U.S. approval for Nvidia H200 chips draws scrutiny over Chinese firms

U.S. approvals allowing Chinese companies to handle Nvidia’s H200 chips are drawing scrutiny after media reports described two approved firms with apparently vacant offices. The New York Times investigation, as reported by The Business Times and Tom’s Hardware, found little visible evidence that New Matrix operated at its registered Beijing address.

The Business Times reported that New Matrix was approved in 2026 to assemble Nvidia chips into computers used for artificial intelligence. It said the U.S. Commerce Department reviewed companies involved for national-security risks before the chips could be sold. Tom’s Hardware reported that New Matrix and Maginfra were approved to receive H200 chips.

At New Matrix’s listed address, a company directory did not show the firm, and staff at the industrial park’s property-management office said they had no record of it, according to The Business Times. Tom’s Hardware also reported that people in the buildings said they did not know the companies or had not seen anyone working there.

The reports also raised questions about the firms’ connections. According to PhoneWorld, Chinese corporate records linked New Matrix’s owners to Wise Road, a private-equity fund placed on the U.S. trade blacklist in 2024. The Business Times likewise reported ties between New Matrix’s owners and a blacklisted Chinese fund.

A separate report by Pasquale Pillitteri said analysts connected Maginfra to Inspur, a Chinese server maker on the U.S. Commerce Department’s Entity List. It also said analysts linked New Matrix’s owners to companies associated with Wise Road Capital. Those reported links have not, in the cited coverage, been presented as proof that either firm violated export rules.

PhoneWorld reported that the Trump administration approved H200 sales to China in December 2025, with chips required to pass through the United States before reaching Chinese buyers. It said the arrangement allows Washington to collect a 25% tariff. The reporting has focused attention on how the firms were vetted, but the cited accounts do not establish that the approvals were improperly granted.