- 17 minutes ago
Nvidia scandal raises questions over AI chip security and US-China tensions
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, you're watching To The Point. I'm Maria Shakil.
00:03At the India Today Bharat Agriculture Conference, Prime Minister Narendra Modi
00:08launched a sharp attack on the opposition, accusing some leaders of treating democratic institutions
00:14and the constitution as their personal property. Prime Minister Modi also referred to an instance
00:20from his tenure as Gujarat Chief Minister, reviving allegations of political interference
00:25by the then-Congress government in an economic ranking that had placed Gujarat right at the top.
00:31The Congress has hit back. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi-Wadra has accused the BJP of undermining
00:37the very institutions it claims to defend. Samajwadi Party Chief Akhilesh Yadav too has joined that attack.
00:43The big showdown is over. Who is protecting the constitution and who is politicizing it?
00:50I'll be taking that debate up in just a few minutes. But first up, take a look at this report.
01:15A sharp attack appointed political message. Prime Minister Narendra Modi took aim at the opposition,
01:22accusing some leaders of believing that the constitution and democratic institutions belong to them.
01:29At India Today's Bharat Agriculture Conference 2026, Prime Minister Modi said that even after losing power,
01:37some leaders remain intoxicated by it.
01:40Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the constitution of the sign because it would be a abolish
02:04of the government.
02:14And then, Prime Minister turned the clock back to his Gujarat days.
02:19Modi recalled how Gujarat had topped an economic performance ranking during his tenure as Chief Minister.
02:25He said the assessment was based on research by leading economists
02:29and conducted by an organization named after a former Prime Minister.
02:33Without naming the organization, Prime Minister alleged that then-Congress-led government at the center
02:39tried to prevent Gujarat from retaining its top position by putting pressure on researchers.
03:03Gujarat number one came, and then I was a member of Gujarat.
03:54The remarks to bring back allegations made by former economist Vivek Debroy in an India Today interview in 2015.
04:02Debroy had alleged political interference at Sonia Gandhi's insistence.
04:07He recalled a 2004 study that ranked Gujarat number one in economic freedom and claimed that after the 2005 Gujarat
04:16municipal elections,
04:17publications of the Rajiv Gandhi Institution for contemporary studies were subjected to political vetting.
04:25Debroy had alleged that the directive was signed by Sonia Gandhi.
04:29But the Congress is not letting the attack pass unanswered.
04:33Priyanka Gandhi-Wadra hit back at Modi's constitution in their pocket jibe,
04:38accusing the BJP of silencing dissent and weakening democratic institutions.
05:02Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav also hit out at Prime Minister Modi saying people who insulted Baba Sahib Ambedkar were
05:10talking about the constitution now.
05:37The BJP and the opposition are now trading charges over who is the constitution.
05:42Who truly stands for democracy, dissent and the constitution.
05:46Bureau Report, India Today.
05:50Joining me on the show tonight, Divyani Rana, MLA of Nagrota in Jameen Kashmir.
05:56Amitabh Dubey, national spokesperson of the Congress, is joining us.
05:59We'll be joined by Rashid Kidwai shortly.
06:01We also have Rajat Sethi.
06:03I'm going to begin with you, Amitabh Dubey.
06:06What the Prime Minister is essentially saying is that there is political hypocrisy in Congress's arguments.
06:13That you say that the institutions at present are compromised, but when you were in power, you actually compromised the
06:20institutions.
06:21In fact, went to the extent of not giving a state like Gujarat its due only because it was doing
06:30well.
06:30And it was governed by the BJP.
06:32The Prime Minister himself was the Chief Minister of Gujarat.
06:36So firstly, let's be very clear.
06:38The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation is not the government.
06:40It is a private trust.
06:42And what they do is their business.
06:44This is not the UPA government juggling numbers, fixing numbers.
06:49And this is the same government, the Modi government, that ditched, and I'm now talking about official numbers,
06:55ditched the PLFS unemployment survey that showed 6.1% unemployment.
07:00It ditched the consumption survey that showed that consumption had gone down 3.7% in real terms.
07:06That suppressed WHO data showing that the COVID deaths were much higher.
07:10So we talk about official data.
07:11This is not a private institution's rankings.
07:15It's very interesting to me that the Prime Minister attended a farmers event.
07:19And, you know, he should be addressing the issues that are plaguing the farmers.
07:23He did.
07:24You know, why their incomes have not doubled by 2020.
07:28I mean, I was an audience.
07:30The event was organized by India Today Group.
07:33So he did.
07:33He made some claims about the growth rate of agriculture.
07:37But what about the fact that fertilizer is being sold at double the rate it should be?
07:42Why the MSP for PADI in UP is 2,441.
07:47But the farmers are only getting 1,500 in UP.
07:49Why there is the threat of cheap U.S. imports in agriculture?
07:52The point that was made here, and I want your response specifically on this, Amitabh Dubey.
07:58The Prime Minister, when he was referring to, was essentially to Bebek Debaroy,
08:05who was then the director of Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies.
08:10He, in 2015, said that it was envisaged, the RGICS, which is Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies,
08:22was envisaged as an independent think tank.
08:28But it was becoming increasingly clear that there would be interferences, and this is what happened.
08:36You know, it was about a paper that I and colleague undertook.
08:39It was published.
08:40Then the study had ranked Gujarat No. 1 in 2005, when the municipal elections were happening in Gujarat.
08:46All hell broke loose.
08:48These are his words.
08:50I was told, henceforth, any publication by RGICS has to be politically vetted.
08:55And this was sent to me, signed by Mrs. Gandhi, who was the chairperson at that time.
09:00And then he resigned.
09:03So, let's be absolutely clear.
09:04Like I said, this is a private organization.
09:06Now, this is his word.
09:07This is the claims of Mr. Bebek Debaroy.
09:10Mr. Bebek Debaroy, thereafter, went and joined the Modi government and became a major advisor there.
09:14So, his political leanings became evident.
09:17Now, I don't want to criticize him because he's no longer with us.
09:20And, you know, he was a respected person in his own field.
09:23I have no issues with that.
09:24But this is his perspective.
09:26This is a private organization.
09:27And there's absolutely no comparison with the data fiddling that the Modi government as a government,
09:32as the elected government of this country has done in institution after institution after institution,
09:37whether it's data chori, vote chori, all kinds of chori, I'm happy to discuss them.
09:41But the fiddling that is done cannot be compared to a private organization.
09:46Fine.
09:46Fine enough, Amitab Dubey.
09:48Divyani, the point here is that you are talking about data when the present, all data which is being put
09:57out by the government
09:58is being challenged by the opposition and also from many within the government who held positions,
10:03like Mr. Garg questioned the GDP data.
10:08The very intriguing part, and I wanted to let Dubeji finish his, you know, whole tirade about talking about data
10:14because he's very conveniently cherry-picked data that seems to suit his agenda.
10:18But when it comes to having to talk about the fact that in 2014,
10:22when the Honorable Prime Minister Sindrendra Modi ji took over the reins of our great nation,
10:27he had to start from scratch.
10:28We had to start from building toilets in rural areas.
10:32What were you all doing for all those years?
10:34Even if we don't talk about data, that is where this country had to start.
10:38We went from talking about toilets to becoming one of the biggest manufacturers of semiconductors
10:43and being the third largest exporter of weapons to Europe.
10:46That is the data that matters in India today.
10:49We are right now leading the world on multiple different merits and multiple different data points.
10:57And those are things that they will not talk about.
10:59Very conveniently, Dubeji talked about the election commission as well.
11:03Wherever they win, the data seems to be very conveniently okay as per their standard.
11:09But where they lose, they have such a hue and cry about what is going on,
11:13that even when the Supreme Court has told them that you can go ahead and provide all the evidences
11:18that you have in your corner, they just go on and make stories out of nothing.
11:22I believe that there is this cherry-picking of data that they like to do.
11:26But it is very, very apparent when they talk about the constitution very, very specifically.
