Share This Podcast

• Check out Ashley’s – work www.axios.com/authors/agold
• Call Congress – 202-224-3121
• Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8
• What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast

Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/

TRANSCRIPT

Jane Coaston: It’s Friday, August 15th, I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day, the show that watched part of the World Humanoid Games, which kicked off in Beijing on Thursday and said, absolutely not. Robots should not be doing martial arts, or boxing. Has no one ever seen a movie? [music break] On today’s show, the time has finally come. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Alaska to talk about ending Russia’s war in Ukraine. And California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom unveils a redistricting plan to go head-to-head against Texas Republicans. But let’s start with Nvidia. Nvidia is a company that makes AI chips. Because of that, Nvidia is now the richest company on Earth as of June of this year. And thanks to a new deal with the Trump administration, NVIDIA, alongside fellow AI chip maker Advanced Micro Devices, or AMD, will be sending the United States government 15% of its profits from selling AI chips to China. Basically, the United States Government is now a partner in two private companies that are selling AI technology to the country that’s supposed to be our biggest competitor. Remember China hawks? Hmm. And according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, this is a great idea that should probably be expanded. Here’s what she had to say during a press briefing on Tuesday. 

[clip of Karoline Leavitt] Right now it stands with these two companies, perhaps it could expand in the future to other companies. I think it’s a creative idea and solution. The legality of it, the mechanics of it is still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce and I would defer you to them for any further details. 

Jane Coaston: That’s one perspective. Others include conservative writer Jim Garrity, who called the deals, quote, “light communism.” But to me, the state, in this case, the Trump administration, telling two private companies that they could only get the export licenses they need to sell AI chips to Chinese companies, if they kick back 15% of the profits to the state. Again, the Trump Administration, well, that sounds less communist to me and more mob protection scheme. You want to do business? Pay up or you’ll regret it. Fun how our government is working right now. So to learn more about NVIDIA, its deal with the Trump administration and how this sketchy deal came to be in the first place, I spoke to Ashley Gold, Senior Tech and Policy Reporter at Axios. Ashley, welcome to What a Day. 

Ashley Gold: Thanks for having me. 

Jane Coaston: So let’s start with the basics. I know NVIDIA makes chips. I know that they are worth a ton of money. Can you explain why the chips Nvidia makes are so valuable to the world of AI and to the world more generally? 

Ashley Gold: Absolutely, uh there’s not a lot of um global chip makers that make these chips that are necessary to power the AI and power the technology that’s driving so much of the conversation today. And Nvidia is highly successful, has been for many years, and they’ve really sort of perfected the art of these chips. Um. The CEO has been sort of a symbol of AI development throughout the world, and they are just a very hot company right now due to the conversation around AI and also just global export controls and global trade. 

Jane Coaston: The main AI chip competitor in China is a company called Huawei. Are Nvidia’s chips that much more advanced or is this kind of like a neck and neck tech race between China and America? 

Ashley Gold: A lot of folks think that America has an edge, but it’s only maybe a slight edge. And given a little more time and a little bit more ability to develop, um China will will surpass U.S. Development on the chip. So the sort of national security hawks and the folks that really want America to have an edge over China think that our advantage isn’t quite big enough for comfort. 

Jane Coaston: So how unusual is it for the president of the United States to make a deal with a tech company like this? Like we’ve mentioned, Nvidia basically had to agree to pay 15% of the money they make from selling their chips to China directly to the US government. I’ve seen a lot of conservatives were very worried about this because Trump is essentially making the federal government a partner in Nvidia’s business. Has anything like this ever happened before in the tech world? 

Ashley Gold: No, no it’s entirely unprecedented and I was going to say it’s a unique way of doing business, but that’s not usually what the government and companies are involved in doing together. In fact, there are constitutional restrictions on export controls. You know, congressmen, including Republican John Molinar from Michigan, specifically said this appears to be unconstitutional. Um. So this is very, very unprecedented. 

Jane Coaston: What stands out most to you? Because if you’re a China hawk and the U S government is like, okay, this company can sell all of these chips to China to presumably get them ahead in the AI race, but we’ll get money from it. That seems kind of bonkers. 

