Authored by: qinbafrank (@qinbafrank)
The most thought-provoking aspect of Jensen Huang's departure from Nvidia is: for a company so crucial to American AI, the founder resigning as CEO, president, and board member presents an opportunity for many in Washington to further change U.S. chip policies toward China. Nvidia's official board accepted his resignation on November 11, U.S. time, and the company announced it publicly on the 12th, but an investigation into the matter has just begun.
From my perspective over the past few days, it seems that multiple forces have indeed converged behind the "oust Huang" movement. National security officials within the White House, hardliners from both parties in Congress regarding China, and some American modeling companies are pushing policies they already support, while the media has continuously amplified external pressure, ultimately leading to a personnel decision by the board. These forces share common interests but also have clear differences; it cannot be said that they are united in planning, but they are definitely exerting pressure from different angles, ultimately forming a combined force for "ousting Huang."
However, one thing has already changed: the faction in the U.S. advocating for the retention of the Chinese AI market has lost a representative that is hard to replace. In the past, Huang could directly reach out to Trump to explain why selling chips aligns with American interests. Moving forward, the political cost of seeking exceptions for the Chinese market will be much higher.
But it is essential to clarify: on the 12th, the U.S. Attorney General publicly stated that the Justice Department has not yet concluded whether Huang Le is a Chinese spy, and the Chinese side also denied related accusations. This does not hinder various parties from moving forward with investigations and policies, but it does determine how we should understand their actions.
1. Internally, the White House's real driver is Rubio, and the differences between him, Bessent, and Lutnick are worth noting.
Rubio is in a key position for reporting risk intelligence. The New York Times reported that during his trip to China in May this year, he reported to Trump concerns regarding Huang and Huang Le's relationships. This timing indicates that worries within the government predate this round of public crisis.
Then Axios reported that on November 5 (the day after Trump's defeat), a cabinet of officials led by Rubio (including CIA Director Ratcliffe) suddenly launched a fierce attack on Trump's close friend, Commerce Secretary Lutnick (an ally of Nvidia), for being inactive regarding alleged "violations" of high-end GPU trade with China.
The political implications here are direct. In the past, Huang spoke to the president about how American technology takes over global markets; the worries raised by national security officials could lead the president to reevaluate whether this entrepreneur’s judgment is reliable. Huang's business propositions remain, but the personal credibility behind the propositions is starting to be scrutinized.
Then on the 13th, Bessent dealt another strong blow. In an interview on the 13th, he publicly stated that the Department of the Treasury, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Trade Representative's office had supported putting Megaspeed on the entity list for months, but the execution power lies with the Commerce Department. He emphasized that the government already has sufficient authority and needs to implement existing powers. In fact, he criticized his colleague Lutnick for being too lenient on GPU trade issues with China, directly exposing the internal contradictions within the White House. This effectively brought the cabinet's divisions to light. Axios cited anonymous sources reporting that Hegseth and Greer also supported imposing restrictions on relevant customers.
It now appears that throughout the ongoing fallout of the Huang incident, Trump has at least made an effort to publicly support Huang, even calling him to encourage him to "not give up." However, Trump's support has not altered Huang's situation; rather, the pressure within the White House regarding Nvidia's chip sales has escalated.
For Lutnick, the pressure has become very real. He needs to explain why, in light of concerns expressed by other departments, the Commerce Department has not taken corresponding action. This brings the BIS head Jeffrey Kessler, license approval, and customer due diligence into the accountability scope.
Of course, there is also an important point to note: Bessent and hawkish members of Congress have differences.
Bessent believes the executive branch can resolve issues on its own. Some members of Congress want to write restrictions into law, requiring the Commerce Department to provide more explanations to Congress when releasing chips in the future. Both sides currently demand tightening but may struggle to agree on who holds the final discretion.
2. On the congressional side, the forces publicly pushing for investigations and exerting pressure are more easily identifiable, and the Republicans are ahead.
