The Nvidia board of directors is preparing to oust company founder and Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

The same sources said a board meeting to address Huang’s future could take place today.

Bloomberg reported, citing a person familiar with the situation, that Nvidia’s board has hired an outside firm to identify potential candidates to succeed Huang.

The source told the news agency that company leadership is also considering the option of appointing an interim executive until a permanent successor is found.

Sources for CBS News reported that US President Donald Trump’s administration is aware of the Nvidia board’s plans.

The New York Times previously reported, citing its own sources, that Huang, who was under investigation over his links to Megaspeed executive Alice Huang, had engaged in an extramarital affair with a subordinate.

US intelligence agencies assess that Alice Huang was recruited by China’s Ministry of State Security.

According to the NYT, the affair involved Nvidia Vice President Kimberly Powell.

Two former company employees recounted that moments of Huang and Powell showing affection toward each other were captured on video during a company conference held at a hotel in California.

The NYT specifically noted that it had not viewed this video recording.

Both Huang and Powell are married to other people.

Against the backdrop of these developments, TradingView data showed Nvidia shares dropped abruptly from $165.26 to $156.46.

As of 02:00 Türkiye time, the company’s shares were trading around $159, down 8.2%.

Suspicions regarding Huang’s close ties to the Megaspeed executive emerged in early November.

According to a Financial Times report, the connection between the two was not limited to close contact, but was romantic.

In an address to employees, the Nvidia CEO admitted to being unfaithful to his wife.

Apologising for the pain he caused his wife and children, Huang did not disclose the name of the woman with whom he had the affair.

Nvidia’s board of directors had announced the launch of an independent investigation to examine potential intelligence activity targeting the CEO.

It was announced that the review would be conducted by independent board members with the participation of outside legal counsel.

Emphasising that there was as yet no evidence that state secrets or proprietary Nvidia information had been compromised, the company expressed confidence in Huang and stated that he would remain in his post.

US President Donald Trump also voiced support for the Nvidia CEO, expressing the view that he should stay in office.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected the espionage allegations, describing them as groundless speculation and an attempt to smear the country.

According to a subsequent Reuters report, investors filed a class-action lawsuit against Nvidia and Huang.

The lawsuit accuses the company and its CEO of misleading shareholders by concealing the executive’s connections to the Megaspeed executive.

Despite the electoral success of Democrats last week, ballot measures barring transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams were approved in four US states.

The measures passed in Arizona, Nebraska, Washington, and Colorado demonstrated that transgender rights face significant obstacles even in traditionally Democratic strongholds.

Following these ballot defeats, civil society organisations advocating for transgender athletes are preparing the ground for future campaigns by planning fresh public information initiatives.

Speaking to The Hill newspaper, Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center, said: “I certainly do not think the fight for trans kids in sports is over, but I do believe this election clearly showed that people still have a long way to go to understand what it means to support trans rights, including the right to participate in sports.”

The four statewide approved measures introduced new restrictions or expanded existing curbs on transgender athletes at primary, secondary, and collegiate levels.

Opinion polls also show that the public continues to broadly support such bans.

According to April data from the Siena College Research Institute, 59% of respondents opposed transgender athletes competing on high school teams that align with their gender identity.

In the same poll, 58% of respondents opposed transgender athletes competing on women’s teams at the collegiate level.

In Siena College’s 2025 data, the share of respondents opposing transgender athletes competing on their preferred teams stood at 65% across both high school and collegiate levels.

The narrow margins of victory for the measures in certain states provided a source of hope for transgender rights advocates.

The ballot measure in Colorado passed with 52% support.

Advocates emphasised that although the outcome was disappointing, the close result demonstrated meaningful progress in shifting public opinion.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said: “Under the pressure of these measures being put to a public vote in the states, we managed to transform public opinion quite significantly in a relatively short period of time.”

Placing the issue directly before voters represented a new tactic for groups seeking to restrict transgender athletes.

Previously, 27 US states had passed laws against transgender athletes, while two states had taken similar steps through administrative regulations.

The strategy of taking the issue directly to the ballot proved successful for proponents of the restrictions.

Beth Parlato, legal counsel for the Independent Women’s Forum, said: “I think this is ingenious, and a brilliant way to protect girls’ sports.”

Noting her hope that the strategy will be used in more states, Parlato stated that their ultimate goal is the passage of federal legislation on the matter.

Activists defending transgender athletes believe they can win this fight over time.

While less than 1% of athletes in the US are estimated to be transgender, advocates argue that the issue should be addressed at the local level.

Minter noted that the matter is not an irreconcilable dilemma, stating:

“When the public gets the opportunity to understand that this is not an all-or-nothing issue, that reasonable rules can be established depending on the child’s age, the sport, and the level of competition, they are supportive; because people generally do not want to exclude anyone. Another factor people are beginning to realize, and which led to such close votes, is seeing that the real impact of these policies is subjecting all girls to scrutiny, potentially including invasive examinations or testing that many would find objectionable.”

Brian K. Bond, chief executive of the LGBTQ rights organisation PFLAG, said engaging with communities and addressing challenging topics is essential to defending transgender people.

“That means moving beyond our familiar circles and stepping outside the echo chambers created by our algorithms,” Bond said.

