Nvidia is considering ramping up production of its H200 graphics processing units as demand from Chinese customers accelerates following fresh approval from the Trump administration to resume sales of the chips to China, according to a Reuters report citing people familiar with the matter.

The H200 is the most powerful chip from Nvidia’s previous Hopper generation and is widely used to train large language models and other advanced artificial intelligence systems. Until recently, the chip was effectively off-limits to China after the Biden administration proposed tighter export controls aimed at restricting the flow of cutting-edge AI hardware to Chinese firms.

That position shifted last week when the U.S. Department of Commerce cleared Nvidia to sell the H200 in China, under an arrangement that requires the company to remit 25% of sales from those chips. The approval reopened a critical market for Nvidia at a time when Chinese technology companies are racing to secure compute capacity to remain competitive in AI development.

According to Reuters, interest from China has been strong enough that Nvidia is now examining whether to add manufacturing capacity for the H200, which is currently produced in limited volumes. Chinese firms have been moving quickly to place orders, reflecting pent-up demand created by years of export restrictions that forced many developers to rely on less capable hardware.

Chinese regulators, however, have not yet given final clearance for the chips to be imported, and discussions are ongoing within Beijing over whether to allow large-scale purchases. If approved, the H200 would represent a significant step up from the H20 chips that Nvidia previously tailored for the Chinese market to comply with U.S. restrictions. The H20, while compliant, is widely seen as a compromised alternative with reduced performance.

Several major Chinese technology companies are already in talks with Nvidia about potential orders. Firms such as Alibaba and ByteDance, both of which are building proprietary AI models, are said to be assessing how many H200 chips they can secure if imports are approved. For these companies, access to more capable GPUs could shorten training cycles and narrow the performance gap with U.S.-based rivals that have had uninterrupted access to Nvidia’s latest hardware.

“We are managing our supply chain to ensure that licensed sales of the H200 to authorized customers in China will have no impact on our ability to supply customers in the United States,” an Nvidia spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

The possible production increase highlights Nvidia’s delicate balancing act. On one hand, China remains one of the world’s largest markets for data center and AI hardware, and renewed access offers Nvidia a chance to unlock substantial incremental revenue. On the other hand, the company must navigate U.S. national security concerns and reassure policymakers that expanded China sales will not undermine domestic supply or strategic objectives.

For China’s AI sector, the development points to how export controls have reshaped priorities. With access to top-tier hardware constrained, many Chinese firms have focused on improving model efficiency and software optimization rather than brute-force scaling. The return of a chip as capable as the H200 could shift that balance, at least temporarily, even as Beijing continues to push for homegrown alternatives to reduce long-term reliance on U.S. suppliers.

More broadly, the episode illustrates how geopolitics is now directly shaping supply chains in the AI industry. Decisions about chip production, allocation, and pricing are no longer driven solely by market demand but by negotiations between governments, regulators, and corporate giants. Nvidia’s consideration of a production ramp suggests that, for now, demand from China remains too large to ignore — even as the rules governing that demand continue to evolve.

Netflix’s co-chief executives, Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, have moved to calm internal anxiety and external skepticism over the company’s audacious plan to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery’s core streaming and studio assets, framing the proposed $72 billion deal as a rare consolidation that strengthens Hollywood rather than hollowing it out.

In a letter sent to employees on Monday — and filed publicly with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission — the executives argued that a combined Netflix–Warner Bros. would be “pro-consumer, pro-innovation, pro-worker, pro-creator, and pro-growth,” directly countering fears that the transaction could accelerate job losses and further erode traditional film and television models.

“We see this as a win for the entertainment industry, not the end of it,” Peters and Sarandos wrote, addressing a growing chorus within Hollywood that has warned the merger could mark a tipping point in the industry’s long shift toward streaming dominance.