11:31And as someone who comes from Jammu Kashmir and represents a constituency in Jammu Kashmir,
11:35I can very clearly tell you that when the Article 370 conversation was being had,
11:39especially about women, a lot of the same people today that you are on your channel today,
11:44a lot of their colleagues would talk about saying,
11:46oh, but the matter is subjudice.
11:48They did nothing to really help any section of society except wanting to be in power.
11:54Ivani, I get your point.
11:56I'm going to come to that specific point that the Prime Minister said
11:59that there are people carrying Samhidhan in their pocket
12:03and they think that they control nation's democracy in just a bit.
12:07But let me take opening comments also from Rajat Sethi.
12:11Rajat, go ahead.
12:14So I think institutions and supra-constitutional institutions
12:19was the invention of the Congress Party
12:23when they created the National Advisory Committee
12:26to basically circumvent and undermine a lot of other constitutional bodies
12:32which were there to help in decision-making.
12:37When such stalwarts like Dr. Vivek Devroy comes out and says
12:40he does not say it for political reasons per se.
12:43He was a thorough academician even in 2004.
12:48The kind of pressures that used to be there on all kinds of institutions
12:52during the UPA years,
12:53all millennials very clearly remember that.
12:57So there cannot be two doubts about it.
12:59And instead of taking it in the right earnest
13:03and trying to course correct,
13:04you can't point fingers that he was doing it for political motives.
13:09And his reputation was seemingly across political lines
13:15because Dr. Vivek Devroy has served in institutions
13:19which pan across.
13:20Even for that matter,
13:22what he has written has been in public domain
13:25and he's been critical of several government policies
13:27both in the UPA as well as of Prime Minister Modi
13:29whenever he felt so.
13:30So he was a free-weeding thinker.
13:32And whatever he said
13:34should have been taken by the Congress Party
13:37and tried to course correct then.
13:39They did not do it then.
13:40They kept on undermining various institutions.
13:44And today, lo and behold,
13:46today they are trying to appeal to the Gen Z
13:47and the younger voters
13:48that they are the biggest custodians of the Constitution.
13:52It cannot be something more laughable
13:54than what the Congress Party is trying to position.
13:56As we say that it's political hypocrisy here
13:58that is being highlighted by the BJP.
14:01So Rashid Kidwai, come in now.
14:03You know, Samvidhan Khatre Mein Hai
14:05was the big campaign
14:06which was started by opposition
14:09led by Rahul Gandhi in the run-up to 2024.
14:12And it did yield political dividends
14:15particularly in the state of Maharashtra
14:16and also in the state of Uttar Pradesh
14:18where Akhilesh Yadav won 37 seats.
14:21But when the Prime Minister says
14:24that the Congress Party,
14:26you know, of course,
14:27obviously referring to Rahul Gandhi
14:29that he carries Samvidhan in his pocket
14:31and then he thinks that the institutions
14:33are all supposed to be subservient
14:36to the Congress Party.
14:37There is also that reference
14:38that how when the Congress was in power
14:41it actually compromised institutions.
14:45Yeah.
14:46So, Maria, we must understand
14:48this is a political posturing.
14:50If what the Prime Minister is saying is true,
14:52then, you know,
14:53there are a lot of things can turn around
14:54and say a lot of things about,
14:57you know, the BJP also,
14:59the past and present.
15:01So, therefore,
15:02I don't see that what Rahul Gandhi
15:04is doing something that is wrong
15:06if there was lack of,
15:08sort of, you know,
15:09freedom in Rajiv Gandhi Foundation
15:10or any other institution.
15:12There are so many other institutions,
15:14there are so many public intellectuals
15:16who have taken, you know,
15:17known position
15:18and taken a very different kind of thing.
15:20So, they are also very political.
15:22I disagree with Rajat,
15:23what he was saying
15:24that about somebody being,
15:25having a lot of, you know,
15:27intellectual heft,
15:27but people with intellectual heft,
15:29you know, Maria,
15:30and both Rajat,
15:31you and many of the panelists have seen,
15:33have also shifted their stance
15:36for political considerations.
15:38You know, when you talk about
15:41insiders of the government,
15:43when you say that
15:44somebody like Bibek Debroy
15:45started talking about it,
15:47who was the director,
15:48then speaks against
15:50the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation's functioning,
15:53institutions functioning in 2015,
15:55you have the instance
15:56of S.E. Garg,
15:57who was working within the government,
15:59now speak against the present government.
16:01So, there are instances
16:02on both the sides here, Rajat.
16:04So, let me go back to Amitab Dube.
16:06Amitab, the sense certainly is
16:09that here is the Congress Party,
16:12Rahul Gandhi in particular,
16:14trying to build the larger narrative
16:15that here is one important institution,
16:18which is the Election Commission,
16:21which is a constitution body,
16:22which should be functioning independently,
16:24is not functioning independently,
16:26and that is why this entire chatter
16:28around vote chori.
16:30Are you sensing then
16:32that in the run-up
16:33to the first big election,
16:34the state election of,
16:36for the state of Uttar Pradesh,
16:37this is something that the Congress Party,
16:39the opposition will be highlighting?
16:42Yeah, I mean,
16:43I will answer that.
16:45I just want to address something
16:45that Rajat said about
16:49supraparty control,
16:51referring to the NAC,
16:52which Mrs. Sonia Gandhi headed.
16:54That was an official body.
16:56Its proceedings were transparent.
16:58Everyone saw what came out of it
16:59in terms of legislation.
17:00But we have another supraparty organization
17:02called the RSS,
17:03that currently views a lot of influence
17:05in the government.
17:07You have OSDs in ministers.
17:10Kindly let me speak,
17:11Divyani ji.
17:12Divyani, I'm going to come to you.
17:14Just a moment.
17:15Let him finish.
17:16I'm coming to you.
17:17Please let me speak.
17:23You have OSDs in every ministry
17:26who have an RSS background.
17:28You have vice chancellors
17:30across all universities
17:31who are selected on the basis
17:33of their ideological alignment
17:34with the RSS.
17:35This is a country
17:36that wants to compete with China
17:38and the United States
17:39is destroying its educational system
17:41by politicizing it
17:42and putting it in the hands
17:43of mediocre people
17:44with RSS leanings.
17:46This is a very serious problem.
17:47It's completely different
17:48from a legal body
17:49with transparent activities.
17:52Now, about the question
17:53you asked me about UP,
17:56definitely vote chori is an issue.
17:58Of course, it goes beyond UP.
17:59But I want to again point out
18:00what Divyani Rana had claimed
18:02that this was some issue
18:04that only the Congress
18:04is bringing up.
18:05This is today a big issue
18:07because of revelations
18:08that came out in the media
18:10about the proceedings
18:11in the Election Commission.
18:13The Congress party, of course,
18:14has been talking about it
18:15for a year, year and a half
18:16and it's been vindicated
18:18by what's happened
18:19by the media.
18:21Please do not speak for me.
18:23This is not a very productive situation
18:25and I will interrupt you
18:27if you interrupt me.
18:29I'm afraid you can't speak over me,
18:31Divyani ji.
18:32This is not the right thing to do
18:33and I request you
18:34to stop interrupting me.
18:36I request you to stop interrupting me.
18:39I request you to stop interrupting me.
18:41Divyani, I'm coming to you
18:42let him finish in 30 seconds.
18:44Let him finish in 30 seconds
18:46and then I'll come to you.
18:47Yes.
18:47So the question is
18:48as Modi ji himself said
18:50why is Mr. Gandhi walking around
18:52with a red constitution
18:53in his pocket?
18:55I want to point out
18:56that Mr. Modi gave
18:57Ramnath Kovin ji
18:58the same red constitution
18:59a few years ago
19:00as a gift
19:01but be that as it may
19:02the reason Rahul Gandhi
19:04is doing that
19:04is because the BJP
19:06itself said
19:07that if it gets 400 seats
19:09it will change the constitution.
