This is a three-page letter dated September 3, 2026, addressed to Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker and ranking member Jack Reed and to House Armed Services Committee chair Mike Rogers and ranking member Adam Smith. It asks that three export-control measures carried in the Senate manager's package be kept out of the final FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act: the Chip Security Act (S.Amdt. 6105), the AI OVERWATCH Act (S.Amdt. 6575) and the MATCH Act (S.Amdt. 6585). It is signed jointly by the Information Technology Industry Council, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Consumer Technology Association, the Telecommunications Industry Association and the United States Council for International Business, and copied to nine congressional leaders and committee principals.
The letter is the document behind Anthropic's departure from ITI, which became public on September 8, 2026. Press coverage of that departure attributed the letter to ITI alone; the document carries five signatures.
The argument
The signatories describe their members as the companies that "comprise and leverage the U.S. technology stack," and rest the case on commercial trust rather than on the merits of any individual control. Two examples are offered for the proposition that allies and trading partners are already substituting Chinese suppliers: a Spanish arrangement that the letter says would give Huawei access to the "crown jewels" of Spain's telecommunications system, and 5G sales by ZTE and Huawei into Vietnam. Both are sourced to press reporting in the letter's footnotes — Politico of February 23, 2026 and Reuters of March 6, 2026 respectively.
Against that backdrop the letter makes a separate objection to each bill.
Chip Security Act. The measure would require American companies to track and report to the US government on all covered chip exports, "even if they are destined for America's close friends and allies." The signatories' objection is to perception rather than to mechanism: "Merely creating the impression of deepening U.S. government control over American technology is harmful," and "[e]ven if the current version of the Chip Security Act does not allow for any 'kill switches' in U.S. technology, this is not how our allies and partners across the world will view it." As evidence that the perception is already operative, the letter cites Reuters reporting of July 22, 2026 that the State Department circulated a cable instructing American diplomats on how to push back on kill-switch narratives. See Chip Smuggling and Export-Control Evasion for the tracking rationale the bill's sponsors advance.
AI OVERWATCH Act. The letter's objection is twofold. It says the Act would set US semiconductor controls in law "for eighteen months," which it calls "an eternity in the fast-moving AI sector," and that regulating specific technologies by statute sets a precedent that undermines the competitiveness of US technology exports. Separately, it argues the Act displaces the institution Congress built for the purpose: "Congress created the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to enforce and administer export controls while ensuring they keep pace with technological advancements. The AI OVERWATCH Act instead seeks to make Congress the final arbiter of export control decisions." The signatories add that the version in the Senate manager's package "removes provisions that would help advance the U.S.-led AI infrastructure buildout by trusted firms," while crediting Senate sponsors with improving on the House companion, H.R.6875.
MATCH Act. The letter accepts the bill's stated aim — addressing export-control asymmetries between the United States and key allies — and states that "it is important for the U.S. to work with partners and allies to advance aligned plurilateral SME export controls." Its objection is to the vehicle: the Act "could impose new controls on U.S. semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) via statute," at a point when the letter says Chinese alternatives are becoming competitive. For that competitiveness claim it cites a Center for Security and Emerging Technology article of July 14, 2025 on Chinese chipmaking capacity, and an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report of May 6, 2026 finding that China produces nearly a quarter of global output in advanced industries.
The closing frames the whole as a reliability argument: as China advances Huawei, DeepSeek and BYD, "Congress must ensure that our partners and allies continue to view American companies as the more reliable and trustworthy alternative."
What the letter does not say
It does not argue that export controls on advanced chips should be loosened, and it does not address the substance of the current control thresholds. Its position is confined to the instrument — statute versus executive administration — and to the diplomatic cost of a tracking mandate. It offers no alternative legislative language and proposes no substitute mechanism for the congressional oversight the AI OVERWATCH Act would create.
It also does not state that the AI OVERWATCH Act's review period was shortened from two years to eighteen months, nor use the phrase "congressional review period." That characterization comes from Axios reporting of September 8, 2026 (Source: axios.com), not from the letter, which says only that the Act "would set U.S. semiconductor controls in law for eighteen months."
Reception
Anthropic, which supports all three bills, ended its ITI membership over the letter. An ITI spokesperson said Anthropic "informed us of its decision to leave ITI because of the broad consensus position of the ITI membership that the Chip Security Act, AI OVERWATCH Act, and MATCH Act should not advance in the NDAA," and that "our membership is aligned that these bills undermine the American tech stack" (Source: axios.com). Axios reported that the three bills cleared the House Foreign Affairs Committee with bipartisan support, were added to the Senate manager's package after White House technical assistance, and have support from Heritage Action and American Compass (Source: axios.com).
Provenance
Captured in full from the PDF hosted at itic.org, the lead signatory's own domain, including all three pages, five footnotes, the signature block and the cc list. The letter carries its own date on its face. Three works cited in its footnotes are not held as raw sources: the CSET article of July 14, 2025, the ITIF report of May 6, 2026, and the Reuters report of July 22, 2026 on the State Department cable.
Relationships
- contradicts: Anthropic — Anthropic supports the three bills the letter opposes and left ITI over the disagreement
- depends-on: Export Controls (AI) — the regime the letter argues should remain with the executive branch
- related: FY27 National Defense Authorization Act (Chairman's Mark) — the vehicle the letter seeks to change
- related: Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) — the statute establishing the BIS authority the letter defends
- related: ITI — Information Technology Industry Council, CCIA — Computer & Communications Industry Association — two of the five signatories with pages
- related: Chip Smuggling and Export-Control Evasion — the diversion problem the tracking mandate is aimed at
- related: AI Industry Lobbying — The 2025-2026 Political Offensive — the trade-association channel of AI policy advocacy