Musk: Nvidia will lose 'critical' deals without Jensen Huang

The Saturday post

Musk's post addressed the supply chain directly. "Jensen drove supply chain brilliantly at Nvidia, but many of those deals were a handshake with Jensen, not a written contract," he wrote. The claim, if accurate, would mean that the departure of Huang removes not only a chief executive but also the personal relationships that underpin parts of Nvidia's supply arrangements.

The wording matters. Musk did not say that any deal has already been lost. He said that Nvidia would lose deals described as critical without Huang, a prediction about the future rather than a report of a loss that has already occurred. The distinction is important, because no company statement or filing cited in the reporting confirms that a supplier or customer has withdrawn from an agreement since Huang's departure.

The post was reported on 14 November by Reuters, CNA and The Economic Times, each of which quoted the same passage. The three outlets agreed on the substance of the message and on its timing, a Saturday post on X.

A separate message from Friday

The Saturday post is distinct from a separate message Musk posted on Friday 13 November. In that earlier post, Musk said he would sign a petition calling for Huang to return to Nvidia. The Friday message was a statement of support for the petition campaign. The Saturday message advanced a different argument: that the commercial cost of Huang's absence would be measured in lost deals.

The two posts should not be conflated. The Friday post expressed a personal position on the campaign. The Saturday post made a claim about Nvidia's supply chain and its contractual position. Both were posted on X, one day apart, and each was reported separately.

The petition and the numbers

The petition calling for Huang's return had gathered more than 90,000 signatures, according to the petition site. That figure is self-reported by the site and was rising at the time of reporting, so it should be treated as an approximate and moving total rather than as a fixed count. No independent verification of the signature total was available in the reporting.

The petition itself is a public expression of support. It carries no formal standing in Nvidia's governance. The decision on who leads the company rests with Nvidia's board of directors, not with the signatories of an online petition.

Nvidia's position and the earnings calendar

Nvidia is scheduled to report its fiscal third-quarter results on Tuesday 17 November, three days after Musk's post. The company is being led on an interim basis by Colette Kress, who also retains her role as chief financial officer. The earnings report will be the first set of results published under the interim leadership, and it will be closely watched for any sign of disruption to the supply chain or to customer demand.

The timing gives Musk's claim a near-term test. If supply arrangements were as dependent on Huang's personal relationships as Musk suggests, the earnings call may provide the first opportunity for Nvidia's management to address the question directly. The company did not disclose, in the reporting available, any change to its supply arrangements following Huang's departure.

Background: the leadership change

Huang's departure from Nvidia and the search for a successor have been the subject of sustained reporting. Arm chief executive Rene Haas has been named in reporting as a candidate under consideration by the board, a development covered in the earlier reporting on the petition campaign. No appointment has been confirmed, and the board has not disclosed a timetable for naming a permanent chief executive.

The scale of the company at stake is substantial. Nvidia is the dominant supplier of the graphics processors that power artificial intelligence systems, and its supply chain spans fabrication partners, memory suppliers, packaging providers and cloud customers. Any disruption to those arrangements would have consequences well beyond Nvidia itself, reaching into the data centre industry and the broader artificial intelligence market.

Why the handshake claim matters

If Musk's characterisation is accurate, it raises a question about the durability of Nvidia's commercial arrangements. Supply agreements in the semiconductor industry are ordinarily documented in detailed contracts, and a claim that significant deals rest on handshakes rather than written terms is unusual. It would suggest that personal trust between Huang and his counterparts played a role that formal documentation did not capture.

There are reasons to treat the claim with caution. Musk is not an Nvidia insider, and the reporting does not cite a source inside the company confirming that deals were unwritten. The claim may reflect Musk's own understanding of Huang's relationships with suppliers, or it may be a rhetorical argument intended to strengthen the case for reinstatement. Without corroboration from Nvidia or from a named counterparty, the statement remains an assertion rather than an established fact.

At the same time, the argument has force as a matter of business practice. In industries where capacity is scarce and lead times are long, personal relationships between chief executives and their counterparts can matter, even where written contracts exist. A change of leadership can slow negotiations, complicate renewals and introduce uncertainty into planning, even if no contract is formally breached.

What happens next

Three events will shape the story in the coming days. The first is Nvidia's fiscal third-quarter results on Tuesday 17 November, which will provide the first formal update from the interim leadership and the first opportunity for analysts to question management about the supply chain. The