GOP Rep. Breaks Ranks with Trump Over Controversial Deal

A Republican congressman has broken ranks with his party and publicly criticized President Donald Trump over his recent deal with Nvidia, a U.S. tech giant. 

This public rebuke came in an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal—a newspaper Trump is currently suing for $10 billion, citing a defamatory article about a supposed birthday card he sent to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

The fact that the president is facing opposition within his own party, especially from a lawmaker like John Moolenaar, a Republican representative from Michigan, is a significant development in what has been a highly contentious and fractured political landscape.

In the opinion piece titled “Trump Takes a Wrong Turn on Nvidia’s Chips,” Moolenaar criticized the president’s decision to allow Nvidia, a leading AI chip manufacturer, to sell its advanced hardware to China in exchange for paying 15 percent tariffs to the White House on sales to the authoritarian Asian country.

The decision, made in July, marked a stark departure from traditional Republican positions on national security and trade, as it allowed Nvidia to circumvent restrictions that had been imposed by the U.S. government on technologies deemed critical for national security.

This move came after the company’s CEO, Jensen Huang, who is described by Trump as a “friend,” personally lobbied the president to reverse a policy that had restricted exports to China.

In return for this policy change, Nvidia agreed to pay tariffs, a decision that has drawn widespread criticism from within the GOP, where many members have long taken a hardline stance against China’s growing technological influence.

Moolenaar’s criticism was multifaceted. He argued that allowing U.S. companies to sell export-controlled technologies to China in exchange for a percentage of the sales is deeply troubling from both a national security and constitutional perspective.

According to Moolenaar, technologies like those produced by Nvidia are “controlled because of their potential to harm national security should they fall into nefarious hands.”

By granting Nvidia a pass to sell these advanced technologies to China, Moolenaar believes that Trump is undermining the very principles that have guided U.S. foreign policy in the region.

He also raised serious legal concerns, suggesting that Trump’s decision raises constitutional issues. According to Moolenaar, the president is circumventing the Constitution by attempting to charge tariffs and take a percentage of sales revenue from these exports.

“Congress, not the executive branch, has the authority to tax, raise revenue, and appropriate funds,” Moolenaar wrote, referencing the 2018 Export Control Reform Act, which explicitly prohibits such actions by the executive branch.

By effectively using tariffs as a form of revenue-sharing, Trump’s actions may violate the law, and Moolenaar believes this is a dangerous precedent.

The deal with Nvidia came after the company lost an estimated $5.5 billion due to restrictions imposed by the U.S. Commerce Department. These restrictions, which had been implemented earlier this year, were designed to prevent the export of sensitive technologies to countries like China.

However, after Nvidia’s CEO personally approached Trump, asking for a reversal of these policies, the president agreed to allow the company to sell its advanced chips to China in exchange for a 15 percent tariff on the sales.

This agreement raised alarms among those within the GOP who saw it as a form of cronyism, as Trump personally owns a significant stake in Nvidia—at least half a million dollars’ worth of stock, according to The Washington Post.

The financial implications of Trump’s involvement with Nvidia are significant. Critics argue that his personal financial interests in Nvidia could have influenced his decision to intervene on the company’s behalf, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.

This is not the first time that Trump’s personal business dealings have come under scrutiny during his presidency, but the Nvidia deal highlights the potential for personal financial gain to intersect with public policy in ways that could undermine trust in the government.

Moolenaar’s public criticism of Trump represents a rare instance of intra-party dissent, especially coming from a lawmaker who has previously supported the president’s legislative agenda.

While many Republicans have remained loyal to Trump, Moolenaar’s stance signals growing unease within the party about the intersection of business, politics, and national security.

The deal with Nvidia has also raised questions about the broader implications of Trump’s relationship with the business world. As a businessman-turned-president, Trump’s actions often blur the line between his private interests and public duties.

In this case, the decision to allow Nvidia to pay tariffs to the White House in exchange for access to a key market raises concerns about the president’s ability to separate his business dealings from his role as the leader of the free world.

Moolenaar’s concerns about national security and constitutional law reflect a broader unease among Republicans who are wary of Trump’s unorthodox approach to governance.

The GOP is a party that has long prided itself on its commitment to law and order, as well as its emphasis on national security, but Trump’s decision to grant such an exemption to Nvidia has cast doubt on the party’s commitment to these principles.

While the Republicans are grappling with this issue, Democrats are seizing the opportunity to capitalize on Paxton’s and Trump’s vulnerabilities.

They view this as a potential opening to attack both men, especially in the 2026 elections, where their personal and legal issues may become key talking points. 

The controversy surrounding Trump’s financial interests in Nvidia, combined with Moolenaar’s concerns about national security, provides a fertile ground for Democrats to highlight perceived conflicts of interest and undermine the GOP’s credibility.

For Democrats, the potential fallout from Trump’s business dealings and his role in the Nvidia deal represents a chance to push a narrative about the need for greater transparency and accountability in government.

They see an opportunity to portray Republicans as willing to overlook serious ethical concerns for personal gain, which could help them make inroads in traditionally red states like Texas, where public distrust of the GOP is growing.

For now, it is unclear how much impact Moolenaar’s public criticism will have on the broader Republican Party. Trump remains a powerful figure within the GOP, and many Republicans continue to support his leadership.

However, Moolenaar’s rebuke serves as a reminder that not all Republicans are fully aligned with the president’s approach to governance.

As the 2026 election cycle approaches, the Republican Party will face ongoing questions about Trump’s influence and the ethical concerns surrounding his business dealings.

Moolenaar’s criticism is just one example of the growing division within the GOP as members of the party weigh the political costs of continuing to support Trump.

The deal with Nvidia will likely remain a focal point in the political discourse, with both Republicans and Democrats using it to advance their respective agendas.

Whether this controversy will have lasting consequences for Trump’s political future remains to be seen, but for now, it’s clear that the fallout from the Nvidia deal is far from over.