Ex-Google Engineer Convicted for Stealing AI Secrets for China-Linked Startup
FBI says he ‘betrayed both America and Google’ as the U.S. cracks down on AI espionage
In a landmark case that underscores the rising stakes of global competition in artificial intelligence, a federal jury in San Francisco has convicted a former Google engineer of economic espionage and theft of trade secrets in a case prosecutors say was intended to benefit China-linked technology ventures. �
justice.gov
The conviction marks one of the most serious U.S. legal actions involving economic espionage tied to cutting-edge AI technologies and highlights how intellectual property theft is increasingly seen not just as a corporate problem, but as a national security threat. �
The Times of India +1
The Verdict and the Charges
On January 30, 2026, a federal jury convicted Linwei Ding, also known as Leon Ding, a 38-year-old former software engineer at Google, on 14 federal counts—seven for economic espionage and seven for theft of trade secrets. �
justice.gov
The conviction came after an 11-day trial before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in the Northern District of California. � It represents a rare and significant application of U.S. laws aimed at protecting advanced technological innovation from exploitation by foreign entities.
Reuters
Prosecutors showed that Ding accessed and stole thousands of pages of confidential Google documents between May 2022 and April 2023, uploading them to his personal Google Cloud account without authorization. �
justice.gov
According to U.S. authorities, the stolen materials included highly sensitive information about Google’s artificial intelligence infrastructure, including hardware and software used to train and operate large AI models. �
justice.gov
What Was Stolen: The Heart of AI Infrastructure
The documents Ding stole weren’t generic files—they contained secret designs and technical specifications that give companies a competitive edge in the global race for AI supremacy. �
fintool.com
According to prosecutors:
The stolen materials included architecture and designs for Google’s custom Tensor Processing Unit chips (TPUs)—specialized processors that accelerate AI workloads. �
justice.gov
They also covered Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) systems, which are essential for training complex machine learning models. �
justice.gov
The theft included proprietary cluster management software that orchestrates thousands of chips in Google’s AI supercomputers. �
fintool.com
“SmartNIC” network interface card technology—critical for high-speed data transfer within AI servers—was also part of the stolen data. �
fintool.com
These elements are widely considered the “crown jewels” of AI infrastructure—tools that help companies train, deploy, and scale powerful machine-learning systems. �
fintool.com
How the Theft Unfolded
Evidence from the trial detailed a sophisticated plot that took place over almost a year:
Ding began working at Google in May 2022, where he had access to confidential systems. �
justice.gov
While still employed, he uploaded stolen trade secrets to his personal Google Cloud account. �
justice.gov
Prosecutors presented evidence that Ding was secretly affiliated with two China-based technology companies, one of which he aspired to lead as chief technology officer. �
justice.gov
By early 2023, Ding had also founded his own AI and machine learning startup in China, positioning himself as CEO while still working at Google. �
justice.gov
In presentations to potential investors, Ding claimed he could build an AI supercomputer using stolen Google technology—a plan prosecutors described as both reckless and illegal. �
justice.gov
Just weeks before resigning from Google in December 2023, Ding downloaded the stolen materials to his personal computer—a last-minute attempt to retain control of the trade secrets before his departure. �
justice.gov
Alleged Motivations and Geopolitical Implications
The prosecution painted Ding’s actions not as a quirk of bad judgment, but as part of a broader push by individuals and companies seeking to leverage American innovation in the global AI race.
Court evidence included Ding’s effort to participate in a Chinese government-sponsored “talent plan,” which aims to attract foreign technology expertise to China and bolster its domestic innovation capabilities. �
uk.news.yahoo.com
In some investor materials, Ding even outlined plans to help China develop computing infrastructure on par with leading international standards—a statement prosecutors argued showed his intent to benefit not just commercial ventures, but national technological goals. �
uk.news.yahoo.com
U.S. Government Response: National Security and Economic Espionage
Top U.S. officials framed the conviction as a powerful message about the seriousness with which the U.S. treats economic espionage and intellectual property theft—especially in sectors as strategically important as AI.
