Three of the world’s leading Bitcoin mining hardware manufacturers — Bitmain, Canaan, and MicroBT — are preparing to begin production in the United States as a strategic response to ongoing tariff pressures. Together, these Chinese companies are responsible for producing over 99% of the world’s Bitcoin mining application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), which are essential for cryptocurrency mining operations.

According to a report by Reuters, the move is being driven by the rising cost of doing business between China and the US, largely due to tariffs imposed during the administration of former President Donald Trump. These tariffs — still in place — stand at 25% on many Chinese imports, after previously being raised to over 100% during trade disputes.

Tariffs Reshape the Mining Hardware Landscape

The digital mining hardware industry is heavily centralised, with a 2024 University of Cambridge study showing that Bitmain controls 82% of global ASIC production. MicroBT follows with 15%, and Canaan accounts for around 2%. Combined, they represent a near-total monopoly of 99% market share.

This oligopolistic structure has left the global Bitcoin mining industry particularly vulnerable to shifts in geopolitical and economic policy. The continued enforcement of high import duties has forced these Chinese manufacturers to consider domestic production within the United States as a more viable alternative than continuing to export from China.

While none of the companies have issued a public statement in response to media inquiries, their strategic pivot suggests a long-term commitment to the US market despite current tensions.

Geopolitical Pressure Meets Industrial Demand

Bitcoin mining is a global industry, and it is not the first time that political decisions have affected hardware supply and demand. Jaran Mellerud, CEO of Hashlabs Mining, recently noted that the Trump-era tariffs are causing serious concerns within the US crypto mining community.

He warned that rising import costs could lead to a fall in domestic demand for mining rigs. In such a scenario, manufacturers may be forced to dump excess inventory into non-US markets at discounted rates. However, the decision by Bitmain, MicroBT, and Canaan to invest in American production suggests they are opting for a proactive, long-term solution.

Whether US-based production can match the cost-efficiency and scale of China’s hardware industry remains an open question. Manufacturing in the US typically comes with higher labour and operational expenses. Still, the presence of a robust and growing crypto mining sector in the United States provides a strong incentive for these companies to localise.

Bitmain’s Troubles at the Border

Bitmain, the dominant force in Bitcoin mining hardware, has already faced difficulties with US authorities. In late November 2024, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency halted the delivery of thousands of Bitmain’s ASIC devices. The seizure came after an investigation into Bitmain’s alleged ties to Xiamen Sophgo, a Chinese chip design company accused of cooperating with Huawei, which is under US sanctions.

The scrutiny intensified following the October 2024 inquiry, and as a result, approximately 10,000 ASIC units were held for several months. They were only released in March 2025, significantly disrupting Bitmain’s supply chain and reinforcing the urgency for a US manufacturing presence.

What This Means for the Bitcoin Mining Industry

The entry of Chinese ASIC giants into the US production space is expected to have a significant impact on the domestic Bitcoin mining industry. On one hand, it could ensure more consistent hardware availability for US-based miners, reducing reliance on overseas shipping and lowering tariff-related costs. On the other, the extent to which local production can scale and remain cost-effective is yet to be determined.

It also raises broader questions about the future direction of crypto mining infrastructure. If US operations prove successful, it could trigger a decentralisation of mining hardware production, breaking China’s dominance in the sector. However, if costs remain too high or regulatory scrutiny increases, these companies may face fresh hurdles in their attempts to maintain global market share.

In any case, this shift underscores how deeply global trade policies and geopolitical tensions are intertwined with the evolution of digital asset infrastructure — and how major players are adapting to protect their dominance in an increasingly regulated and unpredictable landscape.