The SAFE Chips Act of 2025 amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to create a near‑absolute prohibition on moving certain ‘‘advanced integrated circuits’’ to or within countries the statute treats as foreign adversaries. The bill requires Commerce (the Secretary) to impose a license requirement for exports, reexports, and in‑country transfers of these chips and then to deny any such license applications.
The prohibition specifically excludes chips or products that are not designed or marketed for data‑center use.
The bill defines covered chips by linking to existing Commerce Control List ECCNs (3A090/4A090) and by setting numeric performance thresholds (processing performance, performance density, DRAM/interconnect bandwidth). It authorizes the Secretary to update those technical parameters after a 30‑month delay but conditions changes on a majority vote of the End‑User Review Committee and a 30‑day congressional briefing that must justify national‑interest effects, including the impact on Chinese AI firms and on U.S. comparative advantage.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires licenses for exports, reexports, and in‑country transfers of ‘‘advanced integrated circuits’’ that are designed or marketed for data centers to foreign adversary countries or entities whose ultimate parent is headquartered in such countries — and directs the Secretary to deny any application for those licenses. It excludes circuits not designed or marketed for data centers and ties the definition to ECCN 3A090/4A090 or to specific numeric performance thresholds.
Who It Affects
High‑performance semiconductor manufacturers and exporters, cloud and data‑center hardware suppliers, multinational firms with affiliates headquartered in foreign adversary countries, and the agencies that administer U.S. export controls (notably Commerce/BIS and the End‑User Review Committee). It will also affect downstream users of AI compute and international supply chains that rely on U.S. chips.
Why It Matters
This shifts U.S. export control policy from discretionary, case‑by‑case licensing toward a broad categorical denial for a defined class of chips used in data‑center compute, creating clearer prohibitions but less flexibility. The bill embeds numeric thresholds that materially determine which products are covered and creates a formally constrained process to update those thresholds — a design that will shape industry compliance, enforcement, and strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The SAFE Chips Act inserts a new section into the Export Control Reform Act that creates a license requirement for advanced integrated circuits going to so‑called foreign adversary countries and then requires denial of those licenses. That means the Commerce Department, which administers dual‑use export controls, must treat certain data‑center chips as categories for which exports, reexports, and even transfers within the adversary country are not permitted.
The bill’s scope reaches products landing in those countries and entities anywhere whose ultimate parent company is headquartered in a foreign adversary country.
Covered products are identified in two ways. First, the bill points to existing Commerce Control List entries (ECCN 3A090 and 4A090 and related numbers), so anything already captured there is swept in.
Second, for products not explicitly classified under those ECCNs, the bill specifies numerical performance thresholds — including total processing performance figures, performance density cutoffs, and DRAM and interconnect bandwidth metrics — that, if met, bring a product within the ban. The statute also delegates to Commerce the calculation rules in ECCN 3A090 for key terms like ‘‘total processing performance’’ and ‘‘performance density,’’ so technical measurements follow established Commerce methods.The statute carves out a narrow exclusion: chips or products that are not designed or marketed for data‑center use are not covered.
That creates an operational line firms and export reviewers will have to draw between chips aimed at data‑center compute (covered) and chips for embedded, edge, automotive, or consumer uses (excluded). The law also builds in a process to update the technical thresholds: after 30 months the Secretary may change the parameters, but only after the End‑User Review Committee approves by majority and after providing Congress a 30‑day advance briefing with specified analyses.
The briefing must explain the national‑interest rationale and assess impacts on leading Chinese AI firms and on U.S. relative computing advantages.Finally, the bill anchors ‘‘foreign adversary country’’ to the list in 10 U.S.C. 4872(f)(2) and explicitly names the Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions as included. Because the new ban covers reexport and in‑country transfer as well as export, the practical effect extends beyond physical shipments to arrangements such as cloud hosting, foreign data‑center deployments, and transfers between related entities within designated jurisdictions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute requires Commerce to deny any license application for exports, reexports, or in‑country transfers of covered advanced integrated circuits to foreign adversary countries or to entities whose ultimate parent is headquartered in those countries.
Covered products include ECCN 3A090/4A090 items and any integrated circuit meeting numeric thresholds: total processing performance ≥4,800; or ≥2,400 with performance density ≥1.6; or ≥1,600 with performance density ≥3.2; or DRAM bandwidth ≥4,100 GB/s; or interconnect bandwidth ≥1,100 GB/s; or combined DRAM+interconnect ≥5,000 GB/s.
The statutory exclusion removes from coverage any advanced integrated circuit or product containing one that is not designed or marketed for data‑center use, creating a substantive product‑marketing line for compliance reviews.
The Secretary may modify the technical parameters after a 30‑month waiting period, but changes require a majority vote of the End‑User Review Committee and a 30‑day advance briefing to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, with specific analyses.
The bill defines ‘‘foreign adversary country’’ by reference to 10 U.S.C. 4872(f)(2) and explicitly includes the Hong Kong and Macau SARs, extending the ban to entities and transfers connected to those jurisdictions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the ‘‘Secure and Feasible Exports of Chips Act of 2025’’ or ‘‘SAFE Chips Act of 2025’’. This is purely titular but signals the bill’s dual emphasis on security and on making export controls technically specific and administrable.
License requirement and mandatory denial
Subsection (a) requires that the Secretary impose a license requirement for exports, reexports, and in‑country transfers of ‘‘advanced integrated circuits’’ to foreign adversary countries and to entities whose ultimate parent is headquartered in those countries, and then directs that any such license application be denied. Mechanically, this converts what is often a discretionary licensing decision into a categorical denial for covered transactions, eliminating case‑by‑case compensating measures or approvals under this authority. Because the provision covers reexports and in‑country transfers, it reaches not only cross‑border shipments but transfers within an adversary jurisdiction (for example, intra‑country moves between facilities) and scenarios that compliance teams treat as reexports (including certain cloud or remote compute uses).
Exclusion for non‑data‑center products
Subsection (b) narrows the ban by excluding any advanced integrated circuit or product containing such a circuit that is not designed or marketed for data centers. That creates a compliance hinge on product design and marketing intent: exporters and reviewers will need to document product positioning and intended end‑use to claim the exclusion. The exclusion reduces the bill’s sweep over embedded and consumer devices but invites disputes over whether a chip is ‘‘designed or marketed’’ for data‑center compute.
Definition of ‘advanced integrated circuit’ (ECCN linkage and performance metrics)
Subsection (c)(1) defines covered circuits by reference to Commerce Control List classifications (ECCN 3A090/4A090 or related ECCNs) and by explicit numeric thresholds for processing performance, performance density, DRAM bandwidth, and interconnect bandwidth. The statute imports Commerce’s existing calculation methods for ‘‘total processing performance’’ and ‘‘performance density,’’ making coveredness a technical measurement exercise. For manufacturers and classification teams, this means labelling, benchmark reporting, and test methodologies will determine whether a product falls within the ban.
Authority to update technical parameters and required congressional briefing
This subsection permits the Secretary to modify the technical thresholds starting 30 months after enactment but only after a majority vote of the End‑User Review Committee and publication via Federal Register notice. The Secretary must brief the Senate Banking Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee at least 30 days before publishing the change, including a detailed justification, expected publication date, an assessment of how sales to the People’s Republic of China would affect leading Chinese AI firms and Chinese offensive capabilities, and an analysis of continued U.S. advantage in computing. This construct limits rapid adjustment of covered thresholds while insisting on interagency and congressional visibility for any change.
Foreign adversary definition and cross‑references to ECCN terms
The bill ties ‘‘foreign adversary country’’ to the list in 10 U.S.C. 4872(f)(2) and expressly includes the Hong Kong and Macau SARs. It also specifies that terms like ‘‘total processing performance’’ and ‘‘performance density’’ are to be calculated as provided under ECCN 3A090 as in effect the day before enactment, anchoring technical definitions to Commerce’s existing regulatory framework. Those cross‑references create dependency on other statutory and regulatory lists and meanings, which will matter for implementation and future updates.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. national security and defense planners — the statutory ban reduces the risk that leading data‑center compute hardware reaches adversary militaries or AI programs, constraining adversary access to U.S.‑grade compute capacity.
- Allied and partner governments with aligned export controls — limiting high‑end compute exports from the U.S. narrows adversary options and eases allied coordination on sensitive chip flows.
- Civil‑society and policy groups focused on limiting high‑compute proliferation — a clear prohibition simplifies advocacy and monitoring because it creates a bright‑line category of restricted products.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. semiconductor exporters and high‑performance chip designers — they lose commercial markets for covered products and face compliance costs to certify exclusions or measure performance metrics.
- Multinational firms with subsidiaries or ultimate parents headquartered in designated foreign adversary countries — subsidiaries could be barred from receiving U.S.‑origin chips even where business or civilian uses exist, complicating intracompany supply chains.
- Cloud and data‑center providers serving customers in designated jurisdictions — if their hardware is covered, providers must redesign offerings or restrict service footprints, which could raise costs and reduce market access.
- Commerce/BIS and the End‑User Review Committee — agencies bear new enforcement and classification burdens, must adjudicate boundary disputes, and manage the interagency briefing and adjustment process.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is national security versus commercial and diplomatic flexibility: the bill prioritizes security by converting sensitive data‑center compute into a near‑absolute export bar, but that same rigidity reduces options for calibrated, case‑by‑case approvals, risks economic harm to U.S. producers and allies, and creates implementation complexity as a fast‑moving technology outpaces statutorily fixed thresholds.
Two implementation frictions stand out. First, the statutory approach is categorical: it requires license denials rather than preserving case‑by‑case discretion.
That simplifies policy but removes a mechanism for targeted, controlled exports under tight conditions (for example, to trusted partners within a designated jurisdiction or for humanitarian/academic uses). Second, the bill ties coveredness to technical thresholds and to ECCN definitions that evolve; the 30‑month waiting period before the Secretary may change parameters, and the requirement of an End‑User Review Committee majority, slow the government’s ability to adapt to rapid technological change.
Those design choices create a gap between the law’s intent and the pace of semiconductor development.
Several practical questions are unresolved. The bill covers ‘‘in‑country transfer,’’ a term that operationally could include cloud hosting, remote access, and data‑center colocation arrangements — but it leaves room for dispute over how those scenarios map to traditional export/reexport categories.
Determining an entity’s ‘‘ultimate parent’’ headquarters for purposes of scope will be a litigation‑prone, fact‑intensive exercise for multinational corporate structures. Finally, excluding chips not marketed for data centers creates an arms race in product positioning: firms can alter marketing language or product bundles to avoid coverage, and regulators will need clear standards to prevent circumvention while avoiding overreach.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.