In a world where technological dominance is often equated with national power, the spotlight on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) reveals uncomfortable truths about global power dynamics. Jensen Huang’s recent praise—declaring TSMC as one of “the greatest companies in human history”—is more than mere diplomatic flattery: it’s an acknowledgment of the strategic importance that this Taiwanese entity holds. Yet, beneath these accolades lies an unsettling reality: American hopes of reclaiming semiconductor supremacy are increasingly misguided. TSMC’s pioneering role in advanced fabrication makes it a critical node in the global supply chain, and despite U.S. efforts, it remains fundamentally out of reach to national ambitions that center solely on American soil.
What is truly staggering is how a Taiwanese company has become the backbone of the world’s most sophisticated chip production. It demonstrates that economic and technological power isn’t dictated solely by government initiatives or grand legislative acts like the CHIPS Act; instead, it is rooted in innovation, expertise, and a globalized supply network that transcends borders. The idea that American policymakers can simply acquire stakes in TSMC or replicate its success through subsidies is both naïve and shortsighted. As Huang emphasizes, TSMC is not just a manufacturer but a technological marvel, designing next-generation chips that power AI and computing—the very engines of future progress.
The U.S. Strategy: A Distraction at Best, A Threat at Worst
The U.S. government’s push to secure its semiconductor future through investments and potential equity stakes is driven by a justified fear of losing technological leadership. However, this approach veers dangerously toward a self-perpetuating illusion of control. The effort to entice TSMC, Samsung, and other global leaders to operate within U.S. borders via massive subsidies and grants under the guise of national security risks becoming counterproductive. It exposes how America’s focus on transactional alliances and direct ownership misses the nuanced reality: innovation ecosystems cannot be easily commandeered through legislation or financial incentives alone.
Furthermore, the recent news about the government contemplating stakes in companies like Intel and other chipmakers reveals a strategic retreat from technological sovereignty. These moves are often portrayed as bold statements of economic patriotism but can instead serve as signals of vulnerability. They demonstrate that despite their expansive rhetoric, U.S. policymakers recognize that they are losing their technological edge, relying on Taiwan and South Korea rather than cultivating local innovation. The narrative that these investments will restore American dominance is flawed; true leadership in microelectronics depends on sustained investment in research, talent, and infrastructure—elements that no amount of government stakeholding can substitute.
The Myth of Self-Sufficiency in a Globalized Industry
Huang’s explanation about Nvidia’s upcoming projects with TSMC exposes another fallacy: that a country or company can be truly self-sufficient in cutting-edge tech manufacturing. Nvidia’s reliance on TSMC to produce its newest chips highlights the interconnectedness of today’s tech industry. The idea that the U.S. can build a resilient, independent supply chain by merely incentivizing domestic production ignores how deeply integrated the global semiconductor supply chain already is.
In fact, the expansion of TSMC’s investment in the U.S., including the multibillion-dollar fabrication plants in Arizona, is not a sign of U.S. resurgence but a strategic hedge. It’s a recognition that even the most advanced manufacturing requires a global network of innovation, talent, and raw materials—none of which can be fully localized without sacrificing competitiveness. By attempting to isolate the industry within national borders through legislation and subsidies, the United States risks creating a fragile, inefficient system vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions and technological stagnation.
Power Is No Longer in Borders but in Expertise and Innovation
This narrative of technological nationalism is increasingly outdated. The true source of power in semiconductor manufacturing lies in mastery over complex, specialized processes—an expertise that TSMC and similar firms have cultivated over decades. Huang’s remarks about Nvidia’s ambition to expand in Taiwan reflect a broader reality: that the future of tech leadership is built on worlds of talent and collaboration beyond simple government directives.
The fact that TSMC has expanded its U.S. footprint while remaining anchored in Taiwan suggests that the geopolitical tension between these states is unlikely to impact the fundamental economics of chip manufacturing. Instead, it underscores how leadership is now dictated by the ability to continuously innovate and manage complex production chains, not merely by political proximity or ownership stakes. If anything, Huawei, Samsung, TSMC, and Nvidia’s investments show that technological prowess depends on a sophisticated ecosystem—one that is inherently international, complex, and resilient against the simplistic notions of national control.
America’s fixation on reclaiming semiconductor dominance through government-led initiatives is fundamentally flawed. The success of TSMC and Nvidia demonstrates that true leadership in this sector hinges on innovation, global cooperation, and deep technical expertise—traits that cannot be legislated or bought overnight. As Huang’s praise indicates, the future belongs to those who understand and invest in the complexity of the industry, not those who cling to illusions of control through protectionist policies. The path forward requires a mature acknowledgment that technological power is distributed, interconnected, and ultimately earned through sustained ingenuity—values that defy simplistic nationalistic fantasies.