US chokes off investment in Chinese tech sectors

Biden holds a microchip to discuss the strategic importance of semiconductors.
Biden holds a microchip to discuss the strategic importance of semiconductors.
Reuters

In a move that deepens the breach between the world’s two largest economies, the Biden administration this week authorized the Treasury Department to prohibit US firms from investing in several cutting-edge technology industries in China.

The order aims to stop American capital from financing Chinese research into quantum computing and advanced semiconductors and places fresh restrictions on investment in Chinese AI or other semiconductor technology industries.

Amid a deepening rivalry with China to achieve mastery over these technologies, Washington has framed the latest measure as a way to protect US national security.

One big question is: Will US allies do the same thing? Powerful as the US is, a strategy to crimp Beijing’s technological progress doesn’t work half as well if China can look elsewhere for high

quality investment.

It looks like things are moving that way. UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Thursday he was considering a similar move, and the EU has been mulling measures of this kind since at least April when European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen suggested measures to curb European private sector investment in “sensitive technologies” in China.

And recall that after the US banned its companies from exporting sensitive technology to the Chinese semiconductor industry last year, both Japan and the Netherlands — major suppliers to China — quickly followed suit.

Is “decoupling” of this kind a good idea? If the US and EU are worried about China making critical breakthroughs then it makes sense not to help China do that. On the other hand, critics say that cutting the industries off from each other makes it harder for each side to monitor the other’s progress and to collaborate on guardrails for potentially destructive new technologies.

Tell us what you think. Is “decoupling” smart or shortsighted?

More from GZERO Media

A miniature statue of US President Donald Trump stands next to a model bunker-buster bomb, with the Iranian national flag in the background, in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, on June 19, 2025.
STR/NurPhoto

US President Donald Trump said Thursday that he will decide whether to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities “in the next two weeks,” a move that re-opens the door to negotiations, but also gives the US more time to position military forces for an operation.

People ride motorcycles as South Korea's LGBTQ community and supporters attend a Pride parade, during the Seoul Queer Culture Festival, in Seoul, South Korea, June 14, 2025.
REUTERS/Kim Soo-hyeon

June is recognized in more than 100 countries in the world as “Pride Month,” marking 55 years since gay liberation marches began commemorating the Stonewall riots – a pivotal uprising against the police’s targeting of LGBTQ+ communities in New York.

Port of Nice, France, during the United Nations Oceans Conference in June 2025.
María José Valverde

Eurasia Group’s biodiversity and sustainability analyst María José Valverde sat down with Rebecca Hubbard, the director of the High Seas Alliance, to discuss the High Seas Treaty.

Housing shortages in the US and Canada have become a significant problem – and a contentious political issue – in recent years. New data on housing construction this week suggest neither country is making enough progress to solve the shortfalls. Here’s a snapshot of the situation on both sides of the border.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford speaks during a meeting of northeastern U.S. Governors and Canadian Premiers, in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S., June 16, 2025.
REUTERS/Sophie Park

While the national level drama played out between Donald Trump and Mark Carney at the G7 in Kananaskis, a lot of important US-Canada work was going on with far less fanfare in Boston, where five Canadian premiers met with governors and delegations from seven US states.

- YouTube

What’s next for Iran’s regime? Ian Bremmer says, “It’s much more likely that the supreme leader ends up out, but the military… continues to run the country.”