On September 24, 2025, the Associated Press (AP) published a bombshell investigation that has sent tremors through both Capitol Hill and Silicon Valley, exposing a quarter-century of deep and deliberate involvement by major U.S. technology companies in the construction of China’s formidable surveillance state. The report, based on thousands of classified Chinese government documents and internal corporate communications gathered over a meticulous three-year period, paints a stark picture: American firms were not merely bystanders, but architects and enablers of the very systems now used to suppress dissent, persecute minorities, and monitor millions of Chinese citizens.
The AP’s findings reveal that some of the world’s most prominent technology companies—including IBM, Dell, Cisco, Intel, Nvidia, Seagate, Oracle, Microsoft, and Western Digital—sold billions of dollars’ worth of hardware and software to Chinese police and government agencies. These sales continued for years, even as warnings mounted that the technology was being weaponized against ethnic minorities like the Uyghurs and Tibetans, as well as political dissidents and religious groups. Marketing materials from IBM, Dell, Cisco, and Seagate went so far as to reference Communist Party slogans about suppressing dissent and highlighted their use in programs like “Internet Police” and “Golden Shield.”
According to the AP, IBM’s i2 police surveillance analysis software was a cornerstone of China’s predictive policing efforts. The software was copied and deployed by Landasoft, a Chinese surveillance firm founded by a former IBM agent, and became the backbone of a platform that flagged hundreds of thousands of individuals in Xinjiang for preemptive detention. IBM has stated it ended its relationship with Landasoft in 2014 and prohibited sales to police in Xinjiang and Tibet since 2015, but its early role was undeniably pivotal.
Dell, meanwhile, partnered with Chinese surveillance firm Yitu in 2019 to sell “military-grade” AI-powered laptops featuring “all-race recognition” to Chinese police. Intel and Nvidia both worked with China’s largest surveillance companies to integrate artificial intelligence into camera systems deployed across Xinjiang and Tibet, prior to U.S. sanctions. These partnerships, the AP notes, laid the foundation for what has become known as China’s “digital cage.”
The report’s publication triggered an immediate and fierce response from lawmakers and activists across the political spectrum. Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, a vocal critic of both Big Tech and the Chinese Communist Party, called for urgent congressional hearings. “Big Tech must cut ties with the CCP — or face my committee,” Hawley posted on social media, signaling his intent to summon tech executives before Congress and, if necessary, issue subpoenas. He told the AP, “I think eventually we’re going to have to subpoena these people.”
Other lawmakers echoed Hawley’s call for action. Representative John Moolenaar of Michigan, who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, warned, “China has been utilizing partnerships with U.S. tech companies to build malignant ‘smart cities’ that are used for mass surveillance and human rights abuses against millions of innocent Chinese people.” Moolenaar urged American companies to collaborate with Congress to write new laws restricting the export of technologies that enable oppression and to work harder to prevent their products from being smuggled into China.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and ranking member of the Senate banking committee, also weighed in, calling the revelations “deeply disturbing.” She stated, “It’s deeply disturbing to see the extent to which some of the largest American tech companies will do the bidding of whoever pays the most — even if it means helping to build a high-tech surveillance state. It underscores the urgency of implementing robust export controls that ensure American technology is not used to enable human rights abuses and harm U.S. interests.”
Activists and civil society groups that work on issues of Chinese state repression, especially among Tibetan and Uyghur communities, responded with shock and anger. Yang Caiying, an activist from rural Jiangsu whose family was targeted by Chinese surveillance using American technology, described her reaction: “I was shocked by the pivotal role that major U.S. tech companies have played.” Yang’s mother and sister were sentenced to more than a year in prison earlier this month, but she remains steadfast in her advocacy, collecting signatures to urge Washington to bar U.S. firms from selling to Chinese police. “Without attention, China will sink into an endless abyss,” she told the AP, stressing the need to expose “how miserable people’s lives can be when digital surveillance is combined with systematic human rights violations.”
Tencho Gyatso, president of the International Campaign for Tibet, said she was “shocked and dismayed” by the AP’s findings. “I am appalled that U.S. technology companies have made millions in profits selling to China’s security services,” she said, urging U.S. tech firms to “sever immediately any remaining ties or business relationships with China’s police state or entities affiliated with it.” Zumretay Arkin, vice president of the World Uyghur Congress, went further, arguing that American tech companies and researchers bear direct responsibility for ethnic repression: “U.S. companies have to stop providing these technologies for the Chinese government.”
The AP investigation highlights a profound ethical dilemma at the heart of global capitalism: the tension between profit and principle. Over the past 25 years, the pursuit of lucrative Chinese contracts appears to have overshadowed concerns about human rights abuses—a fact not lost on investors, who now face a new era of heightened scrutiny, regulatory risk, and reputational damage for companies with significant exposure to China.
In response to these revelations, the Biden administration has already moved to restrict the sale of internet-connected cars and ban Chinese-made drones, citing national security concerns. Policymakers are considering further measures, such as expanded export controls, “geo-tracking” features in AI technology to monitor compliance, and new “secure by design” standards. These changes will ripple through global supply chains, forcing companies to diversify away from China—often at higher costs and with greater complexity.
Looking ahead, the fallout from the AP’s exposé is expected to accelerate the process of technological decoupling between the U.S. and China. Many Western tech firms are shifting from a “China Plus 1” strategy to an “Anything But China” approach, developing dual supply chains and technology stacks to separate Chinese and global operations. While this will likely reduce market opportunities and profitability for some U.S. firms, it may also create openings for companies that prioritize ethical business practices and human rights.
As the world digests the AP’s findings, one thing is clear: the era of unchecked tech collaboration between the U.S. and China is over. The conversation has shifted—perhaps irrevocably—from trade and profit to ethics, accountability, and the fundamental values underpinning global technology governance.