19:11Ms. Mirda said it
19:12many many leaders
19:14of the BJP
19:16had said it.
19:16The reason he's walking around
19:18with the constitution
19:18is because the right
19:19to free expression
19:20is under attack
19:21by pellet guns
19:22tear gas
19:23and violence
19:24against peaceful protesters.
19:26The reason he's walking around
19:27with the constitution
19:27in his pocket
19:28is because the electoral integrity
19:30of this country
19:30is under threat.
19:31That is why he's
19:32walking around
19:33with the constitution.
19:34Let Diviani speak now.
19:35Diviani, go ahead.
19:37I find, like I said
19:39it very fascinating
19:40that the India alliance
19:42whenever it comes on board
19:43has no basis
19:44of reality or facts.
19:46I mean if you
19:46very easily open up
19:47I just need to go back
19:48to the 1975
19:50and 1977
19:51and everything
19:52that their governments
19:53have done
19:53are completely
19:55right in front of them.
19:56And that is not
19:57something that
19:58they never talk about.
19:59They very conveniently
20:00brush it under the rug
20:01and try to hide behind
20:03the institutions
20:05of this great nation.
20:06I mean you
20:07have so much
20:08if you have so much concern
20:10where are your evidences?
20:11Why is it that
20:12all of it is only in rhetoric?
20:14Why are you not able
20:15to file in your rejoiners
20:17a file in the Supreme Court
20:19all the data
20:20that you supposedly
20:21claim to always have?
20:22I feel that
20:23this is all posturing.
20:25They know that
20:25they have lost ground
20:27after their
20:28Ramlila ground attempt
20:30to you know
20:31have some semblance
20:32of a rally.
20:33They quickly figured out
20:34they have lost ground
20:36and how.
20:37They stand with
20:38the individuals
20:38who make
20:39seditious statements
20:40and even their own
20:42leaders cannot
20:43you know
20:44come on board
20:45and say whether
20:46they agree with
20:46the things that
20:47their own alliance
20:48is saying.
20:48So now
20:49because they have
20:50lost ground
20:50because they know
20:51that the people
20:52are no longer
20:53just listening to
20:53the words
20:54that they are saying
20:55and they are more
20:56keen to know
20:56what is happening
20:57on the ground.
20:58The Bharatiya Janta
20:59Party is on track
21:00to make
21:016 crore
21:02lakhpati diris.
21:03Mind you
21:04that amount
21:05of contribution
21:06into the GDP
21:08by women
21:09is unprecedented
21:10across the world.
21:11This is something
21:12that the BJP
21:12government has
21:13on a basis
21:14of
21:15I have just
21:15enough time
21:16for final comments
21:17from the two
21:17experts who are
21:19with us.
21:19Rashid Kidwai
21:20first to you
21:21and then Rajat Sethi
21:22gets the last word.
21:23We do
21:24and our words
21:25are reflected
21:26in our actions.
21:28Maria
21:29I think
21:30the institutions
21:31are coming
21:32under strain
21:33so there is
21:34no point
21:34saying that
21:35the institutions
21:36have not come
21:37if the institutions
21:38had come under
21:39strain
21:40during the earlier
21:41time
21:41it was bad
21:42but if it is
21:43happening now
21:43it is worse
21:44because there is
21:45a political party
21:45that always
21:46opposed
21:48Indira Gandhi
21:49and several other
21:50Congress governments
21:51are weakening
21:51the institutions.
21:53I find it bizarre
21:54why is
21:55the election commission
21:56needs to be defended
21:57by the BJP
21:58the election commission
21:59is independent
22:00of government
22:03so there is
22:05a lot
22:05of institutions
22:06are there
22:06if there is
22:07something
22:07so there is
22:08an overpulsization
22:09of Armforseg
22:10Reserve Bank
22:12UGC
22:13a lot of institutions
22:14I think
22:15there is a very
22:15strong case
22:16for that
22:1830 seconds
22:19let Rajat speak
22:23yes Rajat
22:2430 seconds
22:26so Maria ji
22:27any party
22:28which is in
22:29opposition
22:29remembers
22:31constitution
22:31and rightfully
22:33so they should
22:34seek shelter
22:35under the
22:36constitutional values
22:37but you also
22:38have to go on
22:39to the track
22:39record
22:40these very
22:40parties
22:41when they are
22:42in power
22:42how they
22:43crush the
22:44entire spirit
22:45of constitution
22:45has been a
22:47constant
22:47therefore
22:48just flashing
22:48the constitution
22:50in one hand
22:51and on the other
22:51hand
22:52waiting to
22:53somehow get
22:54into
22:54power corridors
22:55back
22:56and then try
22:57to install
22:58the same
22:58constitution
22:58has been
22:59written
22:59as part
23:00of our
23:00core history
23:01over and over
23:02again
23:02I just
23:03heard the
23:04difference
23:04of NAC
23:05what can be
23:05more laughable
23:06than that
23:07it was not
23:08an unconstitutional
23:09body
23:09but it was
23:09an extra
23:10constitutional
23:10body
23:11there is
23:11a basic
23:12difference
23:12when you
23:12have
23:13unelected
23:13member
23:14drafting
23:14the most
23:15important
23:15policies
23:16which
23:16clearly
23:17means
23:17that
23:17it is
23:18trying
23:18to act
23:19as an
23:19authority
23:19which does
23:20not have
23:20the mandate
23:21of the
23:21people
23:21of this
23:22country
23:22and still
23:23they went
23:23ahead
23:24these
23:24unelected
23:25activists
23:25who were
23:26trying to
23:26make
23:26policies
23:27for the
23:27country
23:27the same
23:28is carrying
23:28on now
23:29if you
23:29genuinely
23:30trust
23:30the
23:30institutions
23:31you can't
23:31say that
23:32I will drag
23:33the chief
23:33justice
23:33onto the
23:34streets
23:34this is
23:35what Kerala
23:35Congress
23:35intended to
23:36do
23:37and was an
23:37official
23:41judging
23:41their
23:41respect
23:42for these
23:42institutions
23:43if you
23:43want to
23:44doubt
23:44every
23:44institution
23:45what is
23:46that
23:46supreme
23:46institution
23:47which you
23:47are still
23:47relying on
23:48by flashing
23:48the constitutional
23:49book in your
23:50hand
23:50when you
23:51don't trust
23:51the Supreme
23:51Court
23:52you don't
23:52trust the
23:52election
23:52commission
