Alibaba said it will take “all available legal action” after being added to a U.S. Defense Department list of companies alleged to support China’s military, escalating tensions between Washington and one of China’s most prominent technology firms.
The designation was made by the Pentagon, which maintains a list identifying entities it says have ties to China’s military apparatus. Inclusion on the list does not automatically impose direct sanctions, but it can lead to investment restrictions and heighten regulatory scrutiny from U.S. authorities.
Alibaba said it strongly disagrees with the characterization and intends to challenge the listing through appropriate legal channels. The company has previously emphasized that it operates as a commercial enterprise serving consumers and businesses, rejecting claims that it supports military objectives.
The Pentagon’s list has grown in recent years as part of a broader U.S. strategy to address what officials describe as China’s military-civil fusion framework. Under that concept, Washington argues, commercial technology and industrial capabilities can be leveraged for defense purposes. Beijing has repeatedly rejected such accusations, describing them as politically motivated.
For Alibaba, the development adds to an already complex geopolitical environment. The company, best known for its e-commerce platforms and expanding cloud computing operations, has been navigating regulatory challenges both domestically and internationally. Being placed on the Defense Department’s list could affect investor sentiment and complicate cross-border business relationships.
The move also underscores how economic and national security policies have become increasingly intertwined. U.S.-China relations remain strained over technology leadership, trade, and strategic competition, with large corporations frequently caught at the center of policy disputes.
Legal challenges to such listings are not unprecedented. Companies have in the past sought removal through court action, arguing that designations lacked sufficient factual basis or procedural fairness. The outcome often hinges on how courts assess classified or sensitive national security evidence presented by the government.
As Alibaba prepares to respond, the case may become another flashpoint in the broader rivalry between Washington and Beijing. The legal process could clarify both the evidentiary standards for such designations and the practical implications for global firms operating across competing regulatory systems.