The “One Rule” executive order is intended to dismantle regulatory barriers among states domestically and create a unified, predictable domestic market environment for U.S. AI companies. The “opening” on AI chip exports to China, under tight monitoring and a hefty revenue “cut,” is a way of projecting technological and commercial influence externally. Together, these internal and external policy adjustments will not only directly affect the business outlook of tech giants such as Nvidia, OpenAI, and Google, but also stir up major waves in the global tech supply chain, geopolitical competition, and the domestic tug-of-war between federal and state powers.

The “One Rule” Executive Order

The introduction of this executive order stems directly from the contradiction between a long-standing regulatory vacuum at the federal level on AI and the accelerating pace of legislation among the states. Because Democrats and Republicans in Congress have struggled to reach consensus on complex AI regulatory issues, a large number of related bills have stalled. In this context, several states, including Colorado, have begun drafting their own AI laws to address privacy, bias, and security risks brought by the technology.

For technology companies such as Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI that operate nationwide and even globally, this means they may need to comply with 50 different sets of rules in 50 different jurisdictions, with extremely high costs and complexity.

In a post, Trump sharply criticized this situation, writing: “If we want to stay in the lead on AI, we must have only one rulebook… We cannot expect a company to have to get approval from all 50 states every time it wants to do something. That will never work!” He even warned that such regulatory fragmentation “will kill AI in its infancy.”

According to draft documents previously reported by the media, the executive order may set up a special task force to challenge state AI laws, and could even use restrictions on federal broadband funding as a tool to punish states that enact “burdensome” AI regulations. If implemented, the “One Rule” executive order is expected to have immediate and far-reaching impact on the U.S. AI industry:

• Significantly Lowering Compliance Costs and Accelerating Innovation

The most direct effect would be a substantial reduction in operating burdens for AI companies. A unified federal rule would replace scattered state laws, allowing firms to deploy products and services nationwide at lower cost and higher efficiency.

Adam Kovacevich, founder of the tech industry lobbying group “Chamber of Progress,” noted that many state laws are rooted in a “doomsday pessimism” about AI, whereas a unified framework would help companies focus more on capturing the positive side of AI technologies. This is widely seen in the industry as a positive development that could unleash innovative momentum.

• Providing Long-Term Certainty for Investment Decisions

A clear and stable regulatory environment is key for companies to carry out long-term, large-scale R&D and infrastructure investments. Analysts believe a unified framework will offer stronger predictability for AI companies’ strategic planning in the U.S. market.

Colorado Governor Jared Polis, although he signed his own state’s AI bill, has also publicly stated that to truly solve the problem, federal action is needed to build a national regulatory framework and avoid a patchwork of rules that stifle innovation.

• Triggering Debate Over Federal vs. State Powers, and Security vs. Development

However, the order is also highly controversial. Critics argue that in the absence of comprehensive federal privacy and security legislation, this constitutes excessive interference with state powers.

The policy director of the advocacy group “Demand Progress” pointed out that state laws are currently the “best line of defense” protecting citizens from harms such as malicious AI chatbots and deepfake pornography. Some Republican lawmakers have also voiced opposition on the grounds of defending states’ rights.

At present, within the very short time since the announcement, there is a lack of authoritative data showing targeted, large price swings in major AI company stocks (such as Microsoft, Google, Nvidia) directly attributable to this news. This reflects the fact that the market is still digesting the information and waiting for details of the order to be released.

One observable trend is that Wall Street’s investment sentiment toward AI concepts has already been diverging, with capital shifting from companies with grand narratives to ecosystem partners with clearer business models and stronger profitability. Therefore, the long-term impact of the “One Rule” is more likely to lie in shaping a more predictable business environment—thus supporting corporate valuations and investment confidence in the medium term—rather than triggering short-term speculative surges.

The H200 Export Relaxation Order for China

Officially, this decision is described as a “prudent balance” between national security and commercial interests. The underlying logic is: rather than imposing a total ban that would force China to accelerate self-reliance, it is better to sell an “older-generation” product at a high premium—thereby earning huge profits while also slowing the technological progress of competitors.

Its key points can be summarized as follows:

• Nvidia is allowed to export H200 chips to approved customers. This chip’s performance is significantly better than that of the H20, which was specifically designed for the Chinese market, but its computing power is about 1.5 times weaker than Nvidia’s current most advanced Blackwell chip.

• Export of the more advanced Blackwell and next-generation Rubin chips is explicitly prohibited. This means Chinese customers can only buy “second-best” technology that is about 18 months behind the frontier.

• Nvidia must hand over 25% of the related sales revenue to the U.S. Treasury. This model is intended to directly monetize the U.S. technological edge to support domestic manufacturing and jobs.

For Nvidia, this policy can be summed up as: the door is reopened, but the threshold is extremely high.

• The Possibility of Regaining a Critical Market

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang previously stated that export restrictions to China caused the company’s share of the Chinese AI chip market to “plunge from 95% to almost zero.” The green light for H200 exports offers a chance to knock on the door of this huge market once again.

Compared with the heavily downgraded H20, the H200 still holds substantial appeal for Chinese cloud service providers and AI companies.

• The “25% Revenue Cut” Squeezes Profits

A 25% revenue share is an unprecedentedly steep “entry fee.” It effectively means the government directly siphons off nearly one-quarter of the income, significantly eroding Nvidia’s profit margin in this market.

As a result, the core focus of commercial negotiations is likely to shift from “can we buy it?” to “at what price can we buy it?”

• The Long-Term Competitive Landscape Remains Unchanged

By clearly excluding the most cutting-edge technologies, the policy shows that the U.S. strategic bottom line of constraining China’s access to top-tier compute remains intact. Chinese domestic chip makers (such as Huawei) are still accelerating their catch-up efforts under pressure, and Nvidia may, for a long time, remain only a “conditional supplier” in the Chinese market.

After the news was released, Nvidia’s share price in after-hours trading once jumped more than 3%, indicating that the market views this as a clear positive. However, the Commerce Department and Nvidia have yet to respond publicly, and the stock later pared back its gains.

Technical analysis shows that over the past month, Nvidia’s share price has repeatedly encountered strong resistance in the 190–195 USD range and has failed several times to break through. There is hope that once this major positive catalyst is confirmed and digested, it could help push the stock above this key technical barrier.