23:53you don't
23:53trust the
23:54president's
23:54office as
23:55well
23:56you tried
23:56seeking
23:57appointment
23:58from the
23:58president
23:58the president
23:59said
23:59one thing
24:00and one
24:00thing
24:01alone
24:01that please
24:02give me
24:02the required
24:04evidences
24:04and I will
24:05act on it
24:05till date
24:06the leader
24:07of opposition
24:07hasn't had
24:08the time
24:08to again
24:09go and visit
24:09the honorable
24:10president
24:10and hand
24:11over that
24:11dozier
24:12with evidences
24:13I mean
24:13what kind
24:14of a
24:14respect
24:14does he
24:14talk about
24:16all right
24:17thank you
24:18so much
24:18for joining
24:18us
24:19we are
24:23shifting
24:23focus
24:24to another
24:24big story
24:25now
24:25he was
24:27the face
24:27of the
24:28AI revolution
24:29the man
24:30who turned
24:31Nvidia
24:32into a
24:33global
24:33powerhouse
24:34made computer
24:35chips
24:36one of the
24:37world's
24:37most valuable
24:39commodities
24:40and became
24:40the most
24:41influential
24:42executive
24:43in the
24:43AI industry
24:45but after
24:4533 years
24:46at the
24:47helm
24:47Jensen
24:48Huang's
24:48extraordinary
24:49run
24:50has come
24:51to an
24:51abrupt
24:52end
24:52three reported
24:54personal
24:54affairs
24:55a controversy
24:56involving
24:56alleged
24:57diversion
24:58of American
24:58chips
24:59to China
25:00and mounting
25:00national security
25:01questions
25:02have culminated
25:04in a dramatic
25:04exit
25:05and this
25:06is no
25:07ordinary
25:07corporate
25:08shake-up
25:09Huang's
25:10departure
25:10has rattled
25:12investors
25:12sent
25:13Nvidia
25:14shares
25:15tumbling
25:15and raised
25:16questions
25:17about the
25:18future
25:18of an
25:19AI boom
25:20built around
25:21his company's
25:22technology
25:22and vision
25:23so what
25:24happens to
25:25the artificial
25:25intelligence
25:26revolution
25:27without the
25:28man who
25:29powered it
25:29I'm going to
25:30ask all these
25:31questions
25:31to the
25:32guests
25:32who will
25:33be joining
25:33me shortly
25:34but first
25:34up
25:34here's a
25:35report
25:40he built
25:41Nvidia
25:41into the
25:42powerhouse
25:42of the
25:43artificial
25:43intelligence
25:44revolution
25:45turned
25:45computer
25:46chips
25:46into one
25:47of the
25:47world's
25:48most
25:48valuable
25:48commodities
25:49and became
25:50the most
25:50influential
25:51executive
25:52in the
25:52global
25:52AI
25:53industry
25:56but after
25:5733 years
25:58at the
25:58top
25:59Jensen
26:00Huang
26:00is out
26:01ousted
26:01following
26:02revelations
26:03about
26:03multiple
26:03personal
26:04relationships
26:05one of
26:06which has
26:06now
26:06triggered
26:07serious
26:07questions
26:07about
26:08China
26:08American
26:09technology
26:10and
26:10national
26:10security
26:11and the
26:12fallout
26:12is no
26:13longer
26:13confined
26:13to
26:14Nvidia's
26:14boat
26:15room
26:17Nvidia
26:18shares
26:19plunged
26:19as much
26:20as 14%
26:21after the
26:21news of
26:22Jensen's
26:22ouster
26:23before
26:23recovering
26:24some
26:24ground
26:24closing
26:25Thursday
26:26down
26:264.3%
26:27more than
26:28500
26:28billion
26:29dollars
26:29wiped
26:29off
26:30its
26:30market
26:31value
26:31since
26:31the
26:32scandal
26:32broke
26:33the
26:34selling
26:34spread
26:34to
26:35AI
26:35related
26:35companies
26:36including
26:36Micron
26:37Marvel
26:38and
26:38Core
26:38Veve
26:39as
26:40investors
26:40confronted
26:41a question
26:41that had
26:42long been
26:42overlooked
26:43can the
26:44world's
26:44most important
26:45AI
26:45chipmaker
26:46thrive
26:46without
26:46the man
26:47who
26:47built
26:47it
26:48chief
26:49financial
26:49officer
26:50Colette
26:50Kress
26:51has
26:51been
26:51named
26:51interim
26:52CEO
26:52but
26:53her
26:54immediate
26:54challenge
26:54is
26:55much
26:55bigger
26:55than
26:56steadying
26:56Nvidia's
26:57share
26:57price
26:58she
26:58must
26:59reassure
26:59investors
27:00protect
27:00billions
27:01of
27:01dollars
27:01in
27:01AI
27:02investment
27:02in
27:03companies
27:03like
27:03OpenAI
27:04XAI
27:05Antropic
27:06Intel
27:07SSI
27:08and convince
27:09customers that
27:10Nvidia's
27:11technological
27:11dominance
27:12does not
27:12depend
27:13on
27:13one
27:13individual
27:17At the
27:18heart
27:18of the
27:19controversy
27:19is
27:20Wong
27:20reported
27:20relationship
27:21with
27:21Alice
27:22Wong
27:22a
27:23former
27:23executive
27:23at
27:24Singapore
27:24based
27:25Megaspeed
27:25a
27:26major
27:26buyer
27:26of
27:27Nvidia
27:27chips
27:27that
27:28has
27:28faced
27:28scrutiny
27:29over
27:29possible
27:30diversion
27:30of
27:31restricted
27:31American
27:32technology
27:32to
27:32China
27:33The
27:34Justice
27:34Department
27:35is
27:35examining
27:36potential
27:36export
27:37control
27:37violations
27:38while
27:38questions
27:39have
27:39also
27:39emerged
27:40about
27:40whether
27:40Alice
27:41Wong
27:41had
27:42links
27:42to
27:42Chinese
27:42intelligence
27:44but
27:45American
27:45authorities
27:46have not
27:46yet
27:47established
27:47that
27:48she
27:48was
27:48a
27:48spy
27:49and
27:49both
27:49Nvidia
27:50and
27:50Megaspeed
27:51have
27:51denied
27:51wrongdoing
27:52So you
27:53assume
27:53that
27:54DOJ
27:55learns
27:56that
27:56she
27:56is
27:57in fact
27:57a
27:57spy
27:57I'm
27:58not
27:58nobody
27:59said
27:59that
27:59I
27:59certainly
28:00haven't
28:00said
28:00that
28:00and
28:00I
28:01don't
28:01all
28:02I
28:02said
28:02a
28:02minute
28:03ago
28:03and
28:03all
28:03that
28:03I
28:04think
28:04I
28:04will
28:04say
28:05is
28:05that
28:05of course
28:06DOJ
28:06is
28:06investigator
28:07looking at
28:08it
28:08so
28:08there's
28:08no
28:09conclusions
28:10reached
28:10by the
28:10Department
28:11of Justice
28:11or by
28:11me
28:11or by
28:12Director
28:12Patel
28:13around
28:14who she
28:14is or
28:14is not
28:15I don't
28:16have concerns
28:16with the
28:17Commerce
28:17Department
28:17I don't
28:18we have a
28:19good
28:19relationship
28:19with the
28:19Commerce
28:20Department
28:20I've read
28:21some of
28:22the stories
28:22which
28:23are sourced
28:24or not
