A Chinese businesswoman who had a close relationship with Jensen Huang was found to be passing intelligence to Beijing. President Trump was briefed and took no action.
Page F130From§Eachthe evening edition — 29 October 2026
Nvidia calls its CEO's China intelligence ties debunked, then defends those same ties.
As it ran on the front
I asked this already, didn't I? Same case, same page, same question, and I wrote the answer down the first time: was the matter debunked. Yes. Clean, one word, filed. I'm asking it again today, exact same words, and this time it doesn't come out the same shape at all.
Here's what I mean. I wrote this down — hold on, it's in here somewhere — Thursday, Nvidia, on the record: "thoroughly investigated and debunked last year." That's the sentence. I read it three times this morning making sure I had it right, because it's a tidy sentence, the kind you file and move on from. A company says a thing was investigated, a company says it was debunked, a company says it happened last year, which means it's settled, which means there's nothing left to ask about it. That's the whole point of a sentence like that.…
…(cont) So then why'd the same company put out a second statement the same day?
I've got that part written down too. The second one wasn't about the investigation. The second one was about the relationship — Jensen Huang's relationship with the executive, a woman the paper says U.S. intelligence agencies have accused of gathering information for Beijing. Nvidia defended that relationship. Not by saying the allegation was false, not by saying the case was closed — the company stood behind the connection itself, the same connection the first sentence said had already been investigated and put away.
Can a thing be settled and also still need defending?
I've got a toll transponder in the glovebox of a car that needs a fan belt worse than it needs gas, and every so often a bill shows up for a toll I already paid. The agency's letter says the account's clear. Then the next envelope's a notice about the same stretch of road. Nobody at the toll authority tells you which letter was wrong. They just send both.
The paper's sourcing here is American intelligence agencies, not a blogger, not a rival — agencies, on the relationship between the CEO of the most valuable chipmaker in the country and a Singapore-based data center executive the agencies say was funneling information to Beijing. The president was briefed on it. I've got that part down word for word because it's short: briefed, and took no action.
No action on what, is my question. On the relationship Nvidia just finished calling settled, or on the relationship Nvidia then turned around and defended the same week — and if it's the second one, is that the same relationship as the first, or a different one that happens to have the same two names attached to it?
I'm not the only Chinese-national case open this month. Three weeks back it was a California construction man accused of helping surveil a Taiwanese president's son. Different file, different agency, same month, same country doing the accusing. I'm not saying they're the same case. I'm saying they're the same month.
So here's where I'm stuck, and I'd appreciate the help. If the first statement closes the book and the second statement reopens the same page to defend what's written on it, which one do I file the case under — closed, or open?
Oh — before you go. One more thing's been bothering me. The first statement said "last year." The second statement, the one defending the relationship, didn't come with a date on it at all. Is a relationship that still needs defending today the same relationship that got debunked last year, or is "last year" doing a job in that sentence the calendar doesn't actually back up?
“Nvidia's lawyers used the word "debunked" like a receipt, then spent the very next statement re-defending the exact thing they said was closed. That's not a defense, that's a tell. When the guy who got the briefing does nothing about it, the only thing protected is the market cap.”
“Look, "debunked" means debunked — the investigation happened, it's over, that's just a fact, I don't know what else people want. The second statement is just — that's context, that's not a retraction of anything. Defending a tie you already called clean isn't defending it, it's just... saying it's clean again. Did I just say the same thing twice? That's not what I meant.”
The receipts
Nvidia dismissed a new report that CEO Jensen Huang was targeted by a Chinese intelligence asset, stating the diversion allegations were “thoroughly investigated and debunked last year.” The New York Times published a report Thursday finding American spy agencies last year discovered Alice Huang, an executive at the Singapore-based data…
Nvidia is defending CEO Jensen Huang’s relationship with a technology executive whom U.S. intelligence agencies have accused of gathering information for Beijing, raising national security concerns as Washington and China compete for dominance in artificial intelligence. The New York Times reported Thursday that Alice Huang, also known…
· $2.2 Trillion: The Collective Net Worth of 'Big Tech Oligarchs' Invited to Trump-Xi Dinner from the morgue, 24 Sep 2026
· Feds investigate if accused Chinese agent had help in the U.S. from the morgue, 8 Oct 2026
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front. The byline is a pen name for a column drafted by a machine and checked by the editor: how this is made.