So I looked into these allegations that Jensen had a romantic relationship with a Chinese spy and, ironically, the only actual proof we have that someone is [prostituting] themselves out to spies in this story is the media - all the rest is unsubstantiated, just journalists repeating what anonymous US intelligence officials told them.

I’m not exaggerating, I actually read all the key articles on this:

1. New York Times on Oct 29, the initial “scoop”: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/29/us/politics/nvidia-china-jensen-huang-trump.html

Claim: Alice Huang is a Chinese intelligence asset funneling information to Beijing.

“Proof”: they were told so by “people briefed on the surveillance, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the findings are drawn from classified intelligence…” That’s it. The Times even admits it couldn’t determine which agency monitored her, what she passed along, or its value to China. In other words, they didn’t verify the spy claim whatsoever.

2. Wall Street Journal on Oct 30: https://www.wsj.com/tech/chinese-executive-close-to-nvidia-ceo-suspected-of-giving-china-information-798eb6a1

Claim: The US, Singapore and Taiwan suspect Alice Huang is a Chinese intelligence source, with Singapore and Taiwan even putting physical surveillance teams on her.

“Proof”: “people familiar with the matter said.” That’s it. And the story actually fell apart within a day since Singapore’s Home Affairs ministry went on the record with a public rebuke of the WSJ article (https://www.mha.gov.sg/media-room/newsroom/clarification-statement-on-wall-street-journals-article/) stating that “neither the Singapore Government nor its officials said this,” and that “there were no such investigations conducted in respect of Alice Huang.” Taiwan declined to comment. In other words, the only government they invoked that went on the record denied the claim publicly.

3. New York Times again on Nov 6, the “MSS recruit” story: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/11/06/us/politics/chinese-spy-agency-nvidia-jensen-huang.html

Claim: Alice Huang was recruited by China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) specifically to collect intelligence on Jensen.

“Proof”: “according to people briefed on U.S. surveillance.” That’s it. No new evidence, no document, no on-record source for the claim. Yet the headline states it as plain fact, without even an “allegedly.”

4. The Financial Times, quoted below, on Nov 7 with the romance claim: https://www.ft.com/content/a55a2a22-4479-4f93-a445-6147a5c6d790

Claim: A US government memo says Jensen had a romantic relationship with Alice Huang.

“Proof”: “said people familiar with the memo.” That’s it: anonymous people describing a memo the FT never saw, which itself describes intelligence nobody can check.

It’s properly extraordinary when you think about it and you couldn’t make it up: she’s accused of being an intelligence asset, yet the only people we can actually watch behaving as intelligence assets - and admitting so in writing (since they openly cite spies as their only source) - are Western journalists.

Things are so bad that we’ve forgotten what actual journalism is: real journalists - when anonymous intelligence officials tell them something - would treat it as a lead to investigate, not as a fact. They’d ask: why are they leaking this, why now, and who benefits? And, most importantly, they’d try to verify the claims independently before printing them - which is supposed to be journalism 101 and wasn’t done here.

You’d think something would have been learned from the Iraq WMD story and the countless other examples of the press laundering intelligence claims into front-page “facts.” Apparently not - and it’s even the same newspaper, the New York Times, leading the charge.