Nvidia’s Chief Security Officer, David Reber Jr., has issued a strong public denial of claims suggesting the company’s chips contain secret backdoors or kill switches, saying, “there is no such thing as a ‘good’ secret backdoor—only dangerous vulnerabilities that need to be eliminated.”
His remarks come as the company finds itself under growing pressure from both sides of the geopolitical divide, with US lawmakers advocating tighter control over chip exports and Chinese officials accusing the chipmaker of embedding covert access mechanisms in its AI hardware.
“To mitigate the risk of misuse, some pundits and policymakers propose requiring hardware ‘kill switches’ or built-in controls that can remotely disable GPUs without user knowledge and consent,” wrote Reber Jr. “Some suspect they might already exist,” he continues, in a nod to a probe already launched in China over alleged “loopholes and backdoor” vulnerabilities in the H20 chips that have been sold in the country.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
The controversy stems from a convergence of domestic political pressure in the United States and intensifying scrutiny from China. In May, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers introduced the Chip Security Act, legislation that would require AI chipmakers like Nvidia to include embedded tracking systems capable of identifying unauthorized exports and potentially disabling hardware remotely. Though pitched as a national security safeguard, the bill leaves open the possibility of adding kill switches—components that could render the chips inoperable from afar.
While the bill is still in early legislative stages, it has already sparked concern among global buyers, especially in China, where regulators have accused Nvidia of secretly inserting such mechanisms into its AI chips. The allegations culminated in a public summons by Beijing’s cybersecurity watchdog, which demanded an explanation over what it described as “loopholes and backdoor” vulnerabilities in Nvidia’s H20 chips—products that were specially redesigned for China after Washington banned the sale of its most powerful AI processors, such as the A100 and H100.
The H20 chips were developed as a workaround to the US export restrictions imposed in 2022 and further tightened in 2023, which aimed to slow China’s progress in artificial intelligence and supercomputing. After months of review, the US government approved the H20 for limited export to China, signaling a green light for Nvidia to re-enter a lucrative market that had once been its largest revenue generator outside the US.
However, Beijing’s approval came with strings attached. Upon allowing the import of the modified chips, Chinese regulators initiated a technical review to ensure the chips did not contain any features that would allow them to be tracked, controlled, or shut down remotely. Officials in Beijing have warned that such components would constitute a national security threat and violate China’s sovereignty.
The probe is ongoing, and analysts say it underscores China’s deepening mistrust of US technology providers in the wake of broader Washington sanctions and scrutiny against firms like Huawei and TikTok.
Reber Jr.’s blog post appears to be a strategic defense against growing doubts from both Washington and Beijing. Addressing US policymakers directly, he wrote that mandatory kill switches would be “an open invitation for disaster” and “not sound policy.” His comments suggest that Nvidia is caught in a precarious position, attempting to reassure lawmakers in Washington of its compliance while also trying to calm fears in Beijing that it could be used as an extension of US intelligence interests.
AI chip sales are driving Nvidia’s explosive growth, and its ability to operate in China, still the world’s second-largest economy, could determine whether it remains dominant in the long run. But that dominance is now under threat. China is fast-tracking its own semiconductor ecosystem, with firms like Huawei rapidly advancing domestic alternatives to Nvidia’s technology. Analysts say that if Chinese regulators conclude that Nvidia’s chips are compromised or politically risky, it could accelerate Beijing’s decoupling from US tech suppliers.
Ironically, Huawei’s own fall from grace began under similar suspicions—that it had built backdoors into its telecom equipment for Chinese government access. Now the tables are turning, with Chinese regulators warning that it is Nvidia who may be giving foreign governments covert entry points into critical computing infrastructure.
Both Washington and Beijing appear determined to bend Nvidia’s business to their respective strategic goals. The US wants guarantees that its chips won’t fall into the hands of adversaries, while China wants assurance that US tech won’t be used as a geopolitical Trojan horse. Caught in the middle, Nvidia is trying to convince both sides that its hardware is neutral and secure—a hard sell in today’s fractured tech landscape.