Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has leaned into this new export revenue-sharing deal, saying it could serve as a blueprint for other industries. In a TV interview with Bloomberg Surveillance, Bessent praised Trump’s “unique solution.”

“I think we could see it in other industries over time,” Bessent said. “Right now, this is unique, but now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it?”

The historic agreement essentially allows Nvidia to export its H20 accelerator chips and AMD its MI308 processors—designed specifically for compliance with U.S. export controls—to Chinese buyers who are hungry for advanced AI technology. Semiconductor chips, on the one hand, and rare earth materials, on the other, have been America’s and China’s respective leverage points as the countries seek a new trade understanding. Bessent claimed in the interview the revenue collected from the chip sales would go directly to paying down the national debt, and hinted at the possibility of channeling additional funds to taxpayers if the program proves successful.

Hotly debated deal

The deal itself, however, has raised considerable debate. For years, Washington’s approach to export controls centered on outright bans and restriction of certain dual-use or national-security-sensitive goods. The Trump administration had previously halted all sales of advanced chips to China, citing risks of aiding Chinese military and AI efforts. But the new model seeks to find a middle ground: It enables sales while capturing U.S. value and providing leverage in ongoing negotiations with Beijing.

Bessent, a former hedge fund manager and George Soros protégé who became one of Trump’s closest Wall Street allies, has long argued for a strategic, results-oriented approach to American trade. His idea is U.S. companies can continue to compete globally without relinquishing leverage—or security.

The arrangement itself is unusual. It is not a tax in the traditional legislative sense, but rather a condition attached to the export license—a point that has sparked controversy among legal experts.

“It’s bizarre in many respects and pretty troubling since Congress didn’t have anything to say about this,” Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics told The Hill. He noted direct revenue-sharing agreements negotiated by the president and individual firms are without precedent in U.S. trade history.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.