Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly blamed the Commerce Department on November 13, 2026, for failing to place Singapore-based Nvidia customer Megaspeed on a U.S. trade blacklist. Bessent said Treasury, Defense, State and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative had supported the move for months, while Commerce held responsibility for acting, according to Reuters’ November 13 report.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has also agreed to testify before the Senate Banking Committee on December 10, CBS News reported, citing a U.S. official. That gives lawmakers a scheduled opportunity to question him about export oversight and the handling of Megaspeed.
The concrete development is a public disagreement over enforcement: Bessent says several agencies wanted a specific restriction, but the department responsible for implementing it had not acted. The separate allegation that Megaspeed illegally diverted advanced Nvidia chips to China remains under investigation.
Bessent Puts the Decision at Commerce
Bessent made his comments during an appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box. His account identified both the agencies that supported adding Megaspeed to Commerce’s Entity List and the department he said controlled the next step.
“But Commerce has the pen,” Bessent said.
He directed questions about the delay to Commerce’s internal processes. Reuters reported that the department did not immediately respond to its request for comment.
That distinction matters. Support from several agencies is evidence of a policy position, as described by Bessent. It is not the same thing as a completed listing decision. His remarks place the unresolved action inside Commerce without providing the underlying recommendations, correspondence or decision record.
The phrase “for months” also leaves an important gap. The reporting does not supply a precise date when each agency recommended listing Megaspeed, or explain what objections Commerce raised during that period. Those details would help distinguish a prolonged policy disagreement from a delayed administrative process.
Bessent argued that the government already possessed sufficient powers to address the problem. Asked whether Congress needed to act, he said:
“We have all the authorities that we need. They just need to be implemented.”
That makes his criticism unusually specific: he is challenging the use of existing authority, not asking lawmakers to create a new export-control system.
What an Entity List Decision Would Change
The Entity List is a Commerce-administered trade restriction mechanism. As Newsweek explains in its coverage, designation imposes licensing restrictions on exports of sensitive American technology to named companies. CBS reported that adding Megaspeed would have restricted its access to advanced AI chips.
For Nvidia and other suppliers, the practical issue is whether a particular customer faces an additional licensing barrier. For the government, it is whether a company identified as a potential diversion risk should receive that designation.
Three separate questions are involved:
| Question | What the reporting supports | What remains unresolved |
|---|---|---|
| Did agencies favor listing Megaspeed? | Bessent says four agencies supported it for months. | The dated recommendations and internal deliberations are not provided. |
| Would listing affect chip access? | CBS says it would have restricted Megaspeed’s access to advanced AI chips. | The reports do not detail transaction-specific licensing terms. |
| Did Megaspeed violate export controls? | U.S. authorities suspect diversion to China, according to the reporting. | The alleged illegal routing remains under investigation. |
These distinctions prevent a misleading shortcut. A company’s absence from the Entity List does not, by itself, establish that every shipment involving it was lawful. Equally, support for listing a company is not proof that it committed an export violation. Those conclusions require evidence about the transactions and applicable restrictions.
My view is that the most consequential part of Bessent’s statement is the gap between agreement and implementation. If his account is accurate, the dispute was no longer simply about recognizing a risk. It was about turning that assessment into an enforceable restriction. The missing decision record is therefore central to understanding what happened.
December 10 Gives Senators a Specific Accountability Date
Lutnick’s agreement to testify follows a request from Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott. Reuters reported that Scott sought his appearance on November 12; CBS subsequently reported the December 10 agreement.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have criticized Commerce’s handling of the issue. Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, called for Lutnick to explain his decisions publicly, according to Fortune’s November 13 coverage. Reuters reported that Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal called for Lutnick’s removal.
Those reactions establish political pressure. They do not independently resolve the facts behind the delay.
A useful hearing would establish a documented sequence:
- When did agencies recommend listing Megaspeed? Dated recommendations would give substance to Bessent’s description of months of support.
- What prevented a decision? Senators could seek Commerce’s stated objections, outstanding information requests and the officials responsible for resolving them.
- What happened while the decision remained pending? Records of relevant licensing decisions and transactions would help assess the delay’s practical consequences.
- What evidence informed the risk assessment? The committee could distinguish information available at the time from allegations that emerged later.
These are analytical priorities, not an announced hearing agenda. CBS’s report establishes Lutnick’s agreement and the scheduled date, but does not provide that detailed scope.
I’d put the chronology ahead of the political accusations. It is the clearest way to test Bessent’s account and determine whether Commerce had a defensible reason for waiting.
Nvidia’s Customer Vetting Is a Separate Issue
Bessent also questioned whether Nvidia had adequately vetted Megaspeed and taken sufficient steps to prevent chips from passing through intermediaries to prohibited destinations, Reuters reported.
That raises a company-level question alongside the government-level dispute. Commerce’s handling of a proposed listing concerns public enforcement. Nvidia’s assessment of its customer concerns the supplier’s own checks. Evidence about one could inform scrutiny of the other, but the two responsibilities need separate examination.
CBS reports that the U.S. government suspects Megaspeed of directing advanced Nvidia chips to China in circumvention of export restrictions. Fortune reported that Megaspeed was under Justice Department investigation over suspected export-control violations.
Frequently Asked Questions
3 questions
1What Did Bessent Say Commerce Delayed?
Bessent said four agencies had favored adding Megaspeed to the Entity List for months, but Commerce controlled the action and had not taken it.
