The United States briefly published and then pulled back a newly updated roster of Chinese companies accused of supporting Beijing’s military, yanking the document from public view within hours of posting. The list had added some of China’s most prominent private firms, including tech giants and an automaker, before being abruptly labeled withdrawn. The reversal has already become a flashpoint in the debate over how Washington should police the boundary between commercial innovation and military power in China.
The move has also raised questions about process and credibility inside the U.S. government itself, since the same list can shape global investment flows long before any formal sanctions land. The episode amounts to a revealing stress test of how far the Trump administration is prepared to go in weaponizing regulatory tools against Chinese companies, and how carefully it is willing to handle the fallout when those tools misfire.
How a routine Pentagon list turned into a diplomatic incident
What should have been a technical update to a Defense Department register quickly spilled into public controversy once it became clear which names had been added. According to reporting from Washington, the updated document, prepared by the Pentagon and posted in the Federal Register, identified Chinese firms that U.S. officials say contribute to Beijing’s military capabilities, including companies deeply embedded in global supply chains and consumer markets, such as Alibaba and Baidu, as described by Michael Martina and. The United States framed the list as part of a broader effort to identify Chinese companies that allegedly help Beijing harness civilian technologies for military use.
The United States withdrew the updated list shortly after it appeared, with officials in WASHINGTON declining to immediately spell out why the document was taken down even as they maintained that the targeted companies were tied to Chinese military projects linked to Beijing, a sequence described in detail in reports on how United States withdrew the notice. The US government quickly retracted the updated list of Chinese firms allegedly aiding Beijing’s military, which had included major technology players, a move that stunned markets and drew immediate scrutiny, as highlighted in coverage of why US government withdrew the update.
Alibaba, Baidu, BYD and others briefly in Washington’s crosshairs
The most striking feature of the withdrawn document was the caliber of the companies it swept in. The United States did not just target obscure defense contractors; it initially included some of China’s flagship private champions, among them Alibaba, Baidu and automaker BYD, alongside biotech firm WuXi AppTec and an AI-driven robotics technology company, as outlined in accounts that describe how Other additions on list were handled. The updated list, which the Federal Register later declared unpublished, also removed two of China’s champions from an earlier version, underscoring how inclusion or exclusion can shift as U.S. agencies refine their criteria, a fluidity captured in reporting that the updated list, which briefly hosted, was then pulled back.
Other accounts stress how quickly the reversal unfolded. The US government withdrew the tech blacklist roughly an hour after adding two of the biggest Chinese companies, reflecting both the sensitivity of targeting firms like Alibaba and BYD and the apparent lack of internal consensus, a timeline captured in reports that US withdraws tech soon after posting. Separate tallies say eight Chinese firms are blacklisted in the underlying framework that the Defense Department is updating, a structure that shapes how investors and contractors assess exposure to entities that Washington describes as linked to Beijing’s military, as detailed in a public note that explains how Eight Chinese firms under the measure.
Legal stakes: the 1260H list and the National Defense Authorization Act
Behind the drama over specific company names sits a more technical, but highly consequential, legal architecture. The list in question is rooted in section 1260H of U.S. law, which instructs the Defense Department to identify Chinese military companies. The implications of the 1260H list are expanding as The FY 2024 National Defense Authorization Act now prohibits DOD from entering into contracts with companies on the list and extends restrictions to certain subsidiaries, a shift detailed in analysis of how FY 2024 National reshapes procurement. Though the Pentagon list does not itself impose sanctions on Chinese firms, under this new law the department will be prevented in the future from doing business with them, a point stressed by officials who note that, though the Pentagon list does not formally sanction Chinese companies, it now triggers a contracting ban, as explained in commentary that begins, Though the Pentagon list does not itself freeze assets.
Separate reporting notes that the U.S. defense bill passed last year expanded restrictions for Chinese companies designated on the 1260H list to include their subsidiaries, which can significantly widen the net to cover complex corporate groups that operate across sectors and borders, as described in coverage that explains how the U.S. defense bill expanded restrictions. Government notices also describe the list as an annual publication of companies with Chinese military ties that is meant to be posted for public inspection before it formally takes effect, a process that was abruptly interrupted when the Government withdrew the published annual list of companies with Chinese military ties soon after placement on public inspection, as summarized in a piece headlined by how the Government withdraws published list.
Internal U.S. tensions and Trump administration blowback
The whiplash over the list has exposed fault lines inside Washington about how aggressively to confront Chinese companies. One account describes the episode as highlighting internal US debate over Chinese tech scrutiny, even as the Trump administration signals a more cautious direction on some fronts, a characterization drawn from reports that the episode as possibly still reflects deeper disagreements. The Trump administration has also been forced to manage the optics of reversing itself so quickly on a high profile action that directly implicated major Chinese brands, which Beijing is likely to frame as evidence that Washington is using security tools for economic ends.
Criticism has been sharp. One account says The Trump administration is under intense criticism after it briefly posted and withdrew an updated list of Chinese companies alleged to have military ties, casting the move as a sign of inconsistent policy, as reported in a piece that opens by saying The Trump administration faces blowback. Another report states that The Trump administration has withdrawn a list of “Chinese military companies” and again stresses that The Trump administration is under intense criticism for the short publication period on February 13, 2026, framing the reversal as both a diplomatic and bureaucratic embarrassment, as captured in coverage that begins, Trump administration has the list. Within the Pentagon, some officials have reportedly characterized the incident as procedural, suggesting that internal review steps may not have been fully completed before publication, although that explanation has done little to quiet external critics.
Global reactions, from Beijing to investors
The diplomatic reverberations have been immediate. The latest notice on the Federal Register indicates that following the withdrawal, the update might be reissued next week, and analysts say the incident has drawn significant attention in China, where officials and media are closely tracking how Washington treats national champions such as Alibaba and BYD, as outlined in commentary that notes how latest notice on hints at a revised version. Chinese officials have already signaled that they see the listing of companies as political, and Beijing is likely to cite the rapid withdrawal as proof that the U.S. case against these firms is shaky, even as Washington insists that the underlying intelligence remains sound.