28:24sourced
28:25and so
28:25I don't
28:26have any
28:27but no
28:27I don't
28:27have
28:27the answer
28:28to your
28:28question
28:28is no
28:29I don't
28:29have any
28:30concerns
28:30The
28:31distinction
28:31is crucial
28:32because while
28:33the espionage
28:34allegations
28:34remain
28:35unproven
28:35the
28:36investigation
28:36into
28:37possible
28:37chip
28:37diversion
28:38could have
28:39consequences
28:39for the
28:40entire
28:40global
28:41AI supply
28:42chain
28:42The
28:45political
28:45fallout
28:46is gathering
28:47pace
28:47in
28:47Washington
28:47where
28:48Democrats
28:49are
28:49demanding
28:49answers
28:50about
28:50whether
28:51sensitive
28:51American
28:52technology
28:53may have
28:53reached
28:54China
28:54and
28:54whether
28:55national
28:55security
28:56was
28:56compromised
28:57It
28:58was the
28:58right
28:58thing
28:58to
28:58do
28:59now
28:59we
29:00have
29:00to
29:00get
29:00to
29:00the
29:00bottom
29:01of
29:01whether
29:02America's
29:02national
29:03security
29:03has
29:03been
29:04compromised
29:04We
29:05need
29:05a
29:05classified
29:05briefing
29:06made
29:07available
29:07to
29:08members
29:08of
29:08Congress
29:09as it
29:10relates
29:10to
29:10the
29:10NVIDIA
29:11situation
29:11and to
29:13the
29:13extent
29:13that
29:14our
29:14national
29:14security
29:15has
29:16been
29:16compromised
29:16the
29:17American
29:18people
29:18deserve
29:19answers
29:19and we're
29:21going to
29:21work
29:21to
29:22make
29:22sure
29:22that
29:22happens
29:23With
29:23congressional
29:24scrutiny
29:24expected
29:25to
29:25intensify
29:26NVIDIA
29:27now faces
29:27the
29:28prospect of
29:28tougher
29:29export
29:29restrictions
29:30more
29:30aggressive
29:31oversight
29:32and
29:32potential
29:32greater
29:33limitations
29:33on its
29:34access to
29:35the
29:35Chinese
29:35market
29:36and that
29:37could also
29:37deliver a
29:38major blow
29:39to
29:39Chinese
29:39AI
29:40developers
29:40many of
29:41whom still
29:42depend on
29:42American
29:43chips to
29:44power their
29:44most advanced
29:45systems
29:47markets
29:47US President
29:48Donald Trump
29:49added his
29:50own
29:50unexpected
29:50twist
29:51to
29:51NVIDIA's
29:52succession
29:52drama
29:53publicly
29:53suggesting
29:54that
29:55former
29:55Apple
29:55chief
29:56Tim
29:56Cook
29:56take
29:57over
29:57the
29:57chipmaker
29:58calling
29:58both men
29:59legends
30:00Trump's
30:00intervention
30:01has thrown
30:02another
30:02spotlight
30:03on a
30:03company
30:03already
30:04under
30:04intense
30:05political
30:05and
30:06investor
30:06scrutiny
30:08for
30:09Wongle's
30:10NVIDIA
30:10the
30:11immediate
30:11priority
30:12is
30:12stability
30:12but the
30:13long-term
30:14challenge
30:14is whether
30:15it can
30:15preserve
30:16the
30:16business
30:16empire
30:17its
30:17dynamic
30:18founder
30:18and
30:18former
30:19CEO
30:19created
30:20including
30:21its
30:21closely
30:21interconnected
30:22investments
30:23customers
30:24and
30:24partnerships
30:24across
30:25the
30:26AI
30:26industry
30:26rivals
30:28AMD
30:28Intel
30:29and
30:29Broadcom
30:30could
30:30see
30:31an
30:31opening
30:32while
30:32investors
30:33will be
30:33watching
30:34whether
30:34customers
30:35reconsider
30:36their
30:36dependence
30:36on
30:37NVIDIA
30:37and
30:38whether
30:38Washington's
30:39next
30:39moves
30:40disrupt
30:40the
30:41global
30:41chip
30:41trade
30:44Bureau
30:45Report
30:45Business
30:46Today
30:46Television
30:50And
30:50joining me
30:51now is
30:51Ross
30:52Feingold
30:53who is
30:53an Asia
30:54political
30:54risk
30:55analyst
30:56We also
30:57have
30:57Enes
30:57Napinai
30:58Senior
30:59Advocate
30:59of the
30:59Supreme
31:00Court
31:00and
31:00founder
31:01of
31:01Cyber
31:01Sati
31:02We also
31:04have
31:04Richard
31:04I can
31:04see
31:05Richard
31:05Sanders
31:05also
31:06joining
31:06us
31:06He is
31:07former
31:07member
31:08of the
31:08US
31:08Department
31:09of
31:09State
31:10Senior
31:10Foreign
31:11Service
31:11He is
31:13a foreign
31:14policy
31:14expert
31:15I'm going
31:16to begin
31:17with you
31:17Ross
31:17What
31:18changes
31:19between
31:20China
31:21and US
31:23now
31:23Has
31:24Jensen
31:24Huang's
31:25departure
31:25fundamentally
31:27changed
31:28the equation
31:29now
31:29between
31:31US and
31:33China
31:33and
31:33is
31:34NVIDIA's
31:34China
31:35business
31:35now
31:36a
31:36national
31:37security
31:37liability
31:38for the
31:38United
31:39States
31:40Well
31:41one thing
31:42to keep
31:42in mind
31:43is
31:43actually
31:44in recent
31:45years
31:46the legal
31:47channel
31:48for NVIDIA
31:49to sell its
31:50chips
31:50to China
31:51had all
31:52but evaporated
31:54first there
31:54were
31:54restrictions
31:56imposed by
31:56the United
31:57States
31:58this was
31:58followed by
31:59a partial
31:59relaxation
32:00by President
32:01Trump
32:02but
32:02subsequent
32:03to
32:03President
32:04Trump's
32:04relaxation
32:05China
32:06basically
32:07told the
32:07potential
32:08buyers
32:09within
32:10China
32:10we don't
32:10want you
32:11to buy
32:11NVIDIA
32:12chips
32:13now all
32:13that being
32:14said
32:14if we put
32:15aside the
32:16revenue
32:16opportunities
32:17or lost
32:19opportunities
32:19for NVIDIA
32:21there's
32:21certainly
32:22significant
32:23US-China
32:25relations
32:26and competition
32:26issues
32:27that are
32:28at stake
32:29here
32:29one
32:30it's
32:30very
32:31clear
32:31that
32:32chips
32:32were
32:33illegally
32:34trans-chipped
32:35to
32:35China
32:36and
32:37there
32:38are
32:38already
32:38people
32:38who
32:39are
32:39under
32:39indictment
32:40in
32:40different
32:40countries
32:41for
32:41engaging
32:42in
32:42those
32:42activities
32:43so
32:44that
32:44was
32:44a
32:44clear
32:45criminal
32:45violation
32:46of
32:47US
32:47law
32:48and
32:48the
32:48US
32:49government
32:49is
32:50pursuing
32:50that
32:51the
32:51other
32:51issue
32:52here
32:52which
32:52we
32:53simply
32:53don't
32:54know
32:54the
32:54answer
32:55to
32:55yet
32:55is
32:56what
32:56if
32:57any
32:57information
32:58Mr.
32:58Wong
32:59may
32:59have
32:59shared
33:00with
33:00Ms.
33:01Wong
33:01about
33:01market
33:02outlook
33:02about
33:03his
33:03discussions
33:04with
33:04US
33:05government
33:05officials
33:06including
33:06potentially
33:07President
33:08Trump
33:08and
33:09if
33:09he
33:09did
33:10and
33:10again
33:10we
33:11don't
33:11know
33:11that
33:12he
33:12did
33:12but
33:12if
33:13he
33:13did
33:13did
33:13she
33:14then
33:14share
33:14that
33:15information
33:15with
33:16the
33:16Chinese
33:16government
33:17that
33:17we
33:18simply
33:18don't
33:18know
33:18either
33:19at
33:20the
33:20moment
33:20so
33:21there
33:21are
33:21a number
33:21of
33:22aspects
33:22that
33:22certainly
33:23require
33:24additional
33:25investigation
33:26now
33:27as far
33:27as
33:27when
33:28President
33:28Trump
33:28meets
33:29President
33:29Xi
33:30next
33:30week
33:31I
33:31don't
33:31think
33:32this
33:32topic
33:32will
33:33be
33:33something
33:34that
33:34they
33:35discuss
33:35because
33:35ultimately
33:36President
33:37Trump
33:37could only
33:38say
33:38we don't
33:39want
33:39you
33:56is it
33:56with
33:57Xi
33:58Jinping
33:58let
33:59me
33:59bring
33:59in
33:59NS
34:00Napinai
34:00ma'am
34:01when
34:01a
34:01CEO
34:02controls
34:03a
34:03company
34:03central
34:04to
34:04global
34:04AI
34:05infrastructure
34:06can
34:06a
34:07personal
34:07scandal
34:08become
34:08a
34:08national
34:08security
34:09threat
34:09and
34:10where
34:10does
34:11corporate
34:11responsibility
34:13begin
34:14so
34:15this
34:16is
34:16actually
34:16a
34:17very
34:17complicated
34:17question
34:18I'll
34:19try
34:19to
34:19simplify
34:20it
34:20as
34:20much
34:21as
34:21I
34:21can
34:21the
34:22first
34:23and
34:23foremost
34:23thing
34:23is
34:24unlike
34:24in
34:25India
34:25in
34:25the
34:26US
34:26fundamental
34:26rights
34:27are
34:27absolute
34:28so
34:29you
34:29would
34:29assume
34:29that
34:30you
34:30would
34:30have
34:30a
34:32free
34:32right
34:32in
34:32terms
34:33of
34:33your
34:33free
34:33speech
34:34expression
34:34privacy
34:35etc
34:36but
34:37having
34:37said
34:38that
34:38what
34:39happens
34:39and
34:39this
34:40is
34:40not
34:40something
34:40new
34:41what
34:41happens
34:42with
34:42most
34:42corporates
34:43is
34:43contractual
34:44responsibilities
34:45and
34:46liabilities
34:46are
34:47mounted
34:47on
34:48particularly
34:49top
34:49management
34:50because
34:50what
34:51they
34:51do
34:51including
34:52in
34:52their
34:53personal
34:53lives
34:54can
34:54impact
34:55the
34:55company
34:56can
34:56impact
34:57its
34:57rights
34:59its
34:59profits
35:00etc
35:01a
35:01critical
35:02case
35:02of
35:03causes
35:03of
35:04illustrative
35:05cases
35:06are
35:06where
35:06top
35:07management
35:08has
35:08been
35:09held
35:09liable
35:09for
35:10violation
35:10though
35:11it
35:11was
35:11their
35:12private
35:12lives
35:12where
35:13there
35:13were
35:14accusations
35:15of
35:15sexual
35:16harassment
35:16for
35:17instance
35:17where
35:18the
35:18company
35:18has
35:19very
35:19clear
35:19policies
35:20which
35:20says
35:20you
35:20cannot
35:21have
35:21a
35:21relationship
35:22internally
35:23similarly
35:24when you
35:24talk
35:24about
35:25national
35:25security
35:26always
35:27national
35:28security
35:29trumps
35:29all
35:30and
35:30here
35:31we are
35:31talking
35:32about
35:32a
35:32company
35:33which
35:33is
35:33involved
35:34in
35:34technology
35:35and
35:36the
35:36issue
35:37that
35:37has
35:37been
35:37raised
35:38it
35:38is
35:38still
35:39subject
35:39to
35:40proof
35:40so
35:40I
35:41would
35:41qualify
35:41it
35:42with
35:42that
35:42and
35:42say
35:43that
35:43we
35:43are
35:43still
35:44awaiting
35:44proof
35:44of
35:45whether
35:45indeed
35:46it
35:46has
35:46been
35:47a
35:47national
35:48security
35:49threat
35:49but
35:50if
35:50it
35:50were
35:50then
35:51the
35:52country
35:52would
35:52be
35:53well
35:53within
35:53its
35:54rights
35:54to
35:54initiate
35:55action
35:56and
35:57that
35:57could
35:57be
35:58contingent
35:59on
35:59what
36:00are
36:00the
36:00laws
36:00that
36:01they
36:01will
36:01be
36:01applying
36:01and
36:02what
36:02they
36:02say
36:03is
36:03likely
36:03to
36:04be
36:04a
36:04violation
36:05but
36:05ultimately
36:06everything
36:06gets
36:07pegged
36:07to
36:08a
36:08contractual
36:08responsibility
36:09or
36:10liability
36:10which
36:11makes
36:11it
36:11easier
36:12whether
36:12it
36:12is
36:12in terms
36:13of
36:13corporate
36:13rights
36:14or
36:14with
36:15respect
36:15to
36:15national
36:15security
36:16but
36:17will
36:17that
36:18truth
36:18ever
36:18come
36:18out
36:19because
36:20we
36:21only
36:21know
36:22two
36:22facts
36:22here
36:23first
36:24I mean
36:24what is
36:25there
36:25in the
36:25public
36:25domain
36:26of
36:26course
36:26there's
36:26lot
36:27of
36:27reporting
36:28which
36:28is
36:28happening
36:28of
36:29an
36:29alleged
36:30third
36:30affair
36:30an
36:31alleged
36:32understanding
36:32that
36:34the
36:34lady
36:35in
36:35question
36:35has
36:36gone
36:36back
36:36to
36:37Beijing
36:37that
36:38there
36:38was
36:38some
36:38underhand
36:39dealing
36:39between
36:40her
36:40husband
36:40and
36:40others
36:41so
36:41it's
36:42very
36:42complicated
36:43and
36:43with
36:43every
36:44passing
36:44day
36:44the
36:45scandal
36:45seems
36:45to be
36:46getting
36:46more
36:46murkier
36:47do you
36:47think
36:48we'll
36:48know
36:48the
36:48truth
36:49ever
36:50what
36:50really
36:50happened
36:51was
36:51she
36:51really
36:52a
36:52spy
36:52yeah
36:53the
36:53good
36:54news
36:54is
36:54that
36:55unlike
36:55physical
36:56world
36:56evidence
36:57electronic
36:58evidence
36:58always
36:59leaves
36:59a
37:00trail
37:00but
37:01I
37:01called
37:01it
37:01in
37:02my
37:02book
37:02I
37:02call
37:03it
37:03the
37:03breadcrumb
37:03trail
37:04as in
37:04Hansen
37:05and Gretel
37:05because if
37:06you catch
37:07the trail
37:08early
37:08you have
37:09it
37:09if you
37:10leave it
37:10too late
37:10you may
37:11miss it
37:11out
37:13okay
37:13Richard
37:14come in
37:14now
37:15if
37:15Nvidia's
37:16leadership
37:16is
37:16vulnerable
37:17its
37:18supply
37:19chains
37:19are
37:19exposed
37:20and
37:20China
37:21is
37:21catching
37:21up
37:22then
37:23can
37:23America
37:24realistically
37:25maintain
37:26its
37:26artificial
37:27intelligence
37:27supremacy
37:28do you
37:29think
37:29that is
37:29under
37:30threat
37:30now
37:35Richard
37:36if you
37:36heard me
37:39I
37:40think
37:40we
37:40need
37:41to
37:41see
37:42exactly
37:43where
37:43this
37:43is
37:43going
37:44this
37:44is
37:45a
37:45classic
37:45Washington
37:46scandal
37:46that
37:47has
37:47everything
37:48it
37:48has
37:48high
37:50tech
37:50it
37:51has
37:51high
37:51politics
37:52it
37:53has
37:53vast
37:53amounts
37:53of
37:54money
37:54it
37:55has
37:55sex
37:55it
37:56has
37:56international
37:56affairs
37:57at the
37:58most
37:58intense
37:59layer
37:59so
38:00we're
38:01just
38:01only now
38:02beginning
38:02to see
38:03where
38:03this
38:03is
38:03going
38:04but
38:04is
38:04entirely
38:05correct
38:06that
38:06this
38:06is
38:07going
38:07to
38:07have
38:07ramifications
38:08throughout
38:09the
38:09artificial
38:11intelligence
38:11industry
38:12really
38:13throughout
38:13the
38:13global
38:14economy
38:14we
38:15have
38:15to
38:15remember
38:16NVIDIA
38:16is
38:17enormously
38:18important
38:19for the
38:20creation
