China’s Xiaomi rejects claims of military ties after US lawmakers’ appeal to Pentagon



Chinese tech giant Xiaomi on Tuesday rejected calls by a group of US lawmakers to add it to a Pentagon list of companies alleged to have links with China’s military, describing the move as baseless and reiterating its focus on the consumer market.

The smartphone-to-vehicle giant said it was “not a Chinese military company nor affiliated with any Chinese military entities” and that it “has always been and continues to be a consumer product company”.

“[Xiaomi] provides products and services for civilian and commercial use only,” the company said in a statement on Tuesday. “There is no basis for the inclusion of Xiaomi on the 1260H list.”

The rebuttal followed an open letter last week in which nine Republican lawmakers, including several congressional committee chairs, urged US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to add more than a dozen Chinese technology firms to the Pentagon’s Section 1260H list. The others included artificial intelligence start-up DeepSeek and humanoid robot maker Unitree.

DeepSeek, Unitree and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

Unlike a trade blacklist that triggers immediate sanctions, the 1260H list designates companies the Pentagon claims have ties to China’s military and serves as a warning to US entities and government agencies about the risks of doing business with them.

  • Related Posts

    China’s tech companies vie for attention on CCTV’s festival gala, the year’s biggest stage

    Chinese tech companies are competing to make their mark during the Spring Festival Gala presented by state-run broadcaster CCTV, a variety show and annual spectacle that provides a rare nationwide…

    Continue reading
    ByteDance AI video tool Seedance accused by Disney of copyright ‘smash and grab’

    ByteDance’s latest video generation model Seedance 2.0 has blown people away for its ability to rapidly generate lifelike videos, but is also receiving blowback globally for alleged intellectual property (IP)…

    Continue reading

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *