https://www.cnn.com/2026/11/12/politics/alice-huang-us-intel...
This isn't to discount the issues with NVIDIA and whether they knowingly participated in circumventing chip bans. Or conflict of interest issues. But running a business that benefits China as a Chinese national and making some reports to the nation just doesn't seem like "spy" to me any more than being part of the British East India company made a Brit a spy.
That is the result of this: every person of Chinese ethnicity with enough clout is now known to be assumed to be a spy in the eyes of the NYT.
Have you talked to Jack Ma lately ?
This whole episode is simply the US equivalent of Jack Ma with added puritanism.
https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/mark-h...
However, if Jensen Huang was made aware of the potential for espionage, then his position is far more precarious.
https://techcrunch.com/2026/11/09/the-race-is-on-to-sue-nvid...
"A third category, one that would change everything, would arise only if the board’s investigation finds Huang knew about the intelligence connection. That would be “a whole other ball game,” as Bartlett said."
I have signed on to the Rosen class action.
US IC knows he knew, but cannot disclose the means at trial, so they’re doing this to remove him from NVidia.
A: legality
B: morality
C: what the political power wants
D: what shareholders wants
E: what the "CIA" wants, which is influenced by A, B and C, and D but its own thing
...
Z: business consequences, the sum of all of the above
I've slept with people I wouldn't even allow to look at my phone lol
What he made aware of circumventing export controls?
Just for context:
> In April 2023, Trump hired [Todd] Blanche to defend him for concealed hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and he led Trump's defense in the 2024 criminal trial. Blanche later defended Trump in cases involving federal classified documents and election obstruction. In November 2024, following his victory in the 2024 presidential election, President-elect Donald Trump announced Blanche as his nominee for deputy attorney general. Blanche was confirmed by the Senate in March 2025.[1]
He defended Trump's White House media ban[2] and most recently threatened to prosecute Democrats planning oversight probes into the administration[3].
FBI Director Kash Patel, for anyone who doesn't already know, is a Trump loyalist who was a director of Trump Media & Technology Group and reportedly made over $500,000 from Trump's political campaign. It is literally insane that he is the director of anything in the government[4].
Bottom line: time will tell who Alice Huang really was, but given the reports that Trump was informed she might have been a spy a year ago and didn't act on it, you can't expect honesty from loyalists he put in law enforcement positions.
If there's any concern that his inaction was a mistake, you can expect all of the people he put in positions of power to do whatever it takes to defend him, and that includes fudge the truth about the intelligence they had on Alice Huang.
Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Blanche
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/27/todd-blanche...
[3] https://www.ms.now/news/todd-blanche-threat-prosecution-demo...
[4] https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/the-fbis-controversial-...
Recall that, in exchange for the US lifting export restrictions, Trump negotiated an agreement with Nvidia to receive 25% of the revenue from certain chip sales[1].
Trump prioritizing money over national security is not at all surprising.
There was some speculation that Rubio was the one who leaked this, as he had prepared a memo about Alice Huang that was presented to the president in May.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/14/trump-nvidia-h200-china-ai-c...
And how many trillions of dollars of wealth has been "removed" by American companies outsourcing their production to China over the past several decades, transferring their IP to Chinese entities through forced joint-ventures, outright IP theft, etc.?
By some estimates, the outright IP theft alone has caused $15 trillion in cumulative losses. According to the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, whose figures are used by the FBI and the Office of the US Trade Representative, IP theft costs American businesses somewhere between $225 and $600 billion every year, and much of that theft is at the hands of China.
Companies like Facebook and Google aren't allowed in the Chinese market. Do you find that "anti-competitive"?
Nobody is playing fair here and the notion that we can all just trade with each other equanimously is naive. The world isn't that kind and simple.
Doesn't that increase value due to lowered costs for the same product?
I thought that was the whole idea about outsourcing and global trade
Taiwan was a similar backwater when the intel microprocessor was invented, yet they’ve clearly done the hard yards to do what the “American voter” had no appetite for.
(I'm thinking more of ASML (dutch) in the Netherlands here, who build the machines at the heart of the fabs (most of the knowhow for building those sits with taiwans tsmc, also for the fabs they build in the states) than of TSMC, since I don't really have to much of a clue of whats the culture in taiwan is like. But I assune theres a more tight-knit social fabric then there is in the states.
We actually could give every teen a 5090 for free right now, no blocking trade agreements required.
I disagree. China is only acquiring technology to copy the best parts and improve the rest. There are plenty of examples over the past decades.
They would never be a permanent customer of Nvidia, they would destroy Nvidia long term by offering better chips for cheaper, especially as they are going to take Taiwan in the near future.
Feel free to do some research about how china won the solar game, that would be your textbook example of how they are going to destroy Nvidia.
They do this with cars, they did it with solar, they do it with weapons-grade tech.
It’s an absolute fever dream to think selling them chips would mean they wouldn’t get more under the counter and develop their own improved designs.
We are talking about a nation-state actor with unlimited pockets. They can go down all of these roads at the same time and if I were china and winning AI means winning everything, i would do exactly that.
Using Jensen like a greedy prostitute to get the goods right from the source was just the easiest way to get those chips.
The collapse of Jensen is also strengthening China, they already have what they wanted, now he gets put in the trash so the US can no longer profit from his undeniable talents attracting investments into American AI domination.
Seriously, what is 4 or 7b to China?
Better than sending Chinese black ops to disappear a ship full of Nvidia chips and risk complications with another nation-state actor.
Why wouldn’t they take the way of least resistance which was through Jensens greed, ego and illoyalty to his wife?
China has a long-term plan, is extremely focused at accomplishing milestones and they are already ahead in almost every sector compared to the US of the past 20 years, that has become a political dumpster fire.
China is winning.
And the chips that Jensen allowed to move there will be used to accelerate the already working strategy in all of its aspects. He didn’t just fuck most of his company and partners as it seems, he fucked every American in existence.
Enough smart people in the US government have seen that, but they are dealing with a kleptocratic family and friends scheme that is selling their nation’s interests to enrich themselves.
It is what it is. And it won’t get better.
Jensen like Trump and his family is only helping number 1.
Trump followers are big on “Trump is good for stock market”. I think market already dipped when democrats won but now it is not a dip anymore, that’s quite a crash we have now.
he's say something about it "hes a disgusting man, sold out nvidia and for what?" or something even less coherent
You don't know that at all. It's not standard procedure to immediately publicly out possible spies. Lots of reasons why not to do that including not wanting to let adversaries know you know who their spies are or to use them to feed bad intel or for watching what the spy does.
As for "standard procedure" and counter-intelligence, who knows? I'm not a member of the intelligence community. Are you?
The point of my comment is that, to many laypeople, Trump's inaction doesn't look good and that creates an optics issue for him. "Why would he let a Chinese spy who was potentially trying to use Huang to influence the president's US-China policy stay close to him?"
Given how the administration operates, you can expect Trump's lackeys to spin the truth (if not lie) to make his actions look more favorable to the public.
There's no evidence she influenced Jensen who influenced Trump who eased restrictions despite knowing she was a spy. Jensen has consistently been trying to relax restrictions for years, before they met, and others have made the same case Jensen has, that it's actually harmful to the US to restrict access and that a managed access strategy is better than a complete ban (and Trump said he would charge for it openly which I guess makes sense). She probably did what's called intelligence gathering. I personally don't have an opinion on the strategy.
Also, it's funny watching HN suddenly become hawkish on GPUs being shipped to China. Were you complaining about it back then or just now?
There actually is, for both: 1. the chip sales to the supplier employing Alice (how many chip sales were to other suppliers in China?), and 2. a $25,000,000 payment Jensen made to donald's ballroom slush fund, which he tried to keep secret.
There is also evidence that donald kept this quiet and then demanded obedience and obeisance: he admitted it in an interview recently.
As for what HN (an inanimate website on which thousands of different, diverse-minded people from around the world post) 'does', I guess sometimes it's funny, sure.
this is what the parent is saying is the problem. How is her not being spy change that?
And what's with all the people who think complex investigations get completed in days?
Almost certainly the same last name (黃/黄, huang2). It's also sometimes romanized as Wong (though some Wongs are 王, wang2).
Just found this on wiki -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng_(name) : "Ng (pronounced [ŋ̍]) is the simplified (tone-less) romanization of the Cantonese surnames 吳/吴 (Jyutping: Ng4, read in Mandarin as pinyin: Wú) and 伍 (Ng5, Mandarin Wǔ); and also of the Hokkien surnames 黃/黄 (Pe̍h-ōe-jī: N̂ɡ, Mandarin Huáng) and 阮 (Ńg, Mandarin Ruǎn).
The surname is often pronounced in English as /əŋ/ əng or /ɪŋ/ ing or /ɛŋ/ eng. It is sometimes romanized as Ang, Eng, Ing and Ong in the United States, and as Ung in Australia. In Cambodia, the corresponding surname is Oeng."
Clearly this list doesn't seem to indicate some of the names I listed, but I'm not sure if that's because it's an "example" list, or if some of the names are from different roots. Either way it was interesting to learn.
Note that that isn't to say "English is a simplistic language", though, it's just that Chinese has complexities in parts that don't necessary overlap with all sorts of intricacies of actual US English. Mastering both would be hard.
But at least it's not like Russian, which apparently uses more and rarer frequency bands - think DTMF, but more than dual and language specific, some overlapping some not. And English is likewise not the simplest kind of all in there as well, at all, to be extra clear.
As a russian I need some explanation here.
And human speeches come in harmonics, so I think we must be all using those like different combinations of DTMF tones. Human cochlea is also like a ladder ADC, so it shouldn't be so weird that we use combinations of "pressure points" to encode data rather than relying on a single central frequency.
I didn't mean to say that "them Russians talk multiple concurrent conversations at once by using different bands over there", no, just that different languages use different ranges and combinations of frequencies.
This frequency range and Russian advantage thing used to be widely used as somewhat hallucinatory explanation as to why people from certain country(a neighbor to Russia btw) are so atrocious at English in both input and output, that, allegedly, the ranges just don't overlap that we hear nothing from them and they hear nothing from us. That's why the Russian language came to my mind immediately here.
This theory is a bit inconsistent with reality, though, as our speeches are often considered high pitched than English while the theory argues that we're on the lower side.
That sounds like you are remembering one of those Tomatis charts, which are simply bullshit. All natural languages are quite similar in terms of their "frequency bands", what is different is the clustering of their phonemes within those bands, e.g. Russian has lots of consonant sounds but very few vowels when compared to English.
Like imagine not being able to use inflections to express emotion when speaking. That'd sound as alien to a non-tonal speaker as the concept of using inflections to express emotion to a tonal-speaker. Like think about how 'That's a great idea.' can be phrased in different tones to make it sound enthusiastic, insulting, a question, sarcastic, and so forth. You just can't do that in tonal languages.
There's also the side issue that most non-tonal languages tend to have a relatively close linguistic background. Russian has a massive amount of 'English' cognates (often from shared ancestors predating both), especially if you consider words that are basically cognates but have different stresses or maybe one slightly different vowel sound or whatever. But the number of cognates between tonal and non-tonal languages is far fewer. It makes them much more difficult to learn, at least for me.
You certainly can. Just because a morpheme has a tone doesn't mean that there aren't other contributors to pitch, such as sentence pitch contour. Do you actually speak or understand any tonal languages? I can assure you that Chinese people definitely use sentence prosody to convey extremely subtle nuances of meaning.
Obviously you're right that the entire broad pitch of a sentence can also add meaning, but this is all increasingly alien to any sort of non-tonal speaker, and similarly the way "we" speak is alien to tonal speakers. It's not just learning new words and grammar, but learning a completely different way of expressing oneself and having to unlearn your old way of doing it. Hence why people who grow up one way or the other tend to do poorly with languages on the other side.
For instance a non-tonal speaker will find it extremely difficult to break the habit of trying to make a rising tone when asking a question, yet obviously in a tonal language you simply cannot do that or you risk using a different word. So they use particles at the end of sentences in indicate a question. Come to think of it, I should have made 'mama scolds the horse' into a question, as ma is also the particle to indicate you're asking a question! Now we're up to 5 ma's - ma ma ma ma ma.
I don't really understand your complaint. If you want to know how something is pronounced, you'll have to learn how to read pronunciation information. If you want nothing but standard English, then it won't be possible to describe the pronunciation of most foreign words. (For example, no English syllable corresponds to Spanish no - the problems start very early if you try to go this route.)
Are you looking for information, or not?
okay, but if a man named john smith had an affair with a woman named jane smith it would be a funny coincidence the same. do you have a point?
Jensen’s dismissal as CEO could still be because of the affairs, especially the one with an Nvidia VP.
(and it's not even selling to China. It's selling to Malaysia, which resells to China, which is perfectly legal. The US can go fuck itself, its rules do not apply to the whole world)
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-jensen-huang-spy-claim-nvidia...
If I was caught shagging a customer, it would be curtains for me.
unzips leather jacket
We have an entire administration who are terrible at their jobs—who commit crimes and then go onto a news program and tell everyone that they committed a crime. I don't think that's evidence against her being a spy. Not these days.
This is one of the reason why the US OPM hack was so bad for American intelligence: spies need to blend in on social media but once a face is linked, it’s burnt for anything in person.
This is a beat sweetening story. You write up what your sources want you to write in exchange for them giving you juicier stuff later. It says almost nothing about the certainty within the intelligence agencies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/11/12/us/politics/lutnick-nvidi...