38:20of these
38:21so-called
38:22frontier
38:22chips
38:23or
38:24accelerators
38:25it
38:26is
38:27it
38:27has
38:27got
38:27a
38:28dominant
38:29role
38:29in this
38:3080%
38:31of
38:31the
38:31of
38:32these
38:32of
38:32these
38:33chips
38:33that
38:34essentially
38:34educate
38:35artificial
38:36intelligence
38:36models
38:37are produced
38:38by NVIDIA
38:39it
38:40has
38:40a
38:41capitalization
38:42of
38:42$4 trillion
38:43so
38:45to
38:45the
38:45extent
38:46that
38:47NVIDIA
38:48starts
38:48to
38:48look like
38:50it's
38:50in a
38:50more
38:50complicated
38:51situation
38:52we are
38:52going to
38:53see
38:54ripple
38:55effects
38:55throughout
38:56the
38:56industry
38:57and
38:57on
38:58to
38:58the
38:59various
38:59countries
39:00in
39:00Asia
39:00that
39:01have
39:01essentially
39:02become
39:02aligned
39:03with
39:03it
39:03whether
39:03it's
39:04South
39:04Korea
39:04or
39:05Malaysia
39:05there
39:06are
39:06others
39:06that
39:06actually
39:07produce
39:07the
39:07physical
39:08chips
39:08that
39:09NVIDIA
39:09is
39:10designing
39:11and
39:11it
39:12all
39:12comes
39:12at
39:12a
39:12time
39:13in
39:13which
39:14internationally
39:15and
39:15certainly
39:16in
39:16the
39:16United
39:16States
39:17there's
39:17a
39:18great
39:18deal
39:18of
39:18concern
39:19over
39:19what
39:20exactly
39:21artificial
39:22intelligence
39:23is
39:23leading
39:23us
39:24to
39:24we
39:24see
39:25concerns
39:25at
39:26one
39:26end
39:27during
39:27the
39:28US
39:28elections
39:28the
39:29whole
39:29question
39:30of
39:30data
39:30centers
39:31had
39:32become
39:32zoomed
39:33to the
39:34top
39:34of
39:34the
39:35American
39:35public's
39:36concerns
39:36and
39:37beyond
39:37that
39:38the
39:39question
39:39of
39:39what
39:41will
39:41artificial
39:41intelligence
39:42do
39:42to
39:42our
39:43jobs
39:43so
39:44if
39:44in
39:44the
39:44middle
39:44of
39:45all
39:45this
39:45a
39:46scandal
39:47arises
39:48that
39:49has
39:49to
39:49do
39:49with
39:49the
39:50largest
39:50company
39:50in
39:51this
39:52sector
39:53with
39:53this
39:54dynamic
39:55leader
39:56who
39:57seem
39:57to
39:57have
39:57an
39:57extremely
39:58close
39:58relationship
39:59with
39:59the
39:59president
40:00of
40:00the
40:00United
40:00States
40:01it
40:02is
40:02going
40:02to
40:03have
40:03very
40:04interesting
40:05effects
40:06to put
40:06it
40:06mildly
40:07you
40:08have
40:08actually
40:09put it
40:10quite
40:10well
40:11when
40:11you
40:11said
40:11that
40:12this
40:12is
40:12a
40:12perfect
40:13Washington
40:13scandal
40:14so
40:15Richard
40:15help
40:15us
40:16understand
40:16with
40:17Howard
40:18Lutnick
40:18also
40:19facing
40:19scrutiny
40:20is
40:21this
40:22exposing
40:22a
40:23deeper
40:23failure
40:24in
40:24the
40:24Trump
40:25administration's
40:26China
40:26and
40:27semiconductor
40:27policy
40:31in
40:32all
40:32fairness
40:32these
40:33are
40:33difficult
40:34questions
40:36we
40:36have
40:36the
40:37United
40:37States
40:38certainly
40:38has
40:38identified
40:39this
40:40kind
40:40of
40:40technology
40:41as
40:41an
40:41area
40:42in
40:42which
40:42it
40:42wants
40:42to
40:43maintain
40:43dominance
40:44the
40:45question
40:45is
40:45how
40:45do
40:45you
40:45do
40:46it
40:46you
40:47essentially
40:47try
40:48to
40:48completely
40:49restrict
40:51provision
40:51of these
40:52highly
40:53powerful
40:53chips
40:54to
40:54China
40:55and
40:56thus
40:56kind
40:56of
40:57keeping
40:57it
40:57further
40:58behind
40:58but
40:59if
40:59you
40:59do
40:59that
41:00aren't
41:00you
41:00just
41:00encouraging
41:01China
41:01to
41:02develop
41:03its
41:03own
41:03industry
41:04much
41:04more
41:04rapidly
41:05than
41:05it
41:05otherwise
41:06would
41:06so
41:07these
41:07are
41:08genuine
41:08dilemmas
41:09the
41:10question
41:11is
41:11is
41:11this
41:12being
41:12resolved
41:13and
41:13analyzed
41:14in
41:15a
41:15straightforward
41:16arms
41:17length
41:17kind
41:17of
41:17way
41:18or
41:18are
41:18personal
41:19connections
41:20between
41:21Jensen
41:22Huang
41:22and
41:23senior
41:23White
41:23House
41:24officials
41:24influencing
41:25the
41:26analysis
41:26that
41:27we're
41:27taking
41:27to
41:28it
41:28certainly
41:29President
41:29Trump
41:30has
41:30made
41:30it
41:30clear
41:31that
41:32he
41:32thought
41:32that
41:32Jensen
41:33Huang
41:33was a
41:33great
41:33leader
41:34and
41:35he
41:35was
41:35really
41:36up until
41:37Huang's
41:38resignation
41:38he was
41:39apparently
41:39urging him
41:40to stay
41:40on
41:41Howard
41:42Lutnick
41:42the
41:42secretary
41:43of commerce
41:43has been
41:44the point
41:44man
41:44on our
41:45policy
41:45involving
41:46chips
41:46and
41:47China
41:47and
41:48the
41:49question
41:50now
41:50is
41:50did
41:51he
41:51essentially
41:51ignore
41:52the views
41:52of others
41:53within the
41:54United States
41:54government
41:55of the
41:55secretary
41:56of the
41:56treasury
41:57besant
41:57of
41:58secretary
41:58of state
41:59Marco
41:59Rubio
42:00and
42:01really
42:02sort of
42:02push
42:03not to
42:05impose
42:05the kind
42:06of
42:06controls
42:07that other
42:07very very
42:08powerful and
42:09senior people
42:10in the US
42:10government
42:11were arguing
42:12for
42:14Ross
42:14so tell me
42:15I mean
42:15Jensen
42:16Huang
42:17has exited
42:18the company
42:18from the role
42:20of the CEO
42:20I mean
42:21at present
42:22he's no
42:22longer
42:22the CEO
42:24Donald Trump
42:25has taken
42:25to social
42:27media
42:27and has
42:27made this
42:28big announcement
42:29that it will
42:30be Tim Cook
42:30who will be
42:31taking over
42:31the reins
42:32what happens
42:33to Nvidia
42:33and
42:34should the
42:35Nvidia
42:36board
42:36have
42:37given
42:38Jensen
42:38Huang
42:39perhaps
42:39second
42:39chance
42:42had
42:43some kind
42:43of faith
42:44or perhaps
42:45even
42:45waited
42:46for the
42:46investigation
42:47to
42:47conclude
42:49without
42:50with the
42:51investigation
42:51still ongoing
42:52why ask
42:54Jensen
42:54Huang
42:54to
42:55resign
42:59first
42:59of all
43:00I would
43:00take with
43:02a grain of
43:02salt
43:03President
43:03Trump's
43:04comments
43:04about
43:04Tim Cook
43:05I have
43:06no idea
43:06whether
43:06Tim Cook
43:07is interested
43:08in taking
43:08over
43:09Nvidia
43:10or whether
43:12Nvidia's
43:12board
43:13is interested
43:13in him
43:14doing it
43:14to me
43:15that sounds
43:16like an
43:17interesting idea
43:17that the
43:18president
43:18had
43:19but
43:19whether
43:20it will
43:20have
43:20any
43:20effect
43:21in the
43:22real
43:22world
43:22is
43:23something
43:23I
43:23would
43:23want
43:24to
43:24wait
43:24to
43:24before
43:25I
43:25gave
43:26any
43:26credence
43:26to
43:27that
43:28you
43:29know
43:30what
43:31the
43:31board
43:31of Nvidia
43:32should
43:32or
43:32should
43:33not
43:33have
43:33done
43:33is
43:34a
43:34very
43:35complicated
43:36question
43:36because
43:37a firestorm
43:39has been
43:39raging
43:40internationally
43:41at the
43:41highest
43:42levels
43:42of politics
43:43at the
43:43highest
43:44levels
43:44of markets
43:45around
43:46the world
43:46I'm not
43:47sure
43:47that simply
43:48trying to
43:49ride it
43:49out
43:50and say
43:50we'll
43:51wait
43:51and see
43:51and we'll
43:52do our
43:53own
43:53investigation
43:53which will
43:54take time
43:55and a
43:55law firm
43:56engaged
43:56etc.