On November 4, the day after the Republican loss in the mid-term elections, House Republican members Moolenaar, Mast, and Crawford, who head the Select Committee on China Competition, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Intelligence Committee respectively, jointly demanded Huang, Nvidia’s Chief Legal Officer Tim Teter, and Kessler to address questions involving his interactions with Alice Huang, who has been publicly reported as a Chinese intelligence asset, as well as Nvidia's security protocols against foreign hostile espionage activities. This was one of the first formal congressional requests targeting the incident; Mast, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, was particularly active in subsequent public declarations, threatening subpoenas and more.
It is worth specifically mentioning that House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Brian Mast is a Republican from Florida. He is closely connected to Rubio within the Florida Republican political circle. Previously, the two have worked together to advance legislative efforts relevant to Florida (such as the Clean Coastal Waters Act, recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights, etc.), and Rubio has previously endorsed fundraising for Mast's campaigns. After Mast took over as Foreign Affairs Committee chair, he publicly praised Rubio's performance as Secretary of State multiple times, indicating close cooperation on foreign policy. Thus, in foreign affairs and national security, the two can be said to be core allies.
In contrast, Senate Banking Committee member Kramer has taken a more direct approach, publicly demanding Huang's resignation on November 10, citing the high possibility of extortion. His judgment rests even on the premise that espionage allegations may not ultimately hold, asserting that the risk itself is sufficient to warrant resignation. This represents clear personnel pressure. Senate Banking Committee chair Tim Scott also requested testimony from both Huang and Lutnick.
Moreover, cooperation between members of both parties on this front has actually been early on. Jim Banks, a Republican senator from Indiana, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, co-introduced the AI OVERWATCH Act in April of this year, and on November 9, they jointly requested to advance relevant restrictions via the National Defense Authorization Act.
Warren has been a consistent pressure point within the Democratic Party. She has long questioned Huang's lobbying efforts towards the White House and demanded Trump confirm that Huang would not be allowed to participate in China negotiations as of September this year. On November 11, she, along with Coons, who has long been concerned about East Asian security, urged Lutnick, Rubio, and White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to preserve Nvidia's records regarding exports to China, government warnings, senior communications, etc., and to confirm them in writing by November 17. Both are expected to lead the Senate Banking and Foreign Relations Committees next year, and this letter is also bracing for evidence collection in the upcoming Congress.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chief Democrat Gregory Meeks and Representative Gabe Amo sent a strong formal letter on November 9, demanding an immediate suspension of exports of advanced AI chips to China and inquiring about due diligence regarding New Matrix and whether Blackwell was approved, as well as how to verify users in Southeast Asian data centers. Meeks also expressed a desire to establish a special subcommittee to handle AI issues. This is direct proof of the Democratic Party's shift from case-based action to tightening policy.
Senate Democratic leader Schumer questioned when Trump was informed, whether someone obstructed the investigation, and why Huang was still invited to board "Air Force One." House Democratic leader Jeffries demanded a confidential briefing, stating that Meeks and House Intelligence Committee Chief Democrat Jim Himes are responsible for the House Democrats' investigation. It is worth noting that after hearing the confidential briefing, Himes still stated that he could not determine the nature of Huang Le's relationship with the Chinese government.
Some Democrats have also expanded the scope of scrutiny to the AI financial system. Senator Jack Reed has called for an assessment of whether Nvidia's funding support for the AI ecosystem poses risks to banks and credit markets. For investors, this means that future hearings may simultaneously discuss export compliance, as well as guarantees, investments, and financing arrangements that support computational power expansion.
This shows that Republican legislators are extending accountability targets to their own party's government, and Democrats are seizing the opportunity to investigate, which is easier for them to extend to the White House. The power transfer after the mid-term elections will amplify this competition. The Democrats, after taking control of Congress in January next year, can decide the focus of hearings and demand records, continuing the investigations. The Republicans have the motive to clarify issues and define responsibility before the handover. Republican Senator Tillis has publicly stated that he hopes Lutnick and Nvidia will address these issues first to avoid Democrats defining the entire situation prematurely.