Ashley Gold: It just, it casts doubt um for when the US government claims there’s a national security concern. I, you know, I’ve been following the TikTok case as well. 

Jane Coaston: Right. 

Ashley Gold: And there was a bipartisan bill that was signed banning TikTok from app stores in the U.S. and–

Jane Coaston: The Supreme Court said it was fine. 

Ashley Gold: The Supreme Court um said it was fine, and TikTok continues to operate in the US because Trump has allowed them to, even going as far as threatening app stores because they wanted to comply with the letter of the bipartisan law. So what I’m hearing from sort of tech policy wonks is this just makes it so whenever the government cries national security over some sort of high tech thing, they’re not gonna know you know who to believe anymore. Um. And it’s going to be harder to use national security as a justification to ban certain technology. And if it’s you know a good deal for the government or it helps work out the greater trade deal with China as you know sort of what gets thrown in in the negotiations, then national security concerns kind of go out the window. 

Jane Coaston: What was the timeline in terms of licensing? Because we know Nvidia got permission to sell these AI chips to China, but the Trump administration didn’t actually issue licenses to make those sales possible until Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang agreed to this 15% cut. The Commerce Department started granting licenses for AI chip sales just two days after the agreement was made, according to sources who spoke to the New York Times. That sounds a lot like Trump saying, hey, if you don’t agree to do this. No license for you.” Is that what happened here? 

Ashley Gold: I mean, I wasn’t in the room, but it very much seems like that’s what happened. Um. These H-20 chips, which is not um Nvidia’s most advanced chip, but is still a very competitive, useful chip. They had designed them to comply with Biden’s export control regime. And then in April of this year, the Trump administration took away Nvidia’s power to sell those chips to China. So Nvidia stopped doing it. They were complying with the Trump administration’s own rules. Um. And then in late July, they reversed themselves, they announced this deal, sales can resume. Meanwhile, we’re waiting for the Trump administration to um establish what exactly its export controls for these high-value tech items are at all. Um. They scrapped the Biden era diffusion rule, it’s called, which is about export controls. And me and my colleagues have been waiting to see what they’re going to replace it with. But instead what we’re seeing is what we end up seeing with the trade deals is these sort of piecemeal one-off announcements. This can go, that can’t go. Um. So, it’s kind of all over the place. 

Jane Coaston: Right. Can you elaborate a little more on the potential national security risks? Because I I you know think that there was a national review headline that was like, we are selling China the instruments of our own destruction. And I was like oh like, let’s just let’s settle just a little bit. But like, what are the downsides? 

Ashley Gold: So there’s a line of thought that if Chinese companies, Chinese engineers have access to what is seen as like the crown jewels of American technology, they will use it against us for you know national security related things, or that it will help them develop their own AI technology using those chips backing that will then surpass our AI technology. So it’s kind of this idea that like, you’re sharing your building bricks with somebody that wants to make a machine to destroy you. Um. So, I’ve never really described it that way, but I guess it’s kind of apt. 

Jane Coaston: You also mentioned some questions around the constitutionality of all of this. What kind of legal pushback could the administration see to this deal? 

Ashley Gold: They could be sued by outside groups, they could be sued by shareholders of Nvidia or AMD. No one has sued them yet. And the traditional business trade groups that usually weigh in on this sort of thing, export controls, chips, China, they’ve been kind of silent so far. So unless they get hit with a lawsuit, um nothing’s really happened yet. And you know, we’ve seen other things that are unconstitutional. You know, get kind of questioned by Republican lawmakers, and maybe they write a letter, maybe they send it. And then–

Jane Coaston: Nothing happens. 

Ashley Gold: That’s kind of it. 

Jane Coaston: But they wrote their very strongly worded letter. 

Ashley Gold: Yeah, but are they going to cross Trump on something like that? Nah, you know, it’s hard to see. 

Jane Coaston: Ashley, what are you most worried about in terms of the fallout of a deal like this and what it means for the independence of tech companies moving forward? I mean, we’re already seeing Trump saying that Intel should fire its CEO. Like, it does seem like all of these tech companies are so reliant on the Trump administration that the Trump Administration gets a vote in where they work, who works for them, and what they do. 