43:57would have
43:58been really
43:58feasible
43:59we're already
44:00seeing in the
44:00United States
44:01Congress
44:01getting engaged
44:03they're seeking
44:04to subpoena
44:04Jensen Huang
44:05to testify
44:08complicated legal
44:09issues
44:10including criminal
44:10liability
44:11seem to be
44:12raised at this
44:13point
44:13so
44:14I'm not
44:15sure
44:15that it
44:15really
44:15would have
44:16been
44:16feasible
44:16to say
44:17well
44:17we're
44:17just
44:18going
44:18to
44:18wait
44:18and
44:18see
44:18okay
44:19Ross
44:20what do
44:20you think
44:21Ross
44:22Faingold
44:22this is a
44:23question
44:23to you
44:24well
44:25as far
44:26as the
44:26interactions
44:27with the
44:28board
44:28yeah
44:29a lot
44:29of people
44:30are saying
44:30that the
44:31board of
44:31directors
44:32should have
44:32given
44:33Mr.
44:33Huang
44:33a second
44:34chance
44:35but
44:35like so
44:36much
44:37else
44:37surrounding
44:38these
44:39events
44:39we simply
44:40don't know
44:41what the
44:41discussions
44:42were between
44:43Mr.
44:43Huang
44:43and the
44:44board of
44:45directors
44:45so to
44:46give one
44:47very direct
44:48but simple
44:48example
44:49if they had
44:50asked him
44:51is there
44:52anything else
44:52you need
44:53to tell
44:53us
44:54any other
44:56extramarital
44:57affairs
44:57or other
44:58things you
44:59have done
45:00that might
45:00affect
45:01the company
45:02the credibility
45:03of the company
45:04in the public
45:05markets
45:06reputational
45:07risk for the
45:07company
45:08and if you
45:09didn't disclose
45:09those but then
45:10hours or days
45:11later we had
45:12this news
45:13about a
45:14relationship
45:15potentially with
45:16an employee
45:17that reports
45:19to him
45:19then there
45:20are going
45:20to be people
45:21on the board
45:21of directors
45:22who would
45:22say well
45:23we asked
45:23you a
45:24question
45:24and frankly
45:25you weren't
45:26forthright
45:26with us
45:27and that
45:28would be
45:29an offense
45:29where you'd
45:30have to say
45:30that the
45:31board of
45:32directors
45:32would terminate
45:34him
45:34so we
45:35simply don't
45:36know what
45:37the discussions
45:38were and
45:39what information
45:40the directors
45:40had
45:41that prompted
45:43them to
45:43then say
45:44well you
45:45told us
45:46something but
45:46we still feel
45:48we have to
45:48protect the
45:50company and
45:51the shareholders
45:52and thus we
45:53have to push
45:53you out of
45:54the company
45:55I think we'll
45:56find out
45:57eventually if
45:58that was the
45:58case but it's
45:59certainly a
46:00possibility
46:00okay
46:01try and sum
46:03it up for us
46:04you know because
46:04I'm trying to
46:05understand has
46:06the board
46:06Nvidia
46:07both cut
46:08its losses
46:08by seeking
46:10the resignation
46:10of Jensen
46:11Huang or have
46:12they landed
46:13themselves much
46:13in trouble
46:14because here
46:15is the chief
46:16executive who
46:17is the founder
46:17who is the
46:18visionary who
46:19is the chief
46:19salesman he
46:20is everything
46:20that Nvidia
46:21is today and
46:23for him to
46:23exit what will
46:25be Nvidia
46:25without Jensen
46:26Huang
46:32Ms. Napinai
46:33if you heard
46:34me
46:35yes I'm
46:36sorry I
46:37thought the
46:37question was
46:38to someone
46:38else well
46:41you know in
46:42terms of
46:42corporate
46:44responsibility
46:45and the way
46:46a corporate
46:46entity is
46:47structured
46:48first and
46:49foremost whether
46:50you are a
46:51founder or a
46:51promoter once
46:53you have
46:53shareholders
46:54external
46:55shareholders
46:55once you
46:56are answerable
46:57to others
46:57then that
46:58role that
46:59you envisage
47:00as you know
47:01as a founder
47:02gets diluted
47:03so your
47:04rights or
47:05your entitlements
47:06get subsumed
47:07to those of
47:08the larger
47:09group you
47:09know it
47:10could be of
47:10the stakeholders
47:11it could be
47:12of your
47:12vendors the
47:13customers etc
47:14so today
47:15when you are
47:16looking at it
47:17from a legal
47:18perspective I
47:18don't want to
47:19venture into the
47:20political aspects
47:20of it and
47:21there are quite
47:22a few nuances
47:22there but
47:23sticking to the
47:24legality of
47:25it he has
47:27exited so
47:28it's kind of
47:29like a bloodless
47:30coup but
47:31whether that's
47:32going to spell
47:33well for the
47:34company or not
47:35only time can
47:36tell but again
47:37an exit from a
47:39particular role
47:39may not necessarily
47:40mean an exit from
47:42the company itself
47:42he would continue
47:43to be a shareholder
47:44promoter he would
47:45continue to
47:46contribute the
47:47issue really here
47:49is I think the
47:50takeaway here is
47:51this when you
47:53have a technology
47:54company when that
47:55technology has
47:57far-reaching
47:58consequences when
47:59you have customers
48:01who are probably
48:01government entities
48:02your role and
48:04responsibility is
48:06much higher than
48:07that of any other
48:09CEO or a top
48:10management person
48:11you need to
48:12exercise an extra
48:13level of caution as
48:15an individual the
48:16company needs to
48:17exercise a higher
48:18level of protective
48:20measures guardrails
48:21through their
48:22policies and internal
48:23functionalities and
48:25cross-checks and
48:26verification processes
48:27and any external
48:30entity including a
48:31government which
48:32engages with such
48:33companies as a
48:34vendor will have to
48:36evaluate the what
48:39we call you know
48:40the weakest link in
48:41the technology chain
48:43too is this going to
48:44be a weak link and
48:45how is it going to
48:46impact them I think
48:47these kind of
48:48preventive protective
48:49measures will go a
48:51long way in terms of
48:52assuring cyber security
48:54in terms of corporate
48:55permissibilities some
48:58you know transparency
48:59and clarity in terms
49:02of what happens when
49:03something goes wrong
49:05and having a process
49:06driven methodology
49:08instead of a knee-jerk
49:09reaction would be a
49:10better alternative
49:12just 30 seconds to
49:13you ma'am as well do
49:15you think the
49:15artificial intelligence
49:17ecosystem changes
49:18forever
49:20with this case I
49:22don't really think so
49:23we have seen so much
49:25of AI bias already
49:26talked about we
49:28also know that this
49:30AI bias can be
49:32manipulated and
49:33that's the kind of
49:34situation we are
49:35looking at today does
49:37it mean we are going
49:38to eschew this
49:39technology certainly
49:40not this is here to
49:42stay AI is here to
49:44stay usage and
49:45adaptation to AI is
49:47going to continue
49:48how far we put in
49:50guardrails how
49:51careful are we going
49:52to be is something
49:53that I hope will
49:54change but I am
49:55very doubtful that
49:56it really will make
49:57a difference
49:58all right thank you
49:59so much for your
50:00time here miss
50:01Nappi Nye Ross
50:02Faingold and
50:03Richard Sanders of
50:04course there are
50:05several chapters in
50:06this scandal which is
50:07yet to unfold a
50:08story we'll continue
50:09to track very very
50:10closely thanks so much
50:11watching
50:12you
50:12you