Nvidia's 2026 Gains Vanish as Congressional Republicans Threaten CEO Jensen Huang With a Subpoena

Table of Contents

• You might want to know


• Nvidia's share decline and market context


• Congressional inquiry and investigations


• Competition from Google


• Key Insights Table


• Afterwards...

You might want to know

• How did Nvidia's November selloff erase its gains for 2026, and what does the decline suggest about market expectations?


• Why are congressional scrutiny, an independent board investigation, a shareholder lawsuit, and new competition converging on the company at the same time?

Nvidia's share decline and market context

Nvidia shares fell to $166.95 on Tuesday afternoon, leaving the company down 18.42% in November and erasing all of its gains for 2026. The selloff gathered pace amid congressional attention concerning CEO Jensen Huang and his reported interactions with a person suspected by U.S. authorities of having links to Chinese intelligence. These allegations have not established that Huang knowingly shared confidential information or broke export rules.

At $166.95, the stock was approximately 10.5% below its $186.50 closing price at the end of 2025 and 31.4% below its recent peak of $243.37. November was on course to become Nvidia's worst month since September 2022, when its shares fell roughly 19.6%. In April of that year, the stock experienced a larger decline of 32%.

Tuesday's decline exceeded 6% during afternoon trading, following a 4.3% drop on Monday. The combined two-day fall was on track to remove more than $470 billion from Nvidia's market value. The magnitude of the move has renewed attention to valuation and technical indicators, though these do not establish what a share price should be or predict its next direction.

Some analysts might still describe the stock as extremely overbought over a longer time horizon, meaning it had traded well above levels that certain technical measures identify as typical. One illustrative technical scenario discussed in the source was a further 20% decline, equivalent to a 43% fall from October. In isolation, that kind of correction could still leave the share price above the average price over the previous 50 months. This is a technical comparison, not a forecast or assurance that the stock would recover.

Prices sometimes rebound or trade near a long-term average after moving far away from it. However, a large gap between price and average can reflect strong demand as well as changing expectations. In fast-growing technology sectors, enthusiasm and fear of missing out may contribute to buying alongside expectations about future business performance. Technical indicators describe past price behavior; they do not prove that a security is undervalued, overvalued, or certain to move in a particular direction.

The reported share-price pressure also coincided with a broader reassessment of the artificial intelligence boom. Investors have questioned how long substantial data-center spending can continue, while potential customers have more alternatives to Nvidia's high-priced chips. Those issues are separate from the allegations concerning Huang, but together they form the commercial and political backdrop to the share decline.

Congressional inquiry and investigations

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast told ABC News on Tuesday that he was prepared to subpoena Huang if the CEO did not respond by Wednesday, November 11, to a request for a closed-door briefing. No subpoena had been issued at the time of the report. The threat was tied to a request for information and a briefing; it should not be mistaken for a finding of wrongdoing.

Mast and two other Republican committee chairs asked Huang to appear on November 18. They want him to explain his interactions with Alice Huang, a former executive at Singapore-based chip buyer Megaspeed, and to describe Nvidia's safeguards against foreign espionage. The lawmakers' request was outlined in a letter reviewed by Reuters.

Alice Huang has no family relationship with Nvidia's chief executive. U.S. authorities have reportedly investigated whether she passed information to Beijing. The claims remain allegations in the account provided, and they do not establish that Jensen Huang knowingly disclosed confidential information or violated export controls. Distinguishing between an investigation, an allegation, and a substantiated conclusion is essential when evaluating the matter.

Nvidia's board announced on Sunday that it had opened an independent investigation into whether its CEO had been targeted by a foreign intelligence operation. The board said it had no reason to believe national security or company secrets had been compromised, while also stating that it would examine the available information. The inquiry is intended to assess the circumstances rather than presume that sensitive information was lost.

The Financial Times reported earlier on Tuesday that Nvidia had hired Joon H Kim, a former U.S. prosecutor, to conduct the internal investigation. The appointment adds an outside investigator to the company's review. The report did not, by itself, establish the outcome of that work or resolve the allegations.

Legal action has added another source of pressure. Shareholders filed a proposed class-action lawsuit on Monday, alleging that Nvidia and Huang failed to disclose risks associated with the reported relationship. The filing represents claims by the plaintiffs; the allegations have not been established as findings by a court. The company, its board, and investors therefore face questions that may be addressed through different processes: congressional oversight, an internal probe, and litigation.

Competition from Google

The controversy arrived as investors were already reassessing the durability of AI-related spending and Nvidia's competitive position. Nvidia has been a central supplier of chips for AI workloads, but customers may consider alternatives when they assess cost, availability, performance, and the needs of their own systems. Competition is consequently relevant to the company's longer-term outlook even though the congressional inquiry concerns a different set of issues.

Google introduced new configurations of AI chips on Monday. The Information reported that OpenAI was considering buying Google's tensor processing units, known as TPUs, which are processors designed specifically for AI workloads. Neither company confirmed a purchase in the source account. Google also announced a new line of TPUs available to select customers, putting its products in more direct competition with Nvidia's chips.

A reported consideration of a possible purchase is not the same as a confirmed order or a completed change in supplier. Still, the availability of additional chip options could give some buyers more flexibility and increase competitive pressure. How meaningful that pressure becomes will depend on factors such as product capabilities, software compatibility, supply, pricing, and the performance customers achieve in their own applications.

The company's near-term calendar also brought scrutiny and financial reporting close together. Nvidia was scheduled to report quarterly earnings on November 17, one day before the November 18 congressional briefing requested by House Republicans. Mast's response deadline for Huang came first, on November 11. Investors and other observers therefore had several closely spaced developments to follow, while the outcome of the board investigation and lawsuit remained unresolved.

Key Insights Table

Afterwards...

The next stages of this story depend on evidence and decisions that were not yet available in the report. The board's independent investigation may clarify whether Huang was targeted and whether company information was exposed. Congressional scrutiny may provide further details about the requested briefing and Nvidia's safeguards, while the proposed lawsuit will proceed through a separate legal process. Until those developments occur, allegations should remain clearly distinguished from verified findings.

For investors and technology observers, the issue also illustrates why assessing an AI company requires more than tracking a single share-price move. Relevant areas to examine include demand for data-center infrastructure, the economics of AI deployment, chip performance and availability, and whether customers can move between hardware platforms. Greater transparency about supply chains and security controls may also help companies and policymakers evaluate exposure to foreign intelligence risks without treating unproven claims as conclusions.

As AI hardware markets develop, researchers and decision-makers should continue exploring ways to compare systems fairly, strengthen security across international supply chains, and measure the long-term returns on large-scale computing investments. Careful investigation, clear disclosure, and evidence-based competition analysis can help the public understand both the commercial stakes and the national-security questions.