Rights advocates plan to challenge the restrictions in court and increase pressure on elected officials.

Outlining their strategy, Chestnut said:

“I know some groups are pointing to litigation, and there are administrative avenues being pursued as well. What is clear for us is holding newly elected members of Congress accountable, whether at the federal or local level, to ensure their policies are inclusive of transgender people.”

The ballot results reminded advocates of the measures enacted in the early 2000s to restrict same-sex marriage.

Pointing to those historical parallels, Bond said: “In the 1990s and 2000s, ballot measures were one of the primary tools used to divide communities over the rights of LGBTQ+ people. But ballot outcomes, including losses, only capture a snapshot in time; they are not a final verdict on the future of rights or what can be achieved. We believe that people ultimately value fairness and respect the diversity that strengthens our communities.”

Democrats in the US House of Representatives are reacting with anger after Republicans blocked an impeachment push against Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, aided by the absence of 11 Democratic lawmakers from the vote.

The eight-article impeachment resolution, drafted by Republican Representative Thomas Massie, reached the House floor on Tuesday evening and was rejected by a vote of 211 to 204.

Calculations indicate that had eight of the 11 absent Democrats been present on the floor, the impeachment process could have advanced to the next stage.

The outcome has intensified calls within the Democratic Party to tighten attendance discipline for floor votes.

The situation has also revived demands from Democratic lawmakers who advocate prioritizing Hegseth’s impeachment early next year, when they are set to take control of both chambers of Congress.

This pressure risks creating divisions with party leadership, which favours a more cautious, phased approach to executive oversight.

New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez emphasized that losing any vote due to absenteeism was entirely unacceptable: “This is completely unacceptable. We must bring this matter back up as soon as possible and ensure everyone shows up.”

Noting that they have an obligation to do their jobs and be present for votes, Ocasio-Cortez said, “This is what we are here for.”

Offering a similar assessment, California Representative Ro Khanna said, “We must make it clear that members absolutely have to show up for major votes.”

Khanna, who wants a vote on Hegseth’s impeachment held without delay once his party takes the House majority next year, said, “We should do this as quickly as we can.”

Asked whether hearings or an investigation would be required before bringing a resolution to the floor, Khanna replied, “No, we should move forward directly.”

This stance creates the potential for a clash with Democratic leaders, who oppose unprepared and hasty impeachment proceedings.

Although Democratic leaders supported this week’s resolution, they did not bring the measure to the floor themselves.

They state that once they secure the majority next year, they intend to conduct comprehensive inquiries into various officials in Donald Trump’s administration before taking any impeachment steps.

California Representative Pete Aguilar, who is expected to serve as House Majority Leader, stated that party leadership has no plans to revisit Hegseth’s impeachment next year.

Addressing the matter, Aguilar said, “When we are in the majority, we are committed to holding people accountable, and that will begin early on through oversight mechanisms. But there is no such item under discussion at this stage.”

Among the 11 Democrats who missed the vote, Melanie Stansbury and Jonathan Jackson reported that traffic congestion prevented them from reaching the House in time.

The office of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that she was attending a Veterans Day event in San Francisco, but noted that she supported Hegseth’s impeachment and would have voted against referring the resolution to committee.

Nevada Representative Steven Horsford announced that a personal emergency caused him to arrive late to the floor, adding that he took full responsibility.

Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib criticized the absent lawmakers, warning that voters who delivered Democrats a majority will expect more from the new Congress.

Acknowledging that an accident had caused travel difficulties around the Capitol, Tlaib said, “However, especially when we are in the majority, we have to stay focused on our work and turn out every single vote.”

Calling for Hegseth’s impeachment early next year, Tlaib said, “I believe allowing someone to act contrary to the country’s fundamental interests would set a dangerous precedent.”

Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern also pointed out that all lawmakers must attend votes, remarking that everyone needs to be there regardless of whether their presence would alter the outcome.

Every Democrat who took part in Tuesday’s vote opposed referring Massie’s resolution to committee.

New York Representative Joe Morelle argued that Democrats clearly demonstrated their stance against the danger Hegseth poses to the American people, asserting that the secretary is unfit for office.

Morelle noted that the caucus would hold consultations in the coming weeks regarding the path forward.

Massie, the author of the resolution, contends that Hegseth abused his authority by conducting combat operations in Iran without congressional authorization, kidnapping the president of Venezuela from his country, and directing the extrajudicial execution of suspected drug traffickers in international waters.

The Republican lawmaker had launched a similar impeachment push against Hegseth in September, but House Republican leaders averted a vote on the resolution by cancelling votes and sending lawmakers home on an early recess.

In an interview with Politico, Massie said he does not plan to reintroduce the articles of impeachment to the floor.

Holding a press conference on Tuesday, Defence Secretary Hegseth described Massie’s effort as a “political stunt” and a “personal manifesto fuelled by ego and anger.”

In his defence, Hegseth said: “In the 250-year history of the American republic, no secretary of war or defence has ever been impeached for executing lawful military operations, which in our case were successful. War Powers Act or not, it has never happened once. History is abundantly clear. A disgruntled member of Congress wants to disregard that over policy disagreements. This is nothing more than a policy disagreement.”