Companies back Chips Security Act to track advanced U.S. chips

Chipmakers are backing a new national-security push in Washington that would require advanced U.S. semiconductors to carry location-verification tools, a move supporters say is meant to stop sensitive chips from being diverted to China and other adversaries. The Chips Security Act has drawn support from about half a dozen companies even as critics warn it could add cyber vulnerabilities and operational overhead to already complex supply chains.

Sen. Tom Cotton introduced the bill in the U.S. Senate on May 8-9, 2025, and a bipartisan group in the U.S. House of Representatives followed with its own version on May 15, 2025, led by Reps. Bill Huizenga of Michigan, Don Davis of North Carolina, Bill Foster of Illinois and Zach Nunn of Iowa. Cotton’s office said the measure would require the Commerce Department to impose a location-verification mechanism for export-controlled advanced chips within six months of enactment.

The legislation goes beyond tracking the chips themselves. It would also require exporters to report credible information if chips were diverted, tampered with or moved from their intended location, a provision aimed at closing gaps in export-control enforcement. Lawmakers backing the bill have framed it as a response to the risk that U.S. semiconductor technology could end up supporting foreign military systems or surveillance programs.

The central policy question is whether the technology can do what Washington wants without creating new problems for the industry. Supporters in Congress have said the goal is to protect U.S. technological leadership while using “workable and secure” tools. The House sponsors argued that high-end AI chips should be able to identify their location before export, signaling that the proposal is aimed at the most advanced computing hardware rather than the full chip market.

Security and policy analysts have pushed back, warning that built-in tracking could expose chips to new cyber vulnerabilities, increase power consumption and add processing overhead. Those concerns highlight the trade-off at the heart of the debate: stronger enforcement against diversion, but with a risk that mandatory tracking could complicate product design, manufacturing and compliance across the semiconductor supply chain.

The bill now sits at the intersection of export control, industrial policy and national security, where lawmakers are trying to prevent advanced chips from slipping through to adversaries while keeping U.S. chipmakers competitive.