Xi Jinping lands in Washington for a state visit today, but as Bloomberg sums up the mood in one line: the two leaders "may find common ground on AI safety, but neither is willing to give ground in the technology race." And right on schedule, the FT reports that Beijing has started counting Broadcom switches.

According to the FT, China's State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), which oversees the country's state-owned companies, has spent recent weeks surveying how much Broadcom switching gear is installed in state-controlled data centres. The count came back... high: "The survey found that the penetration rate of Broadcom switches among state-owned companies could be as high as 90 per cent, one of the people said."

The exercise supports Beijing's "domestic chips for domestic use" campaign. The initial findings could lead SASAC to issue "informal guidance" telling state data centres to cut back on Broadcom. In Beijing, informal guidance tends to carry the weight of a formal order.

Why switches, and why now

Switches get little attention in the AI boom, but they decide whether 10,000 accelerators work together as one training cluster or sit around as 10,000 very expensive heaters. Broadcom's merchant Ethernet silicon dominates that layer worldwide. Nvidia and Huawei also sell high-end switches in China, but Nvidia is already barred from state-backed data centers. That leaves Broadcom as the last major American supplier embedded in China's state AI build-out.

SASAC is also looking at how Broadcom sells, not just how much. Per the FT, the agency is checking whether Broadcom used its market lead to bundle products or require purchase commitments of up to tens of thousands of switch chips. Those terms allegedly limited how much H3C and Ruijie Networks could buy from other vendors such as Huawei. H3C and Ruijie are the preferred vendors on the procurement lists behind billions of dollars in annual public-sector IT spending. If that line of questioning sounds familiar, Beijing used the same approach last year when it found Nvidia had breached antimonopoly law over its Mellanox deal. Mellanox is, notably, a networking business.

Two caveats from the FT story: 

• Private operators are exempt. ByteDance and Alibaba are not covered, so the rule doesn't reach the companies doing most of China's frontier training.
• Nothing gets ripped out. Existing gear stays in place. One rack-maker sales rep described the policy as "part of a broader policy to 'nationalise the supply chain'." In practice, that means a replacement cycle rather than a purge.

The stakes for Broadcom

According to its latest 10-K, 17% of Broadcom's FY2025 revenue (about $10.9bn of $63.9bn) came from shipments to China including Hong Kong. That was down from 20% a year earlier. Much of that figure is ship-to accounting for contract manufacturers assembling gear for non-Chinese customers, so true Chinese end-demand is smaller. AVGO rose about 0.5% on the headline, which suggests traders don't see much damage. Sure enough, while the near-term P&L hit is modest but the strategic cost is bigger: switching is set to become a multibillion-dollar market inside China, and it is being set aside for domestic suppliers.

The bigger picture: Goldman's numbers on China's self-reliance push

Goldman's recent research shows how quickly the domestic stack is filling in:

• The demand side is large. Goldman's desk points out that China's domestic AI chip market is "quietly gearing up for a staggering 69% compound annual growth rate through 2030." GS Research's CHIPS IV forecasts China semiconductor capex rising +13% / +15% / +15% in 2026–28, driven by memory and advanced-node capacity.
• The foundry is full. In the SMIC note (available to pro subs here), Allen Chang says SMIC grew revenue 20% QoQ in 2Q26. That was the fastest among the global top-10 foundries, whose aggregate growth was 11.5%. Chang attributes it to "China's strong AI demand and customers diversifying their suppliers to better secure capacity." Utilization is expected to stay above 95% through 2H26, new wafer pricing takes effect in 3Q26, and 54–71% of capex goes to 7nm and advanced nodes. Goldman expects no ASP declines because there's no spare capacity to discount.

• The private sector is localizing without being told to. In the Alibaba note after the Apsara conference (available here for pro subs), Golman analyst Ronald Keung forecasts capex of Rmb209bn / 243bn / 260bn for FY27–29E and a cloud power footprint of 20GW by 2032, supported by "unique cost advantages from its custom T-head silicon." Alibaba is exempt from the SASAC push, yet it is building its own chips anyway.
• Policy points the same way. Goldman chief China economist Hui Shan writes that policymakers are "focused on advanced manufacturing rather than broad-based easing." So while consumers deal with a housing slump, the fabs keep getting funded.

Put Goldman's research next to the policy timeline and the pattern is clear:

• August 2025: New data centers told to source at least 50% of chips locally.
• September 2025: Big tech told to stop buying Nvidia's China-specific chips, and regulators issued the Mellanox antitrust finding.
• November 2025: State-funded data centers banned from using foreign AI accelerators (Reuters).
• June 2026: A reported ~2 trillion yuan ($295bn) national compute plan through 2028 with an 80% domestic-content target (TechTimes).
• September 2026: The survey of switches, one of the last foreign-made layers left.