Thus, the pressure from Congress will not simply vanish with Huang's resignation.
3. The divisions within the tech circle are, I believe, more worthy of study than they appear.
Anthropic's support for restricting China's access to advanced computational power has long been public. In its policy article published in May this year, it regarded computational power advantage as critical for the U.S. to maintain its leadership in AI and advocated further tightening related loopholes. For this company, China's ability to continue approaching the forefront of the U.S. directly impacts the competition landscape.
OpenAI has also begun supporting relevant legislation; Bloomberg reported on November 12 that OpenAI, after months of consideration, confirmed to lawmakers its support for measures restricting China’s access to AI chips and chip manufacturing equipment. The evidence here supports its involvement in policy advocacy but is insufficient to prove it participated in pushing Huang's departure.
From a business structural perspective, these divisions are quite understandable: Nvidia sells computational power to global modeling companies. Chinese clients continue using its GPUs and software, adding value to its revenue and ecosystem. American modeling companies, however, face the competition of Chinese models in the global market. For them, how much computational power competitors acquire affects the speed of model iteration and may also impact product pricing and customer shifts.
Anthropic has long favored chip export controls, and this week's change from OpenAI is useful for Congress; previously opposing tightening can now emphasize that regulations would harm the U.S. tech industry. Now, with both leading U.S. modeling companies supporting restrictions, hawks can argue more easily.
One of Huang's strongest political weapons in the past has been linking Nvidia's global expansion with the global leadership of U.S. AI in the same logic. Nowadays, this logic faces more challenges.
The tech circle contains both supporters of stricter export controls and those worried that losing Huang will harm the execution capabilities of the U.S. AI industry. Musk, however, stands on the side advocating for Huang’s return. He has publicly stated he would sign a petition urging Huang to return to Nvidia; some Nvidia employees have expressed similar demands internally.
4. Meanwhile, the media's role in this "oust Huang" process has been significant.
The New York Times has primarily led the disclosures, and has been followed by outlets like The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, creating immense pressure.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ): The key "final blow" media. On November 11 (shortly after the NYT's second extramarital affair report) it exclusively disclosed that Nvidia's board was preparing to remove Huang, speeding up the resignation process. The New York Times is the most central and continuously exposing media regarding the original materials. It has been following the Megaspeed chip flow issue since October 2025. On October 29, it was the first to report that U.S. intelligence agencies identified Alice Huang as a suspected Chinese espionage asset and that she had a "close relationship" with Huang, with Trump being previously aware but taking no action. It then continuously reported on: Rubio's memorandum, briefings of Trump, details of Megaspeed and chip shipping, and Huang’s second extramarital affair (with subordinate Kimberly Powell) reported on November 11. These reports directly escalated private relationships into issues of national security and export controls, triggering congressional action and board pressure.
The Financial Times provided specific commercial and chip data support, disclosing that Megaspeed-related companies (including Shanghai Century Litong, etc.) procured billions of dollars' worth of Nvidia chips, were linked to Alibaba, and that Huang Le assured investors about obtaining GPUs without issues, strengthening the narrative of "bypassing export controls."
Bloomberg, Reuters, Politico, CNBC, Washington Post, and others have continually reported on congressional subpoenas/threats (Brian Mast, Moolenaar, etc.), plunging stock prices, internal reactions from the Trump administration, and legislative trends such as the AI OVERWATCH Act, transforming the scandal from media coverage into bipartisan political pressure in Washington. These reports further magnified the shocks on both market and political levels.
It should be emphasized that the continuous investigations by The New York Times directly linked "extramarital affair + suspected espionage + chip flow to China," with ongoing reporting surrounding intelligence concerns and internal superior-subordinate relationships continually increasing the pressure on Huang.
Reuters reported that it had seen some internal communications where Huang previously described his interactions with Huang Le as normal business activities. This further highlighted the issues of corporate governance and internal trust. In terms of effect, reporting transformed information that was originally scattered within the government and company and much of which had not been verified, into pressure that the board must publicly respond to.
Of course, there are many public speculations regarding who provided what materials to which media and whether there were coordinated leak actions.
5. The board's choice
On November 8, when Nvidia's board announced an independent investigation, it still publicly expressed confidence in Huang. A few days later, the company accepted his resignation. This change is worth questioning.
However, so far, the board has not publicly disclosed complete decision-making rationale. External pressure, internal relationship reports, and whether information disclosure was sufficient may all influence judgment, and the specific weights of these factors await clarification through the investigation materials.
For the board, the higher Huang's managerial value, the greater the cost of replacing him; yet once controversies surrounding the CEO start to affect the credibility of the company’s external statements, the risks of continuing under his leadership also rise. This dilemma itself explains why the board faces immense pressure.
6. There is a question as to why these people, knowing that Huang's departure may impact American AI, are still willing to apply pressure?
The core lies in the different judgments of both sides about how American AI can win.
Huang's logic is that American technology should cover the globe as much as possible. If Chinese companies continue to use CUDA, American GPUs, and supporting tools, the U.S. will continue to gain revenue and maintain influence over the developer ecosystem. Completely conceding the Chinese market will accelerate competitors in establishing their own software and hardware systems.
The hardliners pay more attention to the relative advantages of advanced computational power. Even if U.S. companies make money, as long as Chinese companies simultaneously achieve the capability to train stronger models, this transaction may not be favorable for U.S. national security. For those who endorse this judgment, sacrificing some commercial income and bearing certain costs of industrial adjustment is acceptable.
This debate has, in fact, been ongoing for a long time.
Moreover, this personal crisis for Huang has shifted the balance of power between both sides in Washington.
7. What will truly continue to impact Sino-U.S. relations is that this crisis has altered the balance of power regarding technology policies toward China.
My baseline judgment is that restrictions in the advanced AI field are likely to tighten more easily, while there remains room for continued negotiations in overall economic and trade relations. The most direct change is who will advocate for the Chinese market to gain policy space in the future.
In the past, Huang was able to articulate complex industrial issues as a business logic that Trump would be willing to hear: U.S. companies sell products, maintain global market share, while Chinese developers continue to build applications around American platforms. Now, regardless of how successors explain this proposition, the advocates will face heavier compliance and political scrutiny.
The new management may also be more cautious. While investigations are ongoing, who would want to prioritize expanding sensitive customer sales as the top issue after taking office? Even if laws temporarily remain unchanged, approvals and corporate internal decision-making may slow down.
Another noteworthy change is regarding overseas cloud computing power.
The Remote Access Security Act has passed the House, aiming to clarify and strengthen the Commerce Department's authority to restrict remote access to controlled technologies. The situations it touches concern chips located in data centers outside of China, but Chinese clients access computational power through cloud services. This is critical for Southeast Asian data centers.
A GPU may remain in Malaysia, able to answer questions about the physical location of the chip, but may not be able to answer who is using it. Future compliance reviews, if further implemented for remote users, will require stronger knowledge from data center operators about tenants, subletting relationships, and ultimate usage.
For Chinese modeling companies, constraints that were previously alleviated by renting computational power overseas might re-emerge. For some Southeast Asian projects, the risks may shift from acquiring GPUs to whether they can continue to serve existing clients. The specific impact will depend on final laws, implementation details, permits, and customer structures. But investors at least need to reassess how stable the utilization and cash flow assumptions based on Chinese client demand are.
Meanwhile, Congress also wishes to limit the ease with which the president and the Commerce Department can loosen policies in the future.
Related texts for the Senate AI OVERWATCH Act propose to solidify export restrictions on the most advanced chips for a period, requiring evidence for lower-tier advanced chips presented to Congress. The Chip Security Act promotes the verification of chip destinations and mechanisms to prevent diversion; while the MATCH Act extends the focus on manufacturing equipment, related services, and coordination with allies.
