconductors are at the heart of modern technology—from smartphones to military systems. For the US, restricting the sale of advanced chips to China is a crucial element of national security strategy. In fact, the Biden administration has continued to clamp down on semiconductor exports to China in a bid to slow the country's advancements in fields like AI and quantum technology.

The real twist here is Trump’s mixed record on semiconductors. On one hand, his administration did take a tough stance on Chinese acquisitions of American semiconductor firms, blocking a deal in 2017 where a Chinese investment firm attempted to purchase Lattice Semiconductor. This was viewed as a decisive action to protect US national security. However, Harris’s claims suggest that in other instances, the Trump administration allowed the sale of chips that could have helped China’s military—a stark contrast to the tough image Trump tries to project on China.

The semiconductor debate reveals a deeper contradiction in Trump’s China policy. While he blocked high-profile Chinese acquisitions of American chip companies in the name of national security, Harris’s critique highlights how his administration simultaneously allowed US companies to sell advanced chips to China, potentially undermining that very security.

This duality in Trump’s approach to semiconductors could be a point to ponder here. On the surface, Trump’s trade policies appear protectionist and tough, but Harris's comments hint at gaps in that protection, particularly in an area as sensitive as semiconductors, which are crucial to both economic competitiveness and military power. This is especially relevant as the US and its allies tighten the screws on semiconductor exports to China today, with Washington even considering the most severe trade curbs to prevent Beijing from acquiring advanced chip technology.

The Trump-Harris clash on China policy, especially around semiconductors, offers a stark contrast in their strategies. Trump’s focus on tariffs, while financially impactful, may have been accompanied by a policy that allowed China access to critical technology. Harris, on the other hand, is pushing for a more nuanced approach, working with allies and focusing on building domestic tech capabilities. The debate on semiconductors may just be the tip of the iceberg in this larger geopolitical contest between the US and China, but it’s clear that how each administration handles it could have profound consequences for national security and global technological supremacy.