Ashley Gold: Yeah, it’s scary. I mean, we are seeing a lot of corporate um just sort of bending to what the administration wants. And with every administration, you have to do a certain amount of lobbying, of jockeying and, you know, getting out in front of them to get what you want. That’s not new. What’s new is what’s held over their heads if they won’t do it. Um and it’s definitely not the traditional back and forth you see between private industry and the government from every administration up until now, even even in the first Trump administration, um, things weren’t this sort of blatant. 

Jane Coaston: Ashley. Thank you so much for joining me. 

Ashley Gold: Of course, thanks for having me. 

Jane Coaston: That was my conversation with Ashley Gold, senior tech and policy reporter at Axios. We’ll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. [music break]

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: Here’s what else we’re following today. 

[sung] Headlines. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] We’re gonna find out where everybody stands and I’ll know within the first two minutes, three minutes, four minutes, or five minutes. We tend to find out whether or not we’re gonna have a good meeting or a bad meeting. 

Jane Coaston: Trump’s long-awaited meeting with Russian President Putin starts today in Alaska, and he led with this at his press conference Thursday. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] We’ll see if they can get along. And if they can, it’ll be great. You know I’ve solved six wars in the last six months, little more than six months now. And I’m very proud of it. I thought the easiest one would be this one. It’s actually the most difficult. 

Jane Coaston: First of all, what? Secondly, so basically this meeting could end Russia’s war against Ukraine, but it’s possible it won’t end the war. Either way, Trump is an expert at solving wars. What can we expect? Putin and Trump will meet one-on-one first, with only translators present, before meeting with delegates, a Russian official said on Thursday. There will also be talks about the US and Russia working together economically and a possible deal on nuclear arms control. Afterwards, the two leaders will host a joint press conference. And in yet another troubling sign for Trump’s economy, new federal data showed that costs surged last month for producers and manufacturers. Or in plain speak, things got a lot more expensive for the people and companies who sell us the things we the consumers consume. Which can only mean good things for our wallets, right? No. On Thursday, data from the Labor Department showed wholesale inflation last month rose sharply. The producer price index rose almost one full percentage point compared to June. The biggest jump in more than three years. And compared to this time last year, it was up more than 3%. The numbers were much higher than economists had expected. Most stocks fell on Wall Street Thursday in the wake of the bad economic news. So, what does this mean? Well, it signals Trump’s very sound tariff plan is very likely pushing up costs. And while higher prices haven’t quite hit retail stores yet, it may just be a matter of time at this point, dear consumer. Hopefully no one loses their job over a report the president doesn’t like again. 

[clip of Gavin Newsom] It’s not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil, and talk about the way the world should be. We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt. And we have got to meet fire with fire. 

Jane Coaston: California Governor Gavin Newsom laid out his vision to redraw the state’s congressional map to counter the ongoing redistricting fight in Texas and other Republican states. The governor on Thursday floated a plan to create five new safe Democratic seats in California. Four more swing districts could also shift towards Democrats, for a potential net pick up of nine seats. Newsom said the new maps could be released as soon as today. He stressed that they would be temporary and would apply to the 2026 and 2030 midterms as well as the 2028 presidential election. Newsom spoke to Pod Save America after the announcement. 

[clip of Gavin Newsom] We won’t move forward, it’s a trigger, unless Texas or other Republican states move forward. It will be temporary, it will be done on an emergency basis. It will also be done in a way that reinforces our commitment to nationwide independent redistricting. 

Jane Coaston: But there’s a big asterisk to all of this. In order for Newsom to make his redistricting plan happen in California, he will have to put it to the state’s voters first. 15 years ago, California handed over the congressional redistricting process to an independent commission, you know, to make the whole process less partisan. So Newsom’s plans to circumvent that will now be put to the test in a special election scheduled for November 4th, if approved by the state legislature. Newsom also said on Pod Save America that the stakes are too high for voters to reject the measure. 

[clip of Gavin Newsom] This is a big damn deal because if the most unTrumped state in America can’t do this, we’re in real peril as a nation and our democracy I really believe may not recover if he rigs the midterms and gives him complete unfettered power with no oversight into 2028. 

