GAIN Act: Senate Vote Sets Priority Access to AI Chips for U.S. Buyers
The Senate has passed the GAIN Act as part of the NDAA 2026 with a 77-20 vote. The bill compels AI and HPC chip makers to fulfill U.S. demand before exporting and allows Congress to restrict export licenses on top-tier circuits.
For legal teams, this is a supply, licensing, and trade-control problem wrapped into one. It raises questions across export control, contracts, antitrust, and cross-border commercial disputes.
In brief
- Mandatory priority for U.S. buyers before any foreign deliveries.
- Congress may block export licenses for the most advanced chips.
- Industry pushback (notably Nvidia) over market closure and slowed innovation.
- Crypto miners face higher costs, longer lead times, and customs friction.
What the law would do in practice
The GAIN Act creates a first-serve mandate: U.S. orders come ahead of foreign customers. It also positions Congress to cap or deny licenses for advanced AI/HPC chips, treating them as strategic goods.
Expect integration with existing export control frameworks and rated-order mechanics. Think of it as national priority ordering applied to AI silicon, with enforcement through licensing and penalties.
Export control: how it likely plugs into current rules
Compliance will track familiar channels: classification, licensing, screening, end-use/end-user checks, and recordkeeping. Agencies could apply tighter criteria for advanced nodes and high-performance interconnects.
Counsel should anticipate alignment with Commerce/BIS practices and rated-order concepts similar to the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS). See BIS guidance on EAR and DPAS.
Policy stance: "America First" or managed isolation?
Supporters frame the bill as a national security filter on dual-use tech. Americans for Responsible Innovation argues the U.S. must buy first to avoid aiding "concerning" jurisdictions.
Critics warn of market fragmentation, slower diffusion, and foreign retaliation. A White House advisor, David Sacks, reportedly tried to remove the priority clause to preserve export growth.
Antitrust and competition angles
Government-mandated prioritization reduces classic antitrust exposure for suppliers that reallocate inventory. The state action doctrine and federal preemption offer cover when conduct is compelled by statute.
Risk remains if firms coordinate beyond what the law requires (e.g., joint output restriction or standardized allocation rules). Counsel should wall off any competitor communications that are not expressly required for compliance.
Contracts: allocation, delays, and force majeure
Expect strained supply agreements with non-U.S. customers. Without a "changes in law" or "governmental orders" clause, a supplier may face breach exposure if it reorders deliveries to U.S. buyers.
Action: insert or tighten provisions on allocation, export licensing, compliance reprioritization, and extended lead times. Update force majeure to name statutory priority orders and export denials as triggering events.
For buyers, request transparency on allocation methodology, license status, and delivery milestones. Add price-adjustment language for extended delays driven by legal compliance rather than seller discretion.
Trade, sanctions, and WTO friction
Foreign partners may test the measure under procurement, export, or investment treaties. The U.S. will point to national security exceptions (e.g., GATT Article XXI) to defend restrictions on AI chips.
Retaliatory measures could appear as import barriers, counter-controls, or localization requirements on U.S. cloud and AI services. Build these contingencies into cross-border term sheets and dispute resolution clauses.
Crypto mining: caught in the crossfire
The bill does not name crypto mining, but GPUs and accelerators are core inputs. Customs actions against miners highlight rising procedural risk and the cost of equipment disputes.
Signals to watch include Senate passage, OEM reservation of units for U.S. buyers, contested customs claims (e.g., $185M CleanSpark; $100M IREN), and mining migrations to more permissive hubs. Fewer chips means higher capex and thinner margins. A U.S. hashrate dip could shift infrastructure influence offshore.
Key dates and signals
- Oct 9, 2025: Senate passage (77-20).
- Chip makers must prioritize U.S. orders before export.
- CleanSpark: $185M customs dispute (claimed).
- IREN: $100M in potential debts (claimed).
- Potential relocation of mining operations to other jurisdictions.
Litigation forecast
Expect suits over missed delivery windows, terminated MOUs, and frustrated financing tied to equipment schedules. Foreign buyers may pursue arbitration citing allocation discrimination or failure to seek licenses diligently.
Suppliers will rely on compliance defenses, government compulsion, and force majeure. Preserve evidence of license applications, rating orders, and allocation criteria to support causation and damages arguments.
Action checklist for counsel
- Map products and SKUs to export classifications and license pathways; build a priority matrix for U.S. vs. foreign deliveries.
- Amend MSAs/SOWs: add legal-priority allocation, export-driven delay, and price-adjustment terms; tighten force majeure.
- Update order acceptance language to condition delivery on license issuance and statutory prioritization.
- Stand up an internal allocation committee with documented, non-discriminatory criteria that mirror statutory requirements.
- Revisit antitrust guidelines for all supply discussions; confine any competitor contact to what the law or an agency directive requires.
- Stress-test financing covenants and project milestones that assume fixed lead times for accelerators.
- For miners: validate tariff codes, origin declarations, and broker controls; add buffers for customs holds and re-export constraints.
- Scenario-plan for foreign counter-measures and add arbitration venues that are neutral and enforceable.
Open questions
- How will agencies define "advanced" for license denials and what metrics will gate exports?
- Will there be carve-outs for allied markets, or a case-by-case license regime?
- How will DPAS-style rating orders interact with existing private allocation clauses?
- What evidentiary standard will satisfy "commercially reasonable efforts" to obtain licenses?
Quote worth noting: "As we work to maintain the United States' lead in AI development, we need advanced AI chip manufacturers to sell to American companies first before addressing countries considered concerning." - Americans for Responsible Innovation (Brad Carson)
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice. Perform your own analysis and consult qualified counsel before making decisions.
Your membership also unlocks:
