On Saturday, Chinese technology giant Alibaba found itself at the center of a swirling controversy, forcefully denying allegations that it had aided Beijing’s military in targeting the United States. The company’s response came after a report from the Financial Times (FT) cited a White House memo alleging Alibaba provided technical support for Chinese military operations against American targets. The memo, according to the FT, claimed Alibaba handed over sensitive customer data—including IP addresses, Wi-Fi information, and payment records—to Chinese authorities and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
Alibaba wasted no time in rejecting the accusations. Speaking to Agence France-Presse (AFP), a company spokesperson declared, “The assertions and innuendos in the article are completely false.” The spokesperson went further, questioning the motives behind the leak, stating, “We question the motivation behind the anonymous leak, which the FT admits that they cannot verify.” Alibaba characterized the report as a “malicious PR operation [that] clearly came from a rogue voice looking to undermine President Trump’s recent trade deal with China.”
The timing of these allegations is notable. Just weeks prior, U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping had reached a one-year trade truce after months of escalating tariffs and heated rhetoric. The agreement, struck in late October 2025, was seen by many as a rare moment of de-escalation in the ongoing economic and technological rivalry between the two superpowers. Now, with the FT’s report casting a shadow, suspicions and tensions are once again on the rise.
The Financial Times itself acknowledged that it could not independently verify the claims made in the White House memo. Nevertheless, the report has reignited long-standing concerns in Washington about the potential for Chinese technology firms to serve as conduits for state surveillance or cyber-espionage. The memo reportedly asserted that Alibaba’s actions posed a threat to U.S. security, though no direct evidence was made public.
China’s diplomatic representatives in the United States were quick to echo Alibaba’s denials. Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for China’s embassy in Washington, issued a statement on social media platform X, insisting, “The Chinese government... will never require companies or individuals to collect or provide data located in foreign countries in violation of local laws.” This statement aimed to reassure both American policymakers and the international community that Beijing does not compel its companies to break foreign data privacy laws.
Yet the FT’s report has landed in a climate of deepening mistrust. The U.S. government and its allies have long expressed anxiety over Chinese tech companies’ obligations to their home government, particularly in light of China’s sweeping national security laws. These laws, critics argue, could be interpreted to require firms like Alibaba to cooperate with intelligence or military agencies if requested. While Chinese officials have consistently rejected such interpretations, the lack of transparency and independent oversight has fueled skepticism in Western capitals.
In a further twist, the controversy comes on the heels of a significant cybersecurity revelation. On Thursday, November 13, 2025, California-based artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic announced it had detected and disrupted what it called the first documented cyber-espionage campaign conducted largely autonomously by AI. According to Anthropic, the campaign was attributed to a “Chinese state-sponsored group” designated GTG-1002. The company’s findings have added another layer of urgency to ongoing debates about the intersection of AI, cybersecurity, and state-sponsored hacking.
Asked about the Anthropic report at a news conference on Friday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian responded that he was “not familiar with the specifics,” but emphasized that Beijing had “consistently fought hacking activities.” This statement, while intended to deflect blame, did little to quell suspicions among American officials and cybersecurity experts.
For Alibaba, the stakes are exceptionally high. The company is one of China’s most prominent technology enterprises, with a global footprint that extends far beyond e-commerce into cloud computing, digital payments, and artificial intelligence. In recent years, Alibaba has worked hard to position itself as a trustworthy, international player, even as geopolitical headwinds have grown stronger.
The company’s forceful rebuttal of the FT’s report reflects the seriousness with which it views the allegations. “This malicious PR operation clearly came from a rogue voice looking to undermine President Trump’s recent trade deal with China,” the Alibaba spokesperson reiterated, highlighting the potential political motivations behind the leak. The company also pointed out that the FT itself admitted it could not verify the memo’s contents, raising questions about the reliability of the information and the timing of its release.
The Chinese government’s response has also been unequivocal. Liu Pengyu’s statement stressed that, “The Chinese government... will never require companies or individuals to collect or provide data located in foreign countries in violation of local laws.” This line has become a familiar refrain from Beijing as it seeks to reassure foreign partners and investors that Chinese tech companies operate independently when it comes to user data abroad.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government appears to remain on high alert. The White House memo, even if not independently verified, reflects a broader anxiety about the potential national security risks posed by foreign technology firms. The recent cyber-espionage campaign detected by Anthropic only amplifies these concerns, suggesting that the tools and tactics of state-sponsored hackers are evolving rapidly—sometimes with the help of cutting-edge AI.
For its part, Alibaba continues to insist on its innocence, arguing that the allegations are not only unfounded but also strategically timed to disrupt the fragile progress made in U.S.-China relations. The company’s leadership is likely keenly aware that even unproven accusations can have significant consequences, both for its reputation and its business prospects in the United States and other Western markets.
As the dust settles, the episode serves as a stark reminder of the complexities—and the stakes—of global technology competition. With trade truces hanging by a thread and cybersecurity threats growing more sophisticated by the day, trust between Washington and Beijing remains elusive. For businesses like Alibaba, navigating this treacherous landscape will require not just technical expertise, but also deft diplomacy and a keen understanding of the shifting geopolitical winds.
In the end, while the veracity of the White House memo remains in question, the controversy underscores just how quickly old suspicions can resurface—and how fragile even the most hard-won truces can be in the face of new allegations.
