What technologies does China export control target?

The current focus is advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment, EDA design software, advanced-node logic chips, high-bandwidth memory, and AI accelerator chips. Controls have expanded over time from narrow military end-use restrictions to broad advanced-computing and supercomputing rules.

When did China export controls start escalating?

The modern escalation traces to 2018-2019, with the Huawei Entity List addition and the Section 301 tariff actions. It accelerated sharply in October 2022 with the first broad advanced-computing and semiconductor manufacturing equipment rule, followed by further tightening in 2023 and subsequent years.

Do allied countries coordinate on China export controls?

Yes, though imperfectly. The US has pushed the Netherlands and Japan — both home to critical semiconductor equipment makers — to align their own export rules with US restrictions. Coordination happens through bilateral diplomacy rather than a single multilateral treaty, which creates gaps and timing mismatches between jurisdictions.

How does the Foreign Direct Product Rule affect China-related exports?

The FDPR lets the US assert jurisdiction over chips made anywhere in the world if they were produced using US-origin design software, tools, or manufacturing equipment — closing the loophole where a non-US company could manufacture a controlled item without ever touching US soil or personnel.

China Export Controls: What's Restricted and How the Rules Escalated

Screening a China-based counterparty?

Check the Entity List, OFAC, and 6 more jurisdictions instantly.

Screen now →

Why China Is the Center of Gravity

No single country has been the subject of more export control rulemaking over the past six years than China. What began as narrowly targeted restrictions on specific companies has grown into a broad framework covering semiconductor manufacturing equipment, advanced chips, AI accelerators, and the software and personnel that support them.

The Escalation Timeline

2018-2019: Section 301 tariff actions and the first major Entity List addition — Huawei — mark the start of the modern era. See our Huawei timeline for the full sequence.
October 2022: BIS issues the first broad advanced-computing and semiconductor manufacturing equipment rule, controlling exports of advanced logic chips, HBM, and the tools used to make them — the single largest expansion of China-focused controls to date.
2023: Rules tighten further, closing gaps identified in the 2022 rule and expanding the list of controlled chip performance thresholds. Japan's METI and the Dutch government align their own equipment export rules with the US measures around the same period — see our Japan METI guide.
Ongoing: BIS continues to add Chinese semiconductor, AI, and quantum computing entities to the Entity List on a rolling basis, alongside periodic updates to the underlying chip-performance control thresholds.

What's Actually Restricted

The current control regime is built around several distinct categories: advanced logic chips above defined performance thresholds; high-bandwidth memory used in AI training and inference; semiconductor manufacturing equipment (particularly EUV and advanced DUV lithography, along with associated software); electronic design automation (EDA) software used to design leading-edge chips; and, separately, hundreds of named Chinese entities on the Entity List spanning semiconductor fabs, AI research institutes, and their subsidiaries.

The Foreign Direct Product Rule Closes the Loophole

A key enforcement mechanism is the FDPR: even a chip designed and fabricated entirely outside the US can fall under US jurisdiction if it was produced using controlled US-origin design software or manufacturing tools. This is what allows the US to restrict China-bound chips manufactured in Taiwan, South Korea, or elsewhere. Read our dedicated FDPR explainer for the mechanics.

Multilateral (Mis)alignment

The US does not act alone — the Netherlands (home to ASML) and Japan (home to several critical equipment makers) have each adopted their own export control rules restricting semiconductor equipment sales to China, largely in response to US diplomatic pressure. But alignment is imperfect: the three jurisdictions move on different timelines and with different scope definitions, creating windows where a transaction is controlled in one jurisdiction but not yet in another.

What This Means for Compliance Teams

Any company with China-facing customers, suppliers, or subsidiaries in the semiconductor or advanced-computing space needs to monitor rule changes across at least three jurisdictions (US, Netherlands, Japan) plus the underlying Entity List, since a single transaction can implicate all of them simultaneously. Manual, periodic review is a poor fit given the rate and complexity of change.