The reassurance comes as Netflix faces not only cultural resistance but an intensifying corporate battle. Earlier this month, the streaming giant unveiled its plan to buy Warner Bros. Discovery’s streaming and studio businesses — a deal that would be Netflix’s largest acquisition ever and one that would fold franchises such as DC, Harry Potter, and HBO’s vast content library into its ecosystem. Days later, Paramount Skydance countered with a hostile bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, valuing the company at roughly $108 billion and escalating the stakes into a full-blown takeover fight.

In their letter, Peters and Sarandos said the rival bid was “entirely expected” but insisted Netflix’s proposal is the stronger option for shareholders, consumers, and workers. They emphasized that, unlike a Paramount-Warner Bros. tie-up, Netflix’s deal would not involve merging two traditional studios with overlapping operations — a key argument aimed at deflecting fears of mass redundancies.

That distinction matters in Hollywood, where “synergies” — the cost savings typically promised in mergers — often translate into layoffs. Paramount has estimated potential synergies of around $6 billion if its bid succeeds, compared with Netflix’s projection of $2 billion to $3 billion. Netflix has pitched that gap as evidence that its approach would preserve more jobs across production, marketing, and distribution.

Still, suspicion toward Netflix runs deep in parts of the industry. For years, the company’s streaming-first philosophy and limited theatrical release strategy have clashed with the preferences of major talent and cinema operators.

Sarandos has previously described long, exclusive theatrical windows as not “consumer-friendly,” arguing they are likely to continue shrinking. Aware of the sensitivity, the co-CEOs used the letter to make an explicit commitment: Warner Bros. films would continue to receive full theatrical releases.

“Theatrical is an important part of their business and legacy,” they wrote, adding that recent Warner Bros. hits such as Minecraft and Superman would still have debuted on the big screen under Netflix ownership.

They acknowledged that Netflix historically deprioritized theatrical distribution because “that wasn’t our business,” but said the acquisition would put the company squarely in that space.

Regulatory approval looms as the central obstacle. Both Netflix and Paramount have publicly argued that their respective deals pose minimal antitrust risk, but they rely on very different definitions of the market. Paramount’s David Ellison has said a Netflix–Warner Bros. combination would concentrate too much power in paid streaming, where Netflix already leads. Netflix, by contrast, is urging regulators to look at total television viewing time, including free platforms such as YouTube.

In the letter, Peters and Sarandos leaned heavily on that broader framing, citing Nielsen data showing that a combined Netflix–Warner Bros. would account for about 9% of U.S. viewing time, behind YouTube at 13% and a hypothetical Paramount–Warner Bros. combination at 14%.

“We believe the facts speak for themselves,” they wrote, signaling readiness for a prolonged regulatory fight.

Politics adds another layer of uncertainty. President Donald Trump, who has taken a keen interest in high-profile corporate deals, looms as a wild card. Paramount Skydance chief David Ellison and his father, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, are close to Trump, while Sarandos has longstanding ties to prominent Democrats. Trump has publicly praised both Netflix and Sarandos, yet has also said a Netflix–Warner Bros. combination “could be a problem” given its scale.

Behind the scenes, Netflix has been lobbying the administration by positioning itself as a stabilizing force in an industry battered by cord-cutting, strikes, and shrinking linear TV revenues. The company’s argument is that absorbing Warner Bros.’ assets would shore up one of Hollywood’s most storied studios rather than dismantle it.

For employees, the letter sought to shift focus away from deal drama and back to Netflix’s core growth ambitions heading into 2026. Peters and Sarandos stressed that a small, specialized internal team is handling the transaction, allowing the broader workforce to stay focused on organic expansion. They also pointed staff to internal and public communication channels designed to counter what they described as speculation and misinformation.

Whether the pitch resonates beyond Netflix’s walls remains uncertain. To critics, the deal still represents another step toward a streaming duopoly dominated by Netflix and a handful of tech-backed giants. To Netflix, it is a strategic bet that scale, libraries, and global distribution are now essential for survival — and that Hollywood’s future lies not in resisting that reality, but in reshaping itself around it.