On the supply side, Huawei used last week's Huawei Connect to lay out an Ascend roadmap of the 960 in 2027, 970 in 2028 and 980 in 2029. It also showed an Atlas 960 SuperPoD that links 4,096 NPUs over its proprietary UnifiedBus interconnect, which means its networking is in-house too (Irish Times). DeepSeek reportedly plans to deploy at least 160,000 Ascend 950DTs. Huawei has raised 950DT prices by 60%, citing "tight component supply," which suggests pricing power is not an American monopoly either.

The catch: domestic gear costs more to run

Industry experts told the FT that Huawei's switches are less energy-efficient than Broadcom's, which means higher power bills for users. That matches Goldman's SMIC work: with utilization above 95% and no price cuts coming, "domestic" currently also means "capacity-constrained and not cheap." China's workaround is to build power generation faster than anyone else, which they've done this admirably.

And unlike the US, China has the electrical capacity to build all of this. China has 4000GW of total power generation and growing 20%. The US is at 1200GW and flat (with PJM and ERCOT nearing capacity) https://t.co/mEwD3LzvXs pic.twitter.com/p0xFKqeEAB

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 23, 2026

Bottom line

Export controls were meant to keep China a generation or two behind in AI hardware. They did slow progress in places, but they also gave Beijing both a reason and the political cover to replace every layer of the stack: accelerators, foundry, memory, interconnect and now switches. Each layer runs slower and hotter than its US counterpart, but it is Chinese-made. The market Broadcom has lost is small this year and likely to shrink further. Goldman's 69% CAGR figure describes a market growing quickly, and US suppliers are increasingly shut out of it.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The dispute over Missouri's new congressional map returned to the Supreme Court for the third time, with justices considering whether the state can use the GOP-backed map in the midterm elections.

The new map could help Republicans gain an additional U.S. House seat in the Nov. 3 elections.

The Supreme Court has twice prevented the state from using the redrawn congressional map, most recently on Sept. 10, when it granted the opponents' bid to stay a federal judge's order allowing the state to use the map in the midterm elections.

People Not Politicians, the group opposing the redrawn congressional map, filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 22 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that using the 2022 map in the Nov. 3 general elections would be unconstitutional, as the state had already used the redrawn 2025 map in the August 2026 primaries.

In a Sept. 21 ruling, the Eighth Circuit ordered U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark to enter a permanent injunction barring Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins from using any congressional map other than the one the Legislature approved in 2025.

The federal appeals court stayed its ruling until Sept. 28 to allow time for a Supreme Court review.

Opponents asked the Supreme Court to block the ruling, saying it undermined the court's previous injunction blocking the use of the 2025 congressional map.

"The Eighth Circuit's order does not merely undermine this court's stay order; it requires the district court to issue a permanent injunction granting the exact same relief this court stayed in the exact same case," the motion stated.

The motion asks the Supreme Court to clarify that its Sept. 10 stay "precludes enforcement of the replacement injunction - or any additional federal court injunctions contrary to the stay order - so long as that stay remains in effect."

Opponents also argued that the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to enter the ruling.

"The Eighth Circuit cannot disrupt an imminent election after ballots have been cast by issuing relief that this court has already foreclosed and that it lacked jurisdiction to grant, all based on a merits theory of the panel's own invention," they said.

The Supreme Court gave supporters of the new map until midday on Wednesday to respond to the latest appeal.

The 2022 map, drawn by the General Assembly after the 2020 census, was designed to give Republicans a 6-2 edge. The 2025 map, drawn as part of a mid-decade redistricting, was designed to give them a 7-1 advantage.

Missouri held primary elections on Aug. 4 using the 2025 Missouri First map approved by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. President Donald Trump supported the redrawn map.

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump and Venezuela's interim President Delcy Rodriguez met Tuesday night on the sidelines of a United Nations reception, their first face-to-face talks since American forces seized then-President Nicolas Maduro in January.

The pull-aside was booked for 7:40 p.m. at a gathering Trump is hosting during the U.N. General Assembly. No joint appearance was planned nor a detailed agenda released.

Participants in the pull-aside meeting with Rodriguez included State Secretary Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

"We held a historic meeting with the President of the United States, Donald Trump, during which we discussed strengthening the bilateral relationship between our countries and advancing a cooperation agenda in strategic areas such as energy, mining, security, and other matters of mutual interest," Rodriguez said in a statement on Telegram.

