US efforts to reclaim semiconductor leadership confront deep-rooted challenges in Asia’s dominance, labour shortages, and global interdependence

Once a pioneer in microchip innovation, the United States is now struggling to catch up in a global industry increasingly dominated by Asia. Former US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo remarked as early as 2021 that the nation had “dropped the ball” on chip production — a sentiment still echoing today, as former President Donald Trump pushes to revive American manufacturing through aggressive tariffs and investment pledges.

Trump’s renewed strategy centres on using import duties and industrial policy to bring chip jobs back to US soil. However, producing advanced semiconductors is a highly specialised, expensive and interconnected process that has taken countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan decades to master. With entrenched supply chains and talent pools concentrated in Asia, experts question whether the US can realistically replicate that model at scale.

Semiconductors are fundamental to everything from smartphones to fighter jets. Though originally developed in the US, the manufacturing of high-end chips now overwhelmingly takes place in Asia. A typical chip might be designed in California, built in Taiwan using Chinese raw materials, packaged in Vietnam, and finally tested in China before returning to the US in a finished device.

Despite vocal support for domestic production, Trump has also threatened key players in the chip industry. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the world’s largest chipmaker, has been warned it could face 100% tariffs unless it significantly expands operations on American soil. The same holds for other giants like Samsung, both of which have received substantial subsidies to establish US facilities.

Yet the expansion has not been smooth. TSMC, investing over $100 billion in the US, and Samsung, with an estimated $6 billion outlay in Texas, have encountered a host of problems — rising costs, construction delays, difficulty sourcing skilled labour, and local resistance. These challenges have undermined the effort to localise chip production quickly.

TSMC’s American plants, for instance, are still behind their Taiwanese counterparts in technological sophistication. According to Chris Miller, author of Chip War, the gap in capacity and efficiency will remain unless the US matches Taiwan’s long-term commitment and investment — something that took decades to build.

One major constraint is immigration policy. Trump’s hardline stance on immigration threatens to restrict the flow of highly trained engineers from countries like India and China, essential for operating the intricate and sterile environments of chip foundries. Even companies like Tesla, backed by Elon Musk, have reportedly faced hurdles bringing in foreign talent under the current visa rules.

Meanwhile, Trump has doubled down on trade measures, launching national security investigations into semiconductor imports. Analysts argue this is creating further instability. Japan, for example, had hoped to revitalise its economy via semiconductor growth, a plan now disrupted by shifting US policies.

Globally, many nations — from Europe to China — are accelerating domestic chip initiatives, spurred by geopolitical uncertainty. Chinese firms like Huawei are actively expanding into regions such as the Middle East and Africa, where market margins are thinner but strategic growth continues.

Still, industry insiders caution against overestimating the US’s ability to quickly replace global networks. TSMC’s original success stemmed from collaboration with US tech firms and an openness to shared expertise — a model incompatible with Trump’s protectionist tilt.

According to Marc Einstein of Counterpoint Research, “This isn’t just about building factories. It’s about nurturing an entire ecosystem — and you can’t do that through isolation.”

Even Trump’s tariffs have shown flexibility under pressure. Lobbying from CEOs like Tim Cook of Apple has already led to selective exemptions. Trump has suggested a willingness to adjust policies when needed, particularly when major US companies express concern.

Some speculate the administration may attempt to force partnerships, similar to previous efforts with companies like ByteDance, pushing TSMC or others to partner with American firms like Intel.

But the lesson from Asia’s rise in semiconductors is clear: building an advanced chip industry requires long-term coordination, skilled labour, stable policy, and international cooperation — not rapid-fire tariffs and fragmented strategy.

Trump’s vision, while ambitious, runs counter to the very forces that made the industry thrive: openness, shared innovation, and a global supply web decades in the making.

UK project aims to predict deadly violence using personal data and algorithms, drawing fierce criticism from privacy advocates

The British government is developing a controversial research initiative intended to forecast the likelihood of individuals committing homicide — using algorithmic analysis of data belonging to those already known to the criminal justice system.

The scheme, initially labelled the “homicide prediction project” but now called “sharing data to improve risk assessment”, is intended to enhance public safety through new data science techniques. However, critics have branded it “dystopian” and “deeply intrusive”.

The project was launched under the administration of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and draws on official records including information held by Greater Manchester Police before 2015 and data from the Probation Service.

Although the Ministry of Justice insists only individuals with at least one criminal conviction are being analysed, campaigners argue that the scope of the data suggests otherwise. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests and highlighted by civil liberties group Statewatch reveal that data from people without convictions — including victims of domestic abuse, those with mental health conditions, or people who have self-harmed — could be used in the model.

Personal details processed as part of the programme include age, ethnicity, gender, and police identification numbers. In addition, “special category” data involving mental illness, suicide risk, addiction, and disability is expected to be included due to its “significant predictive power”.

A key concern is that such sensitive data, when analysed through automated systems, could replicate and deepen existing social and racial inequalities. Sofia Lyall of Statewatch warned that the model risks entrenching systemic bias, especially against low-income and racially minoritised communities.

“The government’s attempt to create a tool for labelling future murderers is another dangerous step towards automated criminal profiling,” she said. “It’s not just flawed — it’s morally wrong.”

The Ministry of Justice has reiterated that the programme is still in the research phase, designed to evaluate whether data-driven tools could help identify risks posed by individuals already under probation supervision. A final report will be made public.

A spokesperson explained: “This is an analytical project using historical data about convicted offenders, aimed at improving how we assess the risk of future violence. It is not operational and exists solely to test whether new data sources can enhance current systems.”

At present, probation officers already use risk assessment tools. The new research seeks to determine whether integrating broader data inputs — such as police records and custody history — would lead to more effective violence prevention.

Nonetheless, the project has ignited debate about the balance between public protection and individual rights, particularly as artificial intelligence continues to influence public policy and law enforcement strategies.

Despite official assurances, concerns remain that the government’s reliance on opaque algorithms and sensitive personal records could open the door to discriminatory surveillance — targeting vulnerable individuals before any crime has occurred.

Tribunal rules against government bid to keep public in the dark over controversial data access case involving Apple’s encrypted services

The British government has suffered a legal setback after judges ruled it could not keep secret the existence of a legal case brought by Apple over the UK’s surveillance powers.

On Monday, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal rejected an application by the Home Office to suppress the basic facts of an ongoing dispute with the tech giant.

The case centres around a challenge from Apple concerning the UK’s ability to issue technical capability notices (TCNs) under the Investigatory Powers Act – legal demands that can compel companies to modify their systems to allow data access.

According to the tribunal’s judgment, the Home Office had claimed that revealing even the existence of the claim or the parties involved could pose risks to national security. However, Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Johnson concluded that such transparency would not harm public interest or compromise national safety.

The ruling brings to light that Apple has taken legal action after reportedly receiving a TCN from the government, seeking access to the company’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) service – a tool that encrypts data stored in the cloud. Apple responded by removing ADP from the UK, maintaining its stance that it will never create “backdoors” in its systems for government access.

Neither the Home Office nor Apple has officially confirmed the details of the TCN or the accuracy of media coverage regarding it. The judges emphasised that their ruling should not be interpreted as confirmation or denial of the specific claims made by journalists.

Last month’s hearing into the matter was held entirely behind closed doors, with media outlets including the Guardian, BBC, Financial Times, and PA news agency denied entry and barred from knowing who was involved.

Media organisations had asked for public access to the proceedings and identification of participants, citing transparency. The judges acknowledged the possibility that future sessions may be held partially in public, although this remains undecided.

Under current rules, those served with a TCN cannot disclose its existence without authorisation from the home secretary. While tribunal guidelines advise public hearings should be the default, exceptions are made where disclosure may endanger national security.

Legal experts suggest that despite the court’s decision to permit the publication of limited case details, it is improbable that deeper insight into the government’s legal arguments will follow.

Ross McKenzie, a data protection lawyer with Addleshaw Goddard, noted that any forthcoming rulings are likely to remain highly limited, providing only broad legal justifications.

A Home Office representative declined to discuss the case directly but defended the government’s surveillance powers, citing their role in thwarting terrorism and serious criminal threats.

“These powers have saved lives and dismantled plots targeting the UK,” the spokesperson said, stressing the importance of adapting investigatory tools as technologies evolve.