NYT匿名指控英伟达高管涉中共间谍，引发否认

A report in The New York Times on October 29 cited anonymous American intelligence officials who said a Chinese-born executive at a Singapore-based data center company is suspected of passing information to Beijing and has had close contact with NVIDIA Chief Executive Officer Huang Renxun. The woman, identified as Alice Huang, is the founder of Megaspeed International, a company that has become one of the largest NVIDIA chip buyers in Southeast Asia. According to the report, the officials identified the American citizen Huang Renxun contacted as the same person through a declassification process, and noted that former President Donald Trump was briefed on the matter roughly a year ago, though the government has not taken public action.

The Times report did not publish any intelligence evidence, nor did it specify what information the executive is alleged to have transmitted, or whether the alleged activity involved commercial secrets or matters of national security. The officials who spoke on condition of anonymity also could not clarify what triggered the surveillance. Much of the report’s core claims rest on unnamed sources, and the newspaper itself noted that the report demonstrates that people within the intelligence community hold the view and are willing to discuss it with reporters — not that the allegations have been proven.

NVIDIA and its chief executive have flatly denied any wrongdoing. In a Bloomberg Television interview, Huang Renxun said his interactions with the executive in question have been no different from his contacts with thousands of other corporate clients, and described them as entirely normal and unremarkable. He added that the executive, who has since left Megaspeed, was involved only in standard business dealings. A company spokesperson, John Rizzo, said NVIDIA verified the deployment of every GPU sent to Megaspeed and found no irregularities, including no diversion of chips to mainland China. Rizzo also noted that customers of this type can only access ordinary commercial information, not sensitive business secrets or intelligence-related material.

The Chinese government has also dismissed the report as unfounded. At a regular press briefing on October 30, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun called the story “wind-catching” and said it amounts to purely slandering and defaming China. The Chinese Embassy in Washington had previously labeled the allegations baseless slander and libel. Both responses framed the report as part of a broader pattern of targeting China.

Beyond the anonymous leak and the denials, there is an active government investigation. U.S. authorities have been probing Megaspeed since late 2024, following reports that a Commerce Department official found NVIDIA equipment still sealed in packing crates at a data center in Malaysia, raising questions about potential diversion. Singapore authorities summoned Huang Lei in 2025 and released her; she is not in custody and is said to be cooperating with the investigation. The Commerce Department’s inquiry has been transferred to the Department of Justice this year. Megaspeed, registered in Singapore in 2023, has stated it has hired external lawyers for an internal review and has notified the U.S. government of its willingness to cooperate. However, officials have emphasized that the ongoing investigation into potential export-control violations is separate from allegations of espionage.

Market reaction to the NYT piece was muted. NVIDIA’s stock closed down about one percent on October 29, and analysts have priced the development as “noise without conclusion.” The episode highlights the tension between unverified intelligence leaks, corporate denials, and geopolitical scrutiny over chip flows, but as of now, no criminal charges have been filed, no court has ruled on the matter, and the original report remains an unattributed account from within the U.S. intelligence community.

The fact-check framing makes clear that what has been reported is an anonymous official’s perspective, not an established fact. Chinese-language commentary on the story has added layers of speculation, but the English-language record, based on the same sources, remains a dispute between an unnamed briefing, a named corporate denial, and an official rebuttal from Beijing.

Source: News reports