Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook (R) shakes hand with US President Donald Trump during an event at the Oval Office of the White House on August 6, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Wins mcnamee | Getty images
The best technology executives are at the forefront of a recent strip of unprecedented agreements with US President Donald Trump.
In recent days, the White House confirmed that two American chip manufacturers, Nvidia and Micro Advanced DevicesIt would be allowed to sell advanced chips to China in exchange for the United States government to receive a cut of 15% of its income in the Asian country.
Apple The CEO Tim Cook, meanwhile, recently announced plans to increase the company’s American investment commitment with $ 600 billion in the next four years. The measure was widely seen as an attempt to get the technological giant from Trump’s sights on tariffs, and seems to have worked for now.
In total, analysts say that the agreements show how important it is for the largest companies in the world to find some tariff relief.
“The burst of the agreements is an effort to ensure a lighter treatment of tariffs,” Paolo Pescatore, PP Foresight technology analyst, told CNBC.
“In some way or form, all large technological companies have been negatively affected by tariffs. They cannot afford the luxury of paying millions of dollars in additional rates that move further profits as underlined by recent quarterly gains,” said Pescatore.
While the devil will be in the detail of these agreements, Pescatore said Apple leading the way with its accelerated American investment will probably trigger “a domino effect” within the industry.
Apple, on the other hand, has been considered for a long time as one of the largest technological companies most vulnerable to slow tensions between the United States and China.
Earlier this month, Trump announced plans to impose a 100% rate on semiconductor and chip imports, although with an exemption for companies that are “built in the United States.”
Apple, which is based on hundreds of different chips for their devices and incurred $ 800 million in rate costs in the quarter of June, is among the companies exempt from the proposed rates.
A ‘practical’ approach
Meanwhile, the NVIDIA and AMD agreement with the Trump administration has caused an intense debate on the potential impact on the businesses of the chips and if the United States government can seek similar agreements with other companies.
Some strategists described the agreement as a “Shakedown”, while others suggested that it can even be unconstitutional and compare it with an exports tax.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that the legality and mechanics of the export tax of 15% on NVIDIA and AMD “were still being ironed.” He also hinted that agreements of this type could expand to other companies in the future.
Ray Wang, founder and president of Constellation Research, described the Nvidia and AMD agreement to pay 15% of Chinese chip sales to the United States government as “strange.”
Speaking in the “Squawk Box” of CNBC on Monday, Wang said that what is “really strange” is that there is still some uncertainty about whether these chips represent a national security problem.
“If the answer is no, it’s fine. The government is taking a cut,” said Wang. “Both Jensen Huang de Nvidia and Lisa his in AMD decided that he is fine, we have a way to take our chips to China and maybe there is something good coming out of that.”
Investor concerns
While investors initially hosted the agreement as widely positive for both NVIDIA and AMD, than once more safe access to the Chinese market, Wang said some in the industry will worry.
“As a investor, he is worried because then, is this an arbitrary decision of the government? Can each president play Kingmaker in terms of these agreements?” Wang said.
“So, I think that is really what the concern is, and we still have additional tariffs and trade agreements for coming from China’s negotiations,” he added.
Looking towards the future, Dan Niles, founder and portfolio manager of Niles Investment Management, said the question for investors is whether the “practical” approach of the Trump administration is positive or negative for US companies.
“I think for each company, it is very different. So, it is certainly something that I consider. The most important thing for me is, do you have some policy stability? Does it have a week a week and then turn the next?” Niles said on Monday “Closing Bell: Celling Bell” of CNBC. “At this time, that’s what worries me a little more.”
– Arjun Kharpal and Kif Leswing of CNBC contributed to this report.
