Trump Says FBI Is Looking Into Huang Matter ‘In Terms of Something Else’ as Nvidia Opens Review

President Donald Trump said he knew the FBI was “looking into it, in terms of something else,” when asked about the controversy surrounding Nvidia chief Jensen Huang, who acknowledged marital infidelity on Sunday as his company announced an investigation into allegations that foreign intelligence had targeted him. Trump spoke at the White House on Monday.

His remark did not specify what “something else” referred to. He did not announce any finding of wrongdoing. He defended Huang and said the executive had denied knowing of the allegation that the woman involved was a spy.

At Monday's briefing, Trump said: “I know the FBI is looking into it, in terms of something else, and I think that he’ll be in good shape.” He said he had spoken with Huang that day and believed his account.

The distinction between an allegation and an established intelligence finding remains central to the public record. Nvidia's directors have confirmed that they are investigating the claims. Their announcement does not establish that an espionage operation succeeded or that confidential information changed hands.

On Sunday, the directors said that board members independent of management would supervise the review with assistance from independent outside lawyers. They expressed confidence in Huang and the company's leadership while promising to examine the information available to it.

The directors said they had no reason to conclude that American security interests or Nvidia's secrets had been compromised. That statement describes the board's position as the review begins, rather than the result of a completed investigation. Huang supports the inquiry and has pledged cooperation, the directors said.

In a separate message published by Nvidia on Sunday, Huang apologized to his wife, children and colleagues. He accepted responsibility for being unfaithful and asked that his family be given privacy. The public message did not identify his partner or describe what information, if any, investigators believe was sought.

“I was unfaithful to my wife,” Huang wrote. “My actions hurt her and our children. There is no excuse for what I did.” He also committed to supporting the company's review and protecting American national security.

The congressional request predates those announcements. In a letter dated Nov. 4 and released the following day, Reps. Brian Mast, John Moolenaar and Rick Crawford sought a private briefing from Huang about Nvidia's defenses against espionage and his interactions with Alice Huang, whom they identified as a Megaspeed executive.

The lawmakers cited public allegations that Alice Huang was linked to Chinese intelligence. Their letter sought information about those allegations; it did not present a completed congressional finding that she was an intelligence operative. The distinction matters because the allegations themselves remain disputed.

Mast leads the Foreign Affairs Committee, Moolenaar chairs the House panel focused on the Chinese Communist Party, and Crawford heads the Intelligence Committee. Together they requested an appearance on Nov. 18 and asked Huang to accept that date, or propose another congressional session day, by Nov. 11.

The document is a request for a briefing, not a subpoena. It asks about both Huang's contacts and the company's security practices, putting corporate safeguards alongside the chief executive's personal conduct. The letter does not establish that Huang has agreed to appear.

China rejected the espionage allegation on Monday. Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun called it unsubstantiated and an effort to smear his country. His response, delivered at the ministry's regular press conference, disputed the claim without resolving the questions raised by the House chairmen.

The public statements present sharply different positions: Trump says he believes Huang, the directors say they have not identified a compromise, lawmakers are demanding answers, and Beijing denies the allegation. Those statements do not establish that espionage occurred or that sensitive information was compromised.