Jane Coaston: But never to be outshone, the Trump administration made sure to let its presence be known in California Thursday. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were staged outside the Governor’s press conference in Los Angeles. Maybe maybe Trump wasn’t being totally honest when he said he only wanted to be a dictator on his first day back in office. Move over Grok, MetaAI is about to out-horrify you, at least according to a review of an internal document by Reuters. The document laying out Meta platform’s chatbot regulations has allowed controversial, infuriating, and disgusting behavior, including quote, “sensual discussions with children.” Just what everyone wants in a chatbot. For your sake, we will keep this short and concise. Among all the truly wild revelations, Reuters reports the guidance for building and training the bot said, quote, “It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness. Example, your youthful form is a work of art.” The standards also allowed for its AI to create false medical information and help users argue that Black people are quote, “dumber” than white people. Just remember, a team of real people approved this. Meta confirmed the document was legit. But it said after Reuters reached out earlier this month, the company took out the parts about chatbots being allowed to flirt with kids. Oh good, the bot won’t flirt with kids. But what about the false medical information and the racism? That was okay? For obvious reasons, this whole thing has garnered backlash on both sides of the aisle. Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley said on Twitter Thursday, quote, “this is grounds for an immediate congressional investigation.” And Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii wrote quote, “Meta chat bots that basically hit on kids. Fuck that. This is disgusting and evil.” And that’s the news. [music break] One more thing, Utah, the Beehive State, home of Park City, Salt Lake City, Brigham Young University, and a lot of great places to eat cookies. Also the home of Republican State Senator Jay Stewart Adams. Adams is president of the Utah Senate, and in 2023, he had a problem. See, he had an 18-year-old relative who allegedly raped a 13-year old, normally a first-degree felony. In Utah, as in many places, no one under the age of 14 can consent to sex. His relative was facing up to 25 years in prison and would have had to register as a sex offender. But according to reporting from Robert Gehrke at the Salt Lake Tribune, Adams stepped in and helped get the law changed. Now, an 18-year-old who rapes a 13-year old in the state of Utah, but does so while a registered high school student will face a third degree felony charge of unlawful sexual activity. They won’t have to register as a sex offender, and they probably won’t face serious jail time. I reached out to Gehrke, and via email, he told me that Adams spoke to State Senator Kirk Cullimore, who sponsored the legislation, and told him about his relative’s situation, asking him if looking into changing the law would be, quote, “appropriate.” According to reporting from KSL.com, a Utah-based news outlet, Adams told Cullimore that his relative should not face years in prison because of a quote, “stupid mistake.” You know, allegedly raping a 13-year-old. It was Cullimore who spoke to Adams’s relative’s defense attorney, who then actually helped write the legislation. In a statement to the Salt Lake Tribune, Adams denied changing the law to help his relative, and said that the change wasn’t intended to be retroactive. As in, it wasn’t supposed to change how a case that took place before the law changed would be adjudicated. But it did. Two months after the law was changed, Adams’ relative got a plea deal. They would plead guilty to reduce charges, face no additional jail time, and not have to register as a sex offender. During court proceedings, Adams’ relatives’ defense attorney even told the judge, quote, “we all agree that’s not retroactive, but the government did change their offer based on that.” I think it’s worth noting that Adams was one of multiple Utah Republican state legislators who issued a statement about a trans college volleyball player. Writing that the athlete’s mere presence on the court was quote, “putting female athletes at risk.” But when his relative allegedly raped a child, well, that’s different. [music break]

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: And finally, I wanna say a special thank you to producer Michell Eloy. This is her last show before she goes on to another opportunity at which she will be fantastic. Michell, thank you for making me sound like I actually know things. We will miss you so, so much. [music break] That’s all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, contemplate the wisdom of Hunter Biden, and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading, and not just about how when confronted with a retraction demand from First Lady Melania Trump for saying that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump, the second son of former President Joe Biden responded as follows. 

[clip of Hunter Biden] [bleep] that. That’s not gonna happen. 

Jane Coaston: Like me, What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at Crooked.com/subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston and with that, see you next week because I’ve got nothing else. [music break] What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It’s recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Fohr. Our producer is Michell Eloy. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Gina Pollock, and Laura Newcomb. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adriene Hill. We had help with the headlines from the Associated Press. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. [music break]

[AD BREAK]