Former Official: BIS Needs Better Data Tools, Chip Controls Have Proven Partly Successful

Borman, who left the government earlier this year after more than two decades at BIS (see 2502240003), said there was a “significant step up” in BIS using advanced data analytics tools during the Biden administration, but there’s still room to improve.

“There are all sorts of very sophisticated data analytics tools,” he said during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies released this week. “I think still there's so much more that is needed, particularly because of all these accelerated emerging technologies and the global supply chains, and that a lot of this is not necessarily done only in the United States.”

BIS officials could be aided if they had more data about third-country exports of sensitive goods, said Borman, who served most recently as the BIS principal deputy assistant secretary for export administration.

He noted that it wasn’t until the second term of the George W. Bush administration that the agency was “able to get some real expertise on the actual exports” leaving the U.S. under license applications. Only about half of approved export license applications are actually used, he said.

“That was a huge inflection point,” said Borman, a non-resident senior technical expert with CSIS and an Akin trade lawyer. “And it would seem very nerdy or in the weeds, but it’s hugely important to know what's actually leaving the United States and where it is going.”

But BIS still doesn’t have complete information on shipments leaving other countries.

“The next inflection point is to know what's leaving third countries and where is it going,” Borman said. “And that's something that I think more resources would certainly be beneficial for this, especially as you've got these new technologies, and especially as you've got other countries that have key suppliers.”

He also said BIS needs to make sure it has “enough individuals who can pull all that together.” Dozens of career officials have left U.S. enforcement agencies since the beginning of the Trump administration, including BIS senior engineers, division directors and top experts on the Export Administration Regulations (see 2503260007, 2502270009, 2502270004, 2504290035 and 2505060015).

Borman acknowledged that the agency faces challenges hiring and retaining employees, partly because they can make more money working in industry. He said the agency recruits new employees by pitching them on the BIS “mission” and the opportunities they will have to meet with industry and government leaders.

“You get a lot more responsibility a lot sooner,” he said. “And if you're attracted to that, and a lot of people are, then that's the message to try to attract that talent. And then the challenge is making sure that you can keep them.”

Borman also touched on U.S. export controls over advanced AI chips, saying the “policy goal seems to be to make sure that China doesn't get the capability to do the large language model training.” But he also wondered whether there are other AI applications “that still have significant national security” concerns.

“The challenge there is, that suggests you would broaden the controls, and then that drives you back to, OK, if [the chips] can't go to China, where there's a significant market, is there sufficient market outside of China?” Borman said. “So that's a piece of it.”

He said he believes the current controls have been effective in preventing China from developing the most advanced chips, even though China reportedly has been able to evade some export restrictions (see 2410230019).

“The bad news, if you will, is they got some things that they shouldn't have,” he said. “The good news is those weren't produced by Chinese fabs, right? So that would be, to me, an indication that at least the goal of keeping the Chinese fabs from being able to produce the most advanced chips so far has been successful.”

Borman stressed that the U.S. needs to “continually evaluate” the technologies that may need to be controlled and to make sure it’s imposing any new restrictions “effectively” so U.S. adversaries aren't simply buying from a foreign firm and undercutting American businesses. He said export controls shouldn’t be used as a strategy, but as a tool that’s part of a broader plan.

“The challenge is to calibrate them so that, again, you're really focusing on what matters and what can be effectively controlled,” he said. “Because I think that's the way you ensure that U.S., and, frankly, other Western tech leaders, can continue to stay at the top of the tech stack.”

Borman also addressed common arguments against export controls on China, including that they risk cutting into the sales revenue that American companies depend on for domestic research and development, and that they incentivize China to more quickly develop its own advanced technology production capabilities.

He said there’s “validity to both perspectives,” and the challenge BIS faces is to “calibrate” export controls effectively.

“That requires a lot of analysis, a lot of thinking about, what are the collateral consequences?” Borman said. He added it’s “relatively easy to put controls in place,” but it’s “much harder” to “feel like you've anticipated all the potential consequences, both in terms of impact on technology leadership, but also in retaliation, and then be able to monitor what's happening in as real time as possible, so that you're not looking at things after the fact.”

Borman was also asked about the U.S. possibly including export controls as part of broader trade negotiations with other countries, including to push other nations to impose new restrictions. Industry officials said the U.S. may use language in the recently announced trade framework with the U.K. to pressure the U.K. in its trading relationship with China (see 2505090006).

In any talks, the U.S. needs to be aware whether the other country has the legal authority or even the "political will” to impose new controls, Borman said. The U.S. also runs the risk that negotiated export controls could “come out to be less than they started with.”

“I think it's just critical to really have a clear view of what matters the most and how you're going to achieve that control,” Borman said. “But this is interesting that I think the Trump administration is looking to have export controls potentially be a part of these, where historically they haven't been, because historically people said national security is not a trade issue.”