The versions and progress of these proposals vary, but putting them together makes the direction clear: policies need to cover where chips are sold afterward and constrain the conditions under which China can expand its advanced manufacturing capabilities.
For Sino-U.S. tech relations, this will increase the difficulty of easing tensions. Administrative permits still have some room for adjustment, but restrictions written into law usually require more complex political processes to change. Even if leaders of both countries wish to reach some trade, the bargaining chips available for exchange may diminish. China will certainly place greater importance on domestic chips and software compatibility, and the impact of a complete absence of cash computational power cannot be underestimated.
American enterprises will also bear potential costs. If Chinese clients gradually establish an alternative available software and hardware system under pressure, the influence of U.S. platforms on those clients may decline. Whether regulations can secure a sufficiently long lead time, and whether it is worth incurring market and ecological costs, remains a strategic choice that has yet to be fully validated.
Recent reports from Reuters indicate that U.S. officials still expect Trump to meet Xi Jinping in Shenzhen next week, indicating that they do not expect him to voluntarily raise the Huang Le incident. At least in the current arrangements, both sides still retain the space to separate the individual case investigation from high-level diplomacy.
Trump still has the motivation to promote trade and diplomatic deals, while Congress still has the motivation to push for tech restrictions. In the coming period, we may likely see both continued talks and a continuation of some trade arrangements alongside stricter reviews of advanced computational power.
For investors, the focus to watch in the near future includes specific outcomes: whether the Commerce Department will truly take action against relevant customers like Megaspeed, what provisions will ultimately remain in the National Defense Authorization Act by the end of the year, and the extent of implementation for remote computational power restrictions. No matter how tough the rhetoric in hearings is, it must go through these processes before it becomes changes in orders, costs, and cash flow for enterprises.
The outcome I care about most is that it will become increasingly difficult to advocate for space in the Chinese market in the future. Entrepreneurs can still lobby the president, but the supervision that the president needs to face and the national security narratives Congress must respond to have already changed.
In this "oust Huang" crisis, some directly demanded his resignation, some pursued stricter export controls, and some sought accountability for the Trump administration's responsibility. Supporting the same phased outcome does not mean they share the same ultimate goal.
Putting the current information together, it is evident that hardliners within the Republican Party are indeed a significant force in applying pressure, with Democrats actively participating as well, and some Silicon Valley companies advocating for stricter export restrictions. However, to claim these individuals conspired in advance, coordinated exposure, and together directed the board to oust Huang may be an overstatement. It can only be said that a shared policy goal allows individuals from originally differing factions to exert pressure on the same event simultaneously.
This incident demonstrates the significant impact of Trump's overwhelming loss in the mid-term elections on his influence, and although he has expressed support several times, it has not prevented the combined pressures from hardliners within the party, Democrats, and public opinion, nor has it retained Huang.
It is precisely this loss that has given hardliners and Democrats a breakthrough, utilizing Huang's personal circumstances to expand and escalate the incident. They are well aware of the significant impact Huang's departure will have on Nvidia and the overall U.S. AI industry, but they are still willing to pay this cost.
This also implies that as Trump's influence and authority diminish, power in the White House is beginning to shift toward more professional, seasoned, and cunning traditional politicians, a realm in which the Democratic Party excels. Imagining the 2022-2024 period of "little courtyard and high strength" led by the Democratic Party, alongside small multilateral frameworks: U.S.-Japan-India-Australia cooperation in the Quad security dialogue, multilateral semiconductor equipment coordination, U.S.-Japan-Korea/U.S.-Japan-Philippines trilateral mechanisms, Indo-Pacific economic frameworks, and various small means, it was indeed quite tough on China. In fact, the U.S. diplomacy during Trump's tenure has somewhat resembled that of a businessman focused on economic interests; the "oust Huang" incident signifies a return to prioritizing national interests in U.S. foreign policy for the next two years.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
