On 30th September 2025, the Netherlands intervened at chipmaker Nexperia to protect European supplies. Two weeks later, its minister was reporting Chinese export restrictions on the company's Chinese sites. Vincent Karremans's 14th October letter to parliament described the distinction. His order allowed him to block company decisions that threatened its production capacity and continuity. In separate proceedings, an Amsterdam court had suspended the chief executive and appointed a temporary director with decisive authority. Chinese export controls remained a matter for discussions with Beijing. Dutch authorities could change who directed the company. That did not give them control over every permission its deliveries required. On 19th November, Karremans announced that he was suspending his ministerial order following talks, welcoming Chinese measures to secure chip supplies. The government expressly distinguished its intervention from the independent court proceedings. The dispute exposes a limit to treating ownership as a measure of economic independence. In their June 2025 International Monetary Fund working paper, Tatjana Schulze and Weining Xin compared Vietnam with a weighted combination of other economies. By 2022, the share of value created domestically in its electrical and machinery exports to America was an estimated 10 percentage points higher than in that comparison. The authors interpret this as evidence of production moving to Vietnam. Their investment analysis estimated 8 additional projects from China in that sector relative to its comparison model. The records included announced projects, and ultimate ownership was incompletely identified. The investor's location in China did not establish Chinese ownership. The OECD's multinational-enterprise database already links production to the ultimate owner's country, filling gaps with estimates. That supplies information conventional trade totals omit. Knowing who owns a factory still does not identify everyone who could interrupt its deliveries. The 2025 US country-of-origin marking rule in 19 CFR 134.1 generally looks to production and substantial transformation. That label cannot certify independence from foreign pressure. Moving production can nevertheless change which government's laws apply. Geography can change the distribution of power. A factory outside China with no Chinese shareholders could still depend on a Chinese input it cannot replace. A Chinese-owned factory abroad is also subject to the host country's authority. Nor does a shareholder's nationality, by itself, establish state command. Neither its address nor its shareholders alone settle who could stop it. The practical test concerns a particular interruption. Would alternative suppliers still have the inputs, permissions and capacity to deliver before inventories ran out? Two suppliers exposed to the same restriction may offer little protection against it. The Nexperia episode does not establish that relocating production is futile. It shows why changing authority over a company and securing its supply chain are separate achievements. Keeping production running may require cooperation from several actors. Disrupting an indispensable stage can take only one refusal.