A Growing Body of Evidence Indicts the NYT’s Reporting

David Sacks says the big story in the Jensen Huang saga isn’t the alleged spy. It’s that somebody risked jail time to leak a classified memo to The New York Times to take Huang down. SACKS: “I think it’s pretty clear that there were two ops here... And that second op began when somebody or multiple people leaked a highly classified memo, or the contents of it, to The New York Times. I think it’s really important to understand that that’s a crime.” “I don’t believe that The New York Times just got this by overhearing people talking about it at a bar. Somebody made the calculated decision that they’re willing to risk going to jail... to let The New York Times know about this story.” CONTEXT: Leaking classified national security information is a federal felony under the Espionage Act, punishable by up to 10 years in prison per count. Sacks wants to know who handed The New York Times the memo identifying Alice Huang as a suspected Chinese spy, why they’d risk prison to do it, and why no one is investigating the leak.

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) November 14, 2026

… somebody or multiple people leaked a highly classified memo, or the contents of it, to The New York Times. I think it’s really important to understand that that’s a crime.”

“I don’t believe that The New York Times just got this by overhearing people talking about it at a bar. Somebody made the calculated decision that they’re willing to risk going to jail... to let The New York Times know about this story.”

CONTEXT: Leaking classified national security information is a federal felony under the Espionage Act, punishable by up to 10 years in prison per count.

Sacks wants to know who handed The New York Times the memo identifying Alice Huang as a suspected Chinese spy, why they’d risk prison to do it, and why no one is investigating the leak.

NYT has responded to my post by claiming that I’m “spreading conspiracy theories.” But which of us is the one trafficking in unsubstantiated allegations? Recent coverage (including CNN, which I QT’d) shows: — The intelligence community has not established conclusive evidence that Alice Huang knowingly acted as a spy or funneled information to Beijing. — There is internal disagreement about the strength of the evidence and whether she was recruited by the MSS. — Attorney General Todd Blanche has said on the record that the Justice Department, he, and FBI Director Patel have reached no conclusions about “who she is or is not.” — Some officials at ODNI and CIA have indicated the “Chinese spy” label is not fully accurate or is “over-torqued” based on the available intercepts and collection. — Incoming House Intelligence Chairman Jim Himes, a Democrat, said it was still unclear whether Alice Huang was a Chinese spy immediately after he was briefed. NYT’s stories (which have alleged “Chinese spy” dozens of times) have relied exclusively on anonymous officials. No official has gone on the record affirming it as established fact, and the more recent reporting reflects greater caution and disagreement inside the government. So when I point out that the spy narrative is unconfirmed and increasingly contested, that is not a conspiracy theory. It’s a growing body of evidence that indicts the NYT’s reporting.

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) November 14, 2026

…that Alice Huang knowingly acted as a spy or funneled information to Beijing.

— There is internal disagreement about the strength of the evidence and whether she was recruited by the MSS.

— Attorney General Todd Blanche has said on the record that the Justice Department, he, and FBI Director Patel have reached no conclusions about “who she is or is not.”

— Some officials at ODNI and CIA have indicated the “Chinese spy” label is not fully accurate or is “over-torqued” based on the available intercepts and collection.

— Incoming House Intelligence Chairman Jim Himes, a Democrat, said it was still unclear whether Alice Huang was a Chinese spy immediately after he was briefed.

NYT’s stories (which have alleged “Chinese spy” dozens of times) have relied exclusively on anonymous officials. No official has gone on the record affirming it as established fact, and the more recent reporting reflects greater caution and disagreement inside the government.

So when I point out that the spy narrative is unconfirmed and increasingly contested, that is not a conspiracy theory. It’s a growing body of evidence that indicts the NYT’s reporting.