"We expressed our gratitude to President Trump and his administration for the steadfast support provided during the emergency caused by the earthquakes of June 24, as well as for their backing of our country's reintegration into multilateral forums," she wrote, according to a translation. "Venezuela and the United States share a historic relationship that, in this new phase, we are called upon to steer through dialogue. We will continue to pursue a diplomacy that serves the national interest, aimed at achieving concrete results and collective benefits for the Venezuelan people."

Rodriguez landed Monday for what is her first trip to the United States since taking office. She is scheduled to address the General Assembly on Wednesday afternoon.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told reporters about the upcoming meeting on a call.

"The president will host a U.N. General Assembly leaders' reception. There, he'll participate in a pull-aside with the acting president Rodriguez of Venezuela," Waltz said. He did not say what they would discuss.

Trump spoke to the General Assembly on Tuesday morning, hours before the reception, where he called Maduro an "outlaw dictator," adding that hundreds of political prisoners had been freed since the capture. Trump pointed to the January raid as proof Washington would use its "unmatched military might" to protect its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

"To the victor belong the spoils," he said, calling an oil deal his administration signed with Caracas last month "perhaps the biggest deal ever made."

He has said he wants $100 billion in investment to flow into Venezuela's oil industry.

On Sept. 16, Trump removed Venezuela from the U.S. list of countries that have failed to combat drug trafficking. The country had been on that list since 2005.

"Given the positive steps taken under interim President Delcy Rodríguez, I have determined Venezuela should no longer be designated as having failed demonstrably to fulfill its drug control commitments," the presidential determination said. "I expect to see continued, measurable progress from the interim government in dismantling narcoterrorist groups and stopping drug trafficking through Venezuela to the United States."

Last month the two governments signed an energy agreement covering 65 billion barrels of reserves. Trump called it in a Truth Social post "the biggest oil deal in world history."

Rodriguez said the pact is meant to last 25 years and to develop 17 strategic oil fields with a production target of more than 1.5 million barrels a day.

"This deal is a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people," Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X.

Rodriguez, 56, was born in Caracas and trained as a lawyer. Maduro named her vice president in 2018. U.S. forces captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Jan. 3 and flew them to the United States on narcoterrorism and drug charges. Venezuela's high court then designated Rodriguez interim president. Maduro has pleaded not guilty.

Reuters contributed to this report

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Shareholders sued The New York Times on Sept. 23, alleging the company has failed to prevent false reporting about Israel and other topics.

The State Board of Administration of Florida, representing the Florida Retirement System Trust Fund and National Center for Public Policy Research, filed the lawsuit in a New York court.

"The Company's repeated publication of materially false or baseless factual assertions, many later admitted internally or disproven externally, supports a reasonable inference that the Board has not only failed in its obligation to monitor the Company's internal controls, but it has allowed such flagrantly selective application of the internal controls to support the conclusion that in the absence of any Board-level oversight, journalistic standards have been weaponized within the Company to serve the personal agendas of unchecked editors," the 48-page filing says.

Shareholders said that a whistleblower reported problems to the company's internal channel for such issues in November 2023.

"I feel that I'm on a desk that is particularly biased against Israel ... I can't tell if the Masthead does not see that our desk is biased, does not see it as a problem to be resolved, or just hasn't figured out how to get a handle on it," the whistleblower was quoted as saying.

The person later presented 26 slides to a standards editor that described how the paper had rejected footage from a source because the source was "pro-Israel" and how a freelancer's praise of Hitler was downplayed as "just some jokes."

The whistleblower's concerns, later expanded to include questions about the lack of a promised training on anti-Semitism, and the hiring of a freelancer who said he "supports the Palestinian struggle against occupation," did not prompt any changes, according to the filing.

One incident outlined by shareholders was how The New York Times included a photograph of a child in its 2025 article, "Gazans Are Dying of Starvation," without disclosing that the child had pre-existing health conditions, as Getty Images had noted days prior in captions of pictures of the child.

The paper later updated the photo's information and said that "after publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that Mohammed also had pre-existing health problems."

Evidence shows that controls the company promotes to the public, including standards review before content is published, are not working, as that and other incidents show, the lawsuit says.

It requests the court order The New York Times to show shareholders materials they requested to see in August, including all versions of the paper's editorial standards since Jan. 1, 2020.

"This lawsuit has no merit and was brought for an improper purpose," a spokesperson for the paper told The Epoch Times in an email.

"Although it is positioned as a corporate governance petition to inspect the company's books and records, it is a transparent attempt to exert agenda-driven pressure against an independent media organization, level false allegations of bias and chill journalism protected by the First Amendment. We will defend against the suit vigorously."

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

A new poll from the Rainey Center for Public Policy shows just 7 percent of registered voters view data centers as a top-three national political issue, confirming that fewer than 10 percent prioritize them at the federal level.

