On September 9, 2026, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Commerce responded to questions from reporters regarding a joint cybersecurity advisory released one day earlier, on September 8, by the U.S. National Security Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Federal Bureau of Investigation. That U.S. advisory, titled “China-Based Artificial Intelligence Companies Conducting Industrial-Scale Distillation Campaigns Against U.S. AI Companies,” accused Chinese AI firms – including DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, Alibaba, MiniMax, StepFun, and Z.AI – of systematically extracting proprietary capabilities from U.S. frontier models such as Claude, GPT, Gemini, and Grok, and recommended defensive measures for U.S. companies to counter these activities.

The Ministry spokesperson stated that the allegations in the U.S. advisory lack evidentiary and legal basis, and characterized the U.S. advisory as an attempt to politicize and weaponize a normal technical and commercial practice within the AI industry. The spokesperson described distillation as a neutral technical method used industry-wide, including by U.S. companies themselves, to improve learning efficiency and enable broader access to AI capabilities, particularly benefiting developing countries. The spokesperson noted that China has encouraged open-source sharing of its own models with global enterprises, including U.S. companies, and pointed out that U.S. model developers have disclosed extensive use of distillation techniques on Chinese models-arguing that Washington is applying a double standard by treating the same practice as an attack when conducted by Chinese firms.

The spokesperson further asserted that the U.S. advisory represents government overreach in support of private commercial interests, with security agencies being used to intervene in ordinary commercial activity. The statement linked the U.S. advisory to broader efforts by the U.S. to protect dominance in computing power and technology, restrict competition, and limit the global distribution of AI benefits. While affirming China’s willingness to pursue government-to-government dialogue on AI issues on the basis of equality and mutual benefit—consistent with an agreement reached between the two countries’ heads of state—the spokesperson warned that China would take firm countermeasures if the U.S. uses anti-distillation rhetoric as a pretext for suppressing Chinese AI companies, and called on the U.S. to manage risks through dialogue rather than unilateral action.

A translation follows of the response from the Ministry of Commerce. The original text is available here (Chinese only).

Q: On September 8, Eastern Time, the U.S. National Security Agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation jointly issued a statement accusing Chinese artificial intelligence companies of conducting “industrial-scale” distillation of U.S. technology to acquire cutting-edge U.S. model capabilities, and offering recommendations for related defense measures to U.S. companies. What is China’s comment on this?

A:

We have taken note of the relevant situation. China believes that the US accusation that Chinese AI companies are engaged in “industrial-scale” distillation of US models is baseless and without legal basis. This move by the US politicizes and instrumentalizes the normal technical and commercial issue of distillation within the industry, and applies double standards in practice. The relevant US announcement is further evidence of its pursuit of technological hegemony, its monopoly on computing power, and its suppression of competition in the field of artificial intelligence. China firmly opposes this.

Distillation is a common practice in the field of artificial intelligence for models to learn from each other. It is essentially a neutral technical method used by model companies worldwide, including those in the US. This technique can help models improve their learning efficiency, enabling more efficient use of human knowledge. It has positive implications for developing the artificial intelligence industry in various countries, unleashing the potential of AI technology, bridging development gaps, and providing broader benefits to developing countries and the general public.

The US approach is a classic example of double standards. Regarding artificial intelligence, China encourages open source, open collaboration, and sharing. China’s open-source models are shared with global companies, including US companies, facilitating the development of related models. Reports from US companies on their model development also reveal that they extensively distill Chinese models. Conversely, the US has repeatedly and unilaterally accused Chinese companies of engaging in “industrial-scale” distillation, smearing common industry practices as attacks. This reflects both the US’s anxiety and its double standards.

The US approach is a typical example of using the pretext of combating distillation to exercise industrial monopoly. The US announcement, issued by its security agencies, ties the interests of individual companies and capital to national security, using state power to interfere in normal business activities. We have noted that some US AI companies are abusing their competitive advantage by including broad geographical restrictions and other unfair terms in their user agreements. The US accusations regarding distillation appear to endorse these unfair terms.

The US approach is a typical example of using state power to maintain technological hegemony and computing power monopoly, and to suppress competition. Since the beginning of this year, the US executive and legislative branches have frequently issued threats of sanctions and suppression against Chinese companies’ distillation activities. The aim is to suppress competition, maintain the US monopoly on computing power and data, ensure that only the US can benefit, and prevent all of humanity from benefiting. This turns global artificial intelligence resources, which should be open and fair to the public, into resources exclusively for a few companies, and prevents other countries from participating in the inclusive sharing of artificial intelligence innovation achievements.

Currently, the large-scale model industry is at a critical juncture of technological iteration, emerging risks, and rapid growth. As major powers, China and the United States should address the challenges and risks in the field of artificial intelligence with a proactive and responsible attitude. The two heads of state have agreed to conduct an intergovernmental dialogue on artificial intelligence, and China is willing to engage in constructive and professional discussions with the United States through dialogue based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit, and win-win cooperation. However, if the United States uses the pretext of combating distillation to suppress Chinese artificial intelligence companies, China will resolutely take countermeasures. We hope that the United States will work with China to manage risks through dialogue and communication, and promote the global benefits of the artificial intelligence industry.