News

Calls for Huang’s Return Grow, but Employee-Letter Claims Require Caution

Reported employee support and a public reinstatement campaign are putting pressure on Nvidia’s board, while a senior executive has repudiated a separate letter claiming his involvement.

• By John K. Waters
• 11/15/2026

Calls to bring Jensen Huang back to Nvidia are drawing attention from employees and investors days after the company announced his departure. But the evidence supports a narrower account than claims of a unified employee revolt: internal expressions of support and a public petition coexist with a purported employee letter that a senior executive has called fake.

The distinction matters as supporters press Nvidia’s directors to reconsider the founder’s exit. A comment on an internal forum does not establish that an employee signed a particular letter, and names on a public petition do not, by themselves, verify employment or participation.

Nvidia announced Huang’s resignation November 12 as president, CEO, and a director. CFO Colette Kress became interim CEO, with the board beginning a search for a permanent successor.

Huang had acknowledged infidelity November 8 and pledged to cooperate with an inquiry into reported foreign intelligence targeting. The board’s initial statement said it had no reason to believe company secrets or national security had been compromised. Neither an admission of infidelity nor calls for reinstatement establish the intelligence allegations.

What the Employee Reporting Establishes
WIRED reported November 12, citing internal correspondence it reviewed, that a suggestion-box post urging directors to consider employee sentiment had attracted more than 1,600 comments. Several called for Huang’s return. The post began before his resignation, and a separate companywide email sought greater transparency about his departure.

Those reports establish expressions of support, rather than a verified tally of employees signing a reinstatement demand. Comments can also differ in purpose: requesting an explanation is not necessarily the same as endorsing an immediate return.

A Senior Executive Rejects a Different Letter
A separate document circulating online claimed the involvement of Bryan Catanzaro, Nvidia’s vice president of applied deep learning. Tom’s Hardware reported his public denial, in which he described the letter as fabricated.

“This letter is obviously fake, and even if it were real I would not sign it,” Catanzaro wrote. He also expressed support for Nvidia’s board and Kress while describing his distress over Huang’s departure.

His denial challenges the authenticity of the document claiming his involvement. It does not negate other employees’ support for Huang, nor does that support authenticate the disputed letter.

That leaves separate questions about a circulating document’s origin and the scale of internal backing for reinstatement. Treating them as one story would turn evidence of employee loyalty into an unsupported claim about who signed what.

The Public Campaign Is a Broader Coalition
The Stand with Jensen website publishes an open letter calling for Huang’s return while an independent investigation establishes the facts, unless directors explain why his continued absence serves Nvidia’s interests.

The campaign describes its supporters as current and former employees, partners, shareholders, and others. It seeks disclosure of the inquiry’s scope and timing, along with a public explanation of the board’s reasoning. The letter also says it is independent and is not endorsed by Nvidia or Huang.

Its claim that Huang was denied a fair process is the campaign’s position. The signatories acknowledge that they do not have access to the board’s private deliberations.

Tom’s Hardware cautioned that public petition signatories apparently were not verified. Consequently, a campaign’s displayed employee total should not be presented as an independently confirmed count of Nvidia staff. The publication also reported Elon Musk’s public statement that he would sign a reinstatement petition, while noting uncertainty about which petition he meant.

A Comeback Push Meets Opposition
The Financial Times reported November 15 that Huang had discussed a possible return with confidants and that allies were organizing support. Nvidia and a Huang spokesperson declined to comment to the newspaper.

The FT also reported a separate letter from Nvidia shareholders Brad Gerstner of Altimeter Capital and Gavin Baker of Atreides Management urging directors to keep Huang’s possible return among their options. An investor request to preserve that option is distinct from a board decision to reinstate him.

Pressure is coming from the opposite direction as well. Reuters reported November 15 that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wanted Nvidia to choose its next chief executive from outside the company. Speaking on Fox News, he also called for answers from the board and outside counsel about export-control compliance within 10 days.

Those comments add a policy dimension to the leadership dispute, but do not establish the outcome of the company’s investigation.

The Board’s Decisions Remain the Test
Nvidia’s securities filing dates the board’s acceptance of Huang’s resignation to November 11, ahead of the public announcement the following day. It records Kress’s interim appointment and Harvey C. Jones’s appointment as board chair.

The company’s independent directors said November 10 that former acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz would conduct the investigation. The employee and investor campaigns do not resolve its questions about the underlying conduct.

On succession, Reuters reported November 13 that Nvidia’s board said it was selecting a search firm and had not formally engaged potential candidates. The board called speculation about individual candidates premature.

For customers and investors, the consequential developments will be formal leadership decisions and findings from the inquiry. Public support can influence the pressure facing directors. It cannot substitute for evidence about either the disputed letters or the conduct the board is examining.