Washington has accused online marketplace giant Alibaba of providing technological support for Chinese military operations targeting the United States, according to a White House national security memo cited by the Financial Times on Friday.

The memo, which contains declassified top-secret intelligence, outlines how the company allegedly supplied capabilities to the People’s Liberation Army that the White House believes pose risks to U.S. national security.

The FT report did not specify which capabilities were involved, which military activities they allegedly supported, or whether the U.S. government is preparing a direct response. Even with those gaps, the disclosure was enough to rattle investors. Alibaba’s shares traded in the United States dropped 4.2% after the news.

Alibaba firmly rejected the allegations. “The assertions and innuendos in the article are completely false,” the company said in a statement. It added: “We question the motivation behind the anonymous leak, which the FT admits that they cannot verify. This malicious PR operation clearly came from a rogue voice looking to undermine President Trump’s recent trade deal with China.”

China’s embassy in Washington echoed that position. Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said China “opposes and cracks down on all forms of cyberattacks in accordance with law,” and condemned the U.S. move.

“Without valid evidence, the US jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and made groundless accusations against China. It is extremely irresponsible and is a complete distortion of facts. China firmly opposes this,” Liu said.

A trust deficit despite fresh U.S.–China negotiations

While Beijing and Washington have recently engaged in talks aimed at easing trade tensions and stabilizing relations, the political backdrop remains fraught. The accusations against Alibaba underscore what officials in both countries quietly acknowledge: there is still a deep trust deficit. In Washington, suspicion toward Chinese technology companies has hardened into a structural, bipartisan stance, with concerns that firms could be leveraged—voluntarily or otherwise—for intelligence or military purposes.

That unease has shaped U.S. policy for years, long before this latest allegation.

How it escalated: From Huawei to TikTok — and now Alibaba

The distrust first surfaced prominently with Huawei, which Washington accused of posing national security risks due to its telecommunications equipment. The U.S. placed Huawei on its export blacklist in 2019, restricted access to American technology, and pressed allies to block the company from their 5G networks. China denied the allegations, but Huawei effectively became the first major casualty of the U.S. crackdown on Chinese tech.

The concerns later expanded to TikTok, owned by ByteDance, with U.S. intelligence agencies warning that the app could give Beijing access to American user data. Lawmakers pushed for restrictions and even forced divestiture, arguing that the social platform could be exploited for influence operations. ByteDance repeatedly denied the claims, yet the pressure persisted, marking TikTok as the second major target in Washington’s growing list of concerns.

Now, the spotlight has shifted to Alibaba.

The accusation that the company enabled Chinese military operations—an allegation Alibaba flatly denies—follows the same security logic that drove actions against Huawei and TikTok. Even as negotiations between Beijing and Washington reopen channels for cooperation, U.S. policymakers continue to act from a position that Chinese tech companies cannot be fully trusted due to their ties to, or obligations under, Chinese law.

A new front in a long-running rivalry

Though the White House memo reportedly contains declassified intelligence, the absence of public evidence leaves much unexplained. U.S. officials have not commented, and the FT report did not indicate whether further details will be released. Still, the timing is notable. The suggestion from Alibaba that the leak was intended to “undermine President Trump’s recent trade deal with China” shows how deeply geopolitical currents run beneath the accusation.

Beijing sees the allegation as another example of what it sees as Washington’s weaponizing of national security to contain China’s rise. For Washington, it is part of a broader strategy to secure its technological edge and prevent potential adversaries from acquiring or exploiting advanced capabilities.

Whether or not the U.S. pursues follow-up action, Alibaba has already found itself pulled into the same fault line that engulfed Huawei and TikTok. And with the U.S.–China tech rivalry accelerating, the company may not be the last.

Oracle’s bond market turbulence deepened this week after fresh concerns surfaced over the company’s plan to take on another $38 billion in debt to fund its cloud and artificial-intelligence buildout.

The unease followed reporting by CNBC that the company intends to load significantly more leverage onto an already heavy debt stack, prompting renewed scrutiny from analysts and fixed-income investors.

Oracle has committed billions of dollars this year to expand its cloud and AI infrastructure. That effort has already pushed its outstanding debt to about $104 billion, including $18 billion in bonds, leaving the company spending more than it generates from operations as it chases long-term profit through major capacity contracts with firms such as OpenAI.

The market reaction has been immediate. Prices for Oracle’s 2033 bonds, carrying a 4.9% coupon, have slipped, lifting yields by more than three basis points over the last two weeks. Newer 2032 bonds with a 4.8% coupon have also seen yields climb by nearly two basis points in a week, according to traders monitoring the action.

The added pressure comes at a moment when several big tech names are leaning on debt markets to maintain their capital-spending and stock-buyback plans. Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, said the pattern has become clear across the industry.

“Most of the major tech companies are trying to sustain their buyback programs at the same time that they’re spending on capex currently and to do that, they’re actually borrowing and so they’re using debt,” she said.

According to Reuters, some of the concerns playing out in Oracle’s bonds have been echoed by credit analysts. Stu Novick of Gimme Credit said activity in the past few sessions indicates rising caution.

“There’s definitely some selling pressure,” he said. “The numbers are enormous and a lot of people are asking, ‘how are they actually making money on this stuff?’”

Even so, others argue the reaction is more of a stress ripple than a sign of deeper trouble. Tim Horan, chief investment officer for fixed income at Chilton Trust, downplayed the idea that the dip in Oracle’s bonds signals structural risk.

“I’m viewing this more as a bump in the road,” he said. “I don’t think what Oracle is experiencing is symptomatic of a popping of some kind of bond market expensive bubble.”

He added that the company still has levers to pull before it would need to touch dividends.

Beyond the bond moves, heavy spending from major players in the AI race has triggered a broader conversation about whether investors are underestimating the real cost of maintaining these massive infrastructure engines. Michael Burry — known for his prescient bet against the U.S. housing market before the 2008 financial crisis — recently argued that tech giants investing heavily in AI, including Oracle, Microsoft, and Google, have been extending depreciation schedules in ways that smooth reported earnings at a time when their capital outlays are surging. Burry estimated that between 2026 and 2028, those accounting choices could understate depreciation by roughly $176 billion across the sector, artificially lifting profit figures.

The durability of data-center investments has also entered the discussion. Michael Field, chief equity strategist at Morningstar in the Netherlands, said assigning a precise economic life to data-center infrastructure is increasingly difficult.

“It’s decreasing all the time and it could be single, low single-digit years very shortly,” he said. “It could be three to four years and then something’s obsolete, and you have to make a hell of a lot of money in that particular time to pay off the infrastructure that went into that site in the first place.”

That tension, massive upfront spending, short technology cycles, and increasingly careful investors, is now hanging over Oracle’s expansion drive. The company is wagering that long-term AI demand will justify its rising debt. Bond markets, for the moment, are signaling that buyers want more clarity before taking that on faith.