The Washington Examiner reports that the survey of 1,004 registered voters found that found that national concern over data centers remains low with artificial intelligence itself drawing just 12 percent support as a top issue.

The poll was conducted between Sept. 10 and 14, after former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon quit his role and warned of the existential threat of AI, sparking a nationwide conversation about AI regulation.

Voters have a clear ask: build it right. 71% support requiring data-center operators to sign community benefits agreements - covering things like jobs, tax revenue, and grid upgrades - before construction begins. Read our September Policy Survey: Summary of Findings - link in... pic.twitter.com/gb1O7nDMUx

— Rainey Center (@RaineyCenter) September 20, 2026

Fifty-seven percent of survey respondents listed "grocery prices, gas and household utilities" as the most salient issue, followed by 30 percent listing jobs and the economy, and 20 percent listing affordable housing.

The poll showed AI as the 13th-most salient issue, directly following energy costs and transgender issues in schools and sports, with data centers being built in communities coming in as the 15th-most salient issue, behind cybersecurity.

According to PBS Newshour , while voters do not rank data centers high on national political agendas, opposition spikes dramatically when facilities are planned nearby.

Fifrt-eight percent of voters say new tech data centers have a mostly negative effect on the country and 65 percent of voters oppose building these facilities in their own communities.

Meanwhile 25 percent of voters say they support local data center construction.

The polling results follow a week of federal and state lawmakers debating how and whether to proceed with additional AI regulations in the face of calls for guardrails on their own industry from frontier AI lab leaders , according to the Washington Examiner.

When questioned on what specifically should be the top three priorities for lawmakers on data centers and AI, 48 percent of survey respondents responded "holding AI companies liable for harms," while 38 percent answered that "data centers pay their own electricity."

National leaders remain largely divided on the issue, with President Donald Trump calling on people to ignore the calls for new guardrails because of the United States' AI race with China.

Authored by John Weeks via AntiWar.com

US To Establish Two New Military Bases In Greenland

The United States plans to open two new military bases in Greenland, an expansion made possible by a new security agreement between the US, Denmark, and the semi-autonomous Danish territory of Greenland.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, and Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen signed the new security agreement during a trilateral ceremony at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The "agreement," which amends a 1951 defense treaty, allows the US "to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig in accordance with modalities and technical details to be mutually agreed by the Parties," which is where the two new military bases will be created.

Narsarsuaq hosted the US Bluie West One military base in the 1940s and 1950s. Mestersvig is a current military outpost used by the Danish special forces unit called Sirius Dog Sled Patrol.

The agreement also allows the US to "modernize and expand its activities" at its existing Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, create additional military facilities on the island, and enjoy greater military access by land, air, and sea.

It also bans non-NATO nations from establishing a military presence on Greenland and provides the U.S. with economic privileges (such as “minerals cooperation”) in the resource-rich island.

During a speech to assembled world leaders at the UN before the trilateral ceremony, Trump spoke of the "unprecedented agreement regarding the northern frontier of North America, the large and strategically vital piece of land known as Greenland."

This rhetoric tracked with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s vow in March to establish a "Greater North America." However, the agreement does not have the US take over Greenland, as leaders on the island, in Denmark, and throughout Europe had feared earlier this year.

Such fears were well placed, considering that the US conquered Venezuela in January, has been working toward regime change in Cuba, and is currently at war with Iran.

What's in the actual Greenland deal text? Analysis in the following: "The Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland"...

Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal (https://t.co/HwqZT6CGb2), so we can say how it compares to the existing 1951 arrangement and who, between Trump and Denmark, lied the most in their framing of it.

Long story short - which may surprise some - the Danes lied… https://t.co/DPM2iFkN4v

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) September 23, 2026

Geopolitical commentator Arnaud Bertrand's breakdown of the official text and the implications:

1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one "does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent." It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state "affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement."

2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can "modernize and expand its activities" at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig." Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of "the American continent," a US interest rather than a NATO one. Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that "the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland" and that consultations are then held "to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement." What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement. Article VII also gives the US "the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use" of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.

3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny. The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US "may enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea," but only "in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The new one says: "the United States of America shall enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea." That's it: "May" becomes "shall," and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules "issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The US also gets something new on top: "undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters," i.e. submarines.

4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.

5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. "States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state" (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), "shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information...within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties." Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.

6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US. The 1951 agreement existed only "for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." The new one lists the defense of "the American continent" as an objective, celebrates "the irreplaceable role" of the United States military as well as "the United States' indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland," and names the establishment of Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense system as a key goal.

During his UN speech, Trump unleashed an extremely aggressive statement aimed at Tehran: "Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East, or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?"