According to the Department of Justice: “This conviction exposes a calculated breach of trust involving some of the most advanced AI technology in the world at a critical moment in AI development,” said an Assistant Attorney General for National Security. �
justice.gov
The DOJ highlighted that Ding “abused his privileged access” to aid foreign interests while employed at Google, putting U.S. technological leadership and competitiveness at risk. �
justice.gov
The FBI’s Counterintelligence and Espionage Division likewise said Ding’s actions represented a betrayal of both his employer and the United States. “He betrayed both America and Google,” FBI officials said in statements. �
justice.gov
Why This Case Matters: AI, Security, and Global Competition
This conviction has multiple layers of significance:
1. First Major AI Espionage Verdict
According to the DOJ, this is the first conviction in the United States involving economic espionage tied specifically to artificial intelligence technologies—signaling that U.S. law enforcement is treating AI trade secrets with the same seriousness as traditional defense technology. �
justice.gov
2. National Security Concerns
AI is widely seen as a cornerstone of future economic power and military capability. Protecting intellectual property in this domain isn’t just about corporate profit—it’s about safeguarding national competitiveness and security.
3. U.S.–China Tech Rivalry
The case highlights the broader geopolitical competition between the U.S. and China over AI leadership, a rivalry that spans corporate strategy, government policy, and technology acquisition. Analysts have long warned that economic espionage could accelerate China’s technological advancements by giving it access to decades-worth of innovation without paying for research and development costs. �
The Economic Times
Potential Penalties and Next Steps
Linwei Ding now faces significant legal exposure. He is scheduled for a status conference on February 3, 2026, as judges begin the process of determining his sentence. �
justice.gov
Because he was convicted on 14 counts—each carrying stiff penalties—Ding could face:
Up to 15 years in prison for each economic espionage charge
Up to 10 years in prison for each trade secret theft charge
Those maximums, if imposed consecutively, could amount to decades behind bars, though actual sentencing will depend on multiple legal factors and federal guidelines. �
justice.gov
Industry Reactions and Corporate Security
Google itself has said little beyond praising the verdict and reaffirming its support for law enforcement efforts to protect intellectual property. However, the case has prompted discussions across Silicon Valley about the need for enhanced internal security protocols, employee monitoring, and stricter controls on access to sensitive data.
In an era where data flows easily and remote collaboration is common, companies face a growing challenge in safeguarding not just product code, but the architectural secrets behind AI breakthroughs.
Conclusion: A Landmark Case in the AI Era
The conviction of a former Google engineer for stealing AI trade secrets represents a pivotal moment in the intersection of technology, national security, and law. It underscores that as artificial intelligence becomes central to economic and military power, protecting the intellectual groundwork of innovation is not just a corporate concern—it is a matter of national interest.
The verdict also serves as a warning to employees with access to sensitive technologies: violating trust and abusing privilege can carry severe consequences, both legally and ethically. With sentencing yet to come, Linwei Ding’s case is likely to be studied as a cautionary tale in the high-stakes world of AI competition.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Zahid Hussain and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Supreme Court Will Hear Birthright Citizenship Case on April 1
A Case With Historic Stakes On April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case that could reshape one of the most fundamental rights in American law: birthright citizenship — the principle that virtually everyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. � SCOTUSblog The case — Trump v. Barbara — challenges the legality of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, which sought to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country without lawful status or only temporarily present. � SCOTUSblog +1 Birthright citizenship is rooted in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War to ensure that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” � SCOTUSblog This long-standing constitutional guarantee has been widely accepted for more than a century. Now, for the first time since its creation, the nation’s highest court will weigh directly on whether that guarantee can be limited through executive action — a legal and political battle with enormous consequences. Background: What Is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship, also known by the legal phrase jus soli (“right of the soil”), means that almost everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This right has been central to U.S. law and identity for generations. The key constitutional foundation is the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, adopted in 1868 to ensure that formerly enslaved people and their descendants became and remained citizens. Subsequent Supreme Court precedent and legal interpretations established broad protection for birthright citizenship. � ACLU of Maine The Executive Order at Issue On January 20, 2025 — his first day in office in his second term — President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order asserted that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was never meant to confer automatic citizenship to children born in the United States solely by virtue of their birth if their parents were illegally present or in the country temporarily. � jurist.org Under the proposed policy: Children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants might not receive automatic citizenship. Children born to temporary visa holders without permanent residency could also be excluded. Only those born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents would retain clear automatic citizenship. The administration argued this policy would protect the value of citizenship and discourage unauthorized immigration. � Washington Examiner Legal Challenges and Lower Court Rulings Almost immediately after the executive order was signed, civil rights groups and state plaintiffs filed lawsuits claiming it violated both the Constitution and longstanding Supreme Court precedent. � ACLU of Maine In Washington v. Trump, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the order, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that injunction. � Wikipedia Another major case, Barbara v. Trump — the class action now before the Supreme Court — was filed to challenge the order nationwide. In July 2025, a federal judge in New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the policy as it would apply to children born on or after February 20, 2025. � Wikipedia The Trump administration appealed, and in December 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the consolidated case on its merits during the spring 2026 term. Oral arguments are set for April 1, and a ruling is expected by late June or early July when the Court wraps its term. � SCOTUSblog +1 What the Supreme Court Will Decide At the heart of Trump v. Barbara is a constitutional question: Does the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantee automatic citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil, or can the president limit that right through executive action? � SCOTUSblog Broadly speaking: Challengers argue that the Citizenship Clause is clear and unambiguous — anyone born in the U.S., subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen, and that this cannot be undone by executive order. � ACLU of Maine The Trump administration contends the Clause was originally intended to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people and their descendants, not to confer universal rights on children born to illegal or temporary visitors. � Washington Examiner If the Court upholds the executive order, it would be a watershed moment — limiting a constitutional right long accepted as settled law. If the Court strikes down the order, it would reaffirm more than a century of birthright citizenship doctrine. Historical and Legal Context Birthright citizenship has seldom been directly litigated at the Supreme Court — mostly because the right has been so widely accepted. However, several earlier cases provide relevant background, even if they did not squarely decide the issue: In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Court upheld U.S. citizenship for a child born in the United States who later lived abroad, reaffirming birthright principles. � Wikipedia In Miller v. Albright (1998), the Court dealt with citizenship for children born abroad to one U.S. parent, but did not overturn jus soli. � Wikipedia Cases like Tuaua v. United States (2015) addressed derivative citizenship but did not diminish the core jus soli concept for birth on U.S. soil. � Wikipedia These precedents illustrate that, while courts have explored facets of citizenship law, the basic principle that birth on U.S. soil confers citizenship remains deeply rooted. Political and Social Implications The case’s impact extends far beyond constitutional theory. 1. Immigration Policy A decision limiting birthright citizenship could reshape U.S. immigration law, potentially affecting millions of children born in the United States each year to parents without lawful status — and altering patterns of migration and family rights. 2. Civil Rights and Equality Opponents of the executive order argue that taking away automatic citizenship contravenes core civil rights principles and undermines equality under the law. 3. National Identity Birthright citizenship has been a hallmark of U.S. identity and inclusion. Any change to that principle would reverberate across debates on national belonging, race, and citizenship. 4. Legal Precedent and Presidential Power The case also raises broader questions about presidential authority — whether a president can reinterpret or effectively override constitutional language through executive action. What to Expect on April 1 and Beyond The oral arguments on April 1 will be the first time the full Supreme Court hears direct debate over the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship order. The justices will likely explore: The historical intent of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause The role of precedent and how it applies today Limits on executive authority and separation of powers Following arguments, the Court will deliberate and is expected to issue a decision by late June or early July 2026 — typically at the end of its term. That opinion could have generational consequences for U.S. constitutional law and immigration policy. � SCOTUSblog Conclusion: A Momentous Constitutional Question The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the birthright citizenship case on April 1 marks a defining moment in American legal history. At stake is not only how we interpret one line of the Constitution, but how we define the nation’s commitment to equality, citizenship, and the rule of law. With arguments approaching and outcomes uncertain, millions are watching closely — aware that the Court’s ruling will echo for decades to come.
By Zahid Hussainabout 17 hours ago in The Swamp
You Can’t Have Guns”: What Is Donald Trump’s Real Stance on the Second Amendment
Donald Trump has long branded himself as one of the strongest defenders of the Second Amendment in modern American politics. On the campaign trail and at conservative gatherings, he has repeatedly warned supporters that Democrats want to “take away your guns” and positioned himself as the last line of defense against federal overreach. Yet moments when Trump has said things like “You can’t have guns” have fueled debate and confusion about where he truly stands on gun rights. An examination of his rhetoric, policy decisions, and political alliances shows a stance that is both firmly pro-gun in principle and surprisingly flexible in practice.
By Salaar Jamali3 days ago in The Swamp
Pornhub to Restrict Access for UK Users From Next Week
Pornhub, one of the world’s largest adult entertainment platforms, will restrict access for UK users starting next week, following ongoing legal scrutiny and regulatory pressures over content moderation and age verification. The move marks a significant development in the UK’s attempts to control online pornography and protect users from illegal or inappropriate content.
By Ayesha Lashari4 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.