The global semiconductor industry is expected to hit $975 billion in revenue in 2026—a 26 percent increase over 2025, which itself grew 22 percent. The combined market capitalization of the top 10 chip companies reached $9.5 trillion by December 2025, up 181 percent from two years earlier. TSMC introduced the world’s most advanced 2-nanometer chip, promising 10 to 15 percent faster speeds and 20 to 30 percent lower power consumption than its 3-nanometer predecessor. And the United States and China are engaged in a technology control regime that a Texas National Security Review analysis compared, unfavorably, to Cold War-era CoCom—the multilateral export control system that tried and largely failed to prevent the Soviet Union from accessing Western technology.
The semiconductor supply chain was the most globally integrated industrial system ever built. It is now fragmenting along geopolitical lines, and every major government on earth is treating chip access as a national security priority rather than a commercial one.
The chokepoints
The semiconductor supply chain has a concentration problem that makes OPEC look diversified. Three American companies—Nvidia, Qualcomm, and Broadcom—account for over 75 percent of advanced chip design. TSMC in Taiwan manufactures 80 to 90 percent of the world’s sub-7-nanometer chips. Two Korean companies, Samsung and SK Hynix, plus one American company, Micron, produce essentially all the world’s high-bandwidth memory. ASML, a single Dutch company, manufactures the extreme ultraviolet lithography machines that are required to produce chips below 7 nanometers—and ASML is the only company on earth that makes them.
Each of these chokepoints is a potential geopolitical weapon, and several have already been deployed as one. The U.S. began restricting semiconductor exports to China in October 2022, targeting advanced AI chips and the equipment used to manufacture them. Those controls were tightened in October 2023, again in December 2024, and again in March 2025, when the Trump administration blacklisted dozens of additional Chinese entities. The Biden administration’s January 2025 AI Diffusion Rule proposed a three-tiered global framework that categorized every country on earth by its access to advanced chips—essentially creating a semiconductor caste system aligned with U.S. strategic interests. The Trump administration rescinded parts of that rule but imposed its own restrictions. The Netherlands, under sustained U.S. pressure, restricted ASML’s sales of advanced lithography equipment to China. Japan implemented similar controls on semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
China responded with its own export controls on critical minerals—gallium, germanium, and other materials essential to chip manufacturing—explicitly leveraging its dominance of the mineral supply chain as a countermeasure. The tit-for-tat is ongoing, escalating, and structurally embedded in both countries’ industrial strategies.
What the controls actually accomplished
The honest assessment, three years into the U.S. export control regime, is that the controls disrupted China’s semiconductor industry without stopping it. CSIS analysis found that the restrictions created equipment shortages for Chinese chipmakers, produced severe bottlenecks, limited manufacturing yields, and forced workforce reductions across China’s chip sector. Chinese manufacturing yields for advanced chips reportedly run 30 to 50 percent, compared to over 90 percent for U.S.-allied manufacturers. Huawei’s Ascend 910C AI processor, China’s most advanced domestically produced AI chip, is limited to an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 units in 2026 production, bottlenecked primarily by high-bandwidth memory availability. For comparison, U.S. production of Nvidia B300-equivalent chips reached 3.67 million units in 2025—and each B300 is roughly five times more powerful than a 910C.
But China adapted faster than the controls’ architects expected. Cut off from ASML’s state-of-the-art EUV lithography machines, China’s Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) used older deep ultraviolet machines to produce 7-nanometer and even 5-nanometer chips—behind TSMC’s leading edge of 3 nanometers, but far more advanced than the controls were designed to allow. Huawei reportedly used shell companies to trick TSMC into manufacturing 2 million chiplets for its Ascend 910 processors. China is investing in domestic lithography equipment, recruiting former ASML employees by the thousands, and pursuing alternative chip architectures—including a 2D transistor from Peking University researchers that reportedly operates 40 percent faster than TSMC’s 3-nanometer devices while consuming 10 percent less energy.
The CSIS report summarized the fundamental problem: chipmaking equipment is heavy, produced in small lots, and hard to smuggle. Chips are tiny, produced by the millions, and easily concealed. Design software can be moved across borders undetected. Export controls can restrict equipment. They struggle to restrict everything else. The Texas National Security Review analysis drew the Cold War parallel explicitly: CoCom did not prevent the Soviet Union from accessing key technologies, and China is a “more adept target” than the USSR was.
The cost of the controls to the U.S.
The restriction regime isn’t free for the restrictor. An ITIF economic model estimated that full U.S.-China semiconductor decoupling would cost American chipmakers approximately $77 billion in first-year revenue losses. U.S. semiconductor R&D investment could decrease by 24 percent, or $14 billion. Over 80,000 American semiconductor jobs would be at risk. Korean firms would gain roughly $21 billion of that lost U.S. business; EU firms would pick up $15 billion; Taiwanese firms $14 billion; Japanese firms $12 billion.
Nvidia has already raised prices on nearly all its AI GPUs—gaming cards up 5 to 10 percent, high-end AI accelerators up 15 percent—citing increased manufacturing costs and tariff impacts. TSMC is considering a 10 percent price increase on advanced wafers. The semiconductor industry was built as a globally interdependent system where each region specialized in what it did best. Breaking that interdependence doesn’t just hurt the target. It raises costs for everyone, reduces R&D reinvestment for the companies leading innovation, and creates market share opportunities for competitors in countries that aren’t implementing controls with the same rigor.
The geopolitical imperative and the economic imperative are pulling in opposite directions, and no government has figured out how to resolve the tension. Restrict too aggressively and you damage your own industry. Restrict too loosely and you fund your adversary’s military modernization. The U.S. government approved Nvidia to sell H200 AI chips to selected customers in China in December 2025—the same government that had blacklisted dozens of Chinese entities months earlier. The policy is simultaneously hawkish and permissive because the constraints are genuinely contradictory.
The Taiwan variable
Underlying all of this is a single geographic fact: the island of Taiwan, 180 kilometers off the Chinese coast, with a population of 24 million, manufactures the overwhelming majority of the world’s most advanced semiconductors. TSMC’s fabrication facilities in Taiwan represent a concentration of strategic capability that has no parallel in any other industry. If those facilities were destroyed, captured, or rendered inoperable by a Chinese military action—or by the threat of one—the global technology supply chain would experience a disruption that would make the COVID-era chip shortage look trivial.
This is why the U.S. is funding TSMC’s construction of fabrication plants in Arizona under the CHIPS Act. It’s why Japan, the EU, and South Korea are all building or expanding domestic chip manufacturing. The entire reshoring effort is an insurance policy against a Taiwan contingency—and it’s going to take a decade to meaningfully reduce the concentration risk, because building a leading-edge fabrication facility takes three to five years and costs $15 to $20 billion per facility.
The semiconductor supply chain in 2026 is not a market. It’s a battlefield where the weapons are export controls, lithography machines, rare earth minerals, fabrication capacity, and the strategic ambiguity surrounding a 180-kilometer strait. The $975 billion flowing through it annually isn’t just commerce. It’s the material substrate of AI development, military capability, and economic power for every country on earth—and the fight over who controls it is the defining industrial conflict of the decade.
We cover the semiconductor supply chain alongside rare earth monopolies, conflict minerals, and the full landscape of critical material geopolitics across our Rare Earth Elements course—including why the most important factory on earth is on an island that one country claims as its own and another has promised to take.