Alibaba Group has secured a preliminary injunction from a US federal judge preventing the government from denying Pentagon contracts to companies because they, their parent companies, or subsidiaries do business with firms that lobby on behalf of the Chinese e-commerce and technology group.
The ruling, issued on Monday, gives Alibaba greater room to continue its Washington lobbying activities while it challenges its designation by the US Department of Defense as a company allegedly aiding China’s military. However, the injunction does not remove Alibaba from the Pentagon’s list or resolve the underlying dispute over its alleged links to China’s defense establishment.
The case shows that Washington’s efforts to limit China’s influence in the US defense supply chain are extending beyond direct procurement decisions to affect lobbying relationships, corporate subsidiaries and third-party commercial arrangements.
Register for the next Tekedia Mini-MBA.
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Alibaba sued the US government in June after the Pentagon added it to a list of companies it alleges support China’s military. Other firms named include Baidu, the internet search provider, and BYD, the electric vehicle manufacturer.
The designation does not impose formal economic sanctions on Alibaba. It does, however, restrict Pentagon contracting involving listed companies and is due to trigger broader restrictions from 2027 on purchases of their products or services through third parties.
The injunction addresses a separate but related obstacle. Under the restrictions challenged in court, companies risked losing Pentagon business because of their commercial relationships with firms that employ lobbyists representing Alibaba. The judge’s order prevents the government from using those relationships as grounds to deny contracts while the legal challenge proceeds.
That significantly matters for Alibaba’s efforts to contest its designation. Lobbying provides companies with a channel to engage policymakers, challenge government decisions, and explain the commercial implications of regulatory measures. Restrictions affecting the lobbyists they can hire could limit those efforts, particularly when the same Washington firms represent companies seeking US government contracts.
According to a source with direct knowledge of the matter cited by Reuters, Alibaba dismissed dozens of its Washington lobbyists after the Pentagon’s June action.
The ruling removes a potential obstacle to rebuilding those lobbying relationships, although it does not determine whether Alibaba’s designation was lawful.
Alibaba has denied having military ties, arguing that its products and services are designed for retail, logistics and enterprise technology rather than defense or intelligence operations.
In its June lawsuit, the company said the Pentagon’s determinations had “no basis in fact or law” and sought removal from the list.
The dispute comes with implications beyond the company’s immediate access to US defense contracts. The planned expansion of procurement restrictions in 2027 could expose Chinese technology suppliers to indirect exclusion from defense supply chains, even where the products are purchased through third parties rather than directly from the companies named by the Pentagon.
For defense contractors, the prospect of restrictions on products and services sourced through subsidiaries, intermediaries or commercial partners could require broader reviews of supplier relationships. Companies may have to establish whether their purchases could expose them to contractual or regulatory risks as the rules take effect.
The source familiar with Alibaba’s response said other Chinese technology firms were also concerned about the designation’s implications for international lobbying and the planned indirect procurement ban. The source said the restrictions could effectively remove Chinese products from US defense contractors’ supply chains.
The case therefore sits at the intersection of national security policy, commercial competition and corporate legal rights. The US government has sought to limit the involvement of companies it considers connected to China’s military, while affected businesses are challenging the evidentiary and legal basis for their inclusion.
Alibaba’s preliminary injunction does not settle that broader conflict. It provides interim relief on the specific issue of government contracting decisions linked to lobbying relationships while the company’s challenge to its designation remains before the courts.
Other Chinese Companies Challenge Pentagon Blacklisting
Alibaba is among several major Chinese companies pursuing legal action over their inclusion on the Pentagon’s list, indicating that the policy is generating a series of disputes over how the US government determines which firms pose national security concerns.
Last month, two subsidiaries of BYD, the world’s largest electric vehicle maker, sued the US Department of Defense over a federal law prohibiting Pentagon contractors from hiring lobbyists who also represent blacklisted companies. The subsidiaries argued that the restriction violated their First Amendment rights.
The BYD litigation illustrates how measures directed at Chinese companies can affect other businesses through their professional relationships. Lobbying firms often represent multiple corporate clients, and restrictions on those relationships can create commercial consequences for companies that are not themselves the target of a designation.
Drone manufacturer DJI has also challenged its inclusion on the Pentagon list. In August, an appeals court found merit in the company’s argument that unclassified records did not support the conclusion that it contributed to China’s defense industrial base. The court ordered a lower court to reconsider its rejection of DJI’s bid for removal from the list. The case remains ongoing.
Biotechnology company WuXi AppTec secured a separate preliminary injunction in August that blocked its inclusion on the list. The company said the Pentagon’s designation was politically motivated.
The cases do not establish that all the designations are unlawful, nor does a preliminary injunction necessarily amount to a final judgment on the merits. Each company’s legal challenge turns on its particular circumstances and the arguments presented to the courts.
Nevertheless, the litigation demonstrates that the Pentagon’s blacklist is becoming a contested legal instrument as Chinese companies seek to protect their US commercial interests and challenge the government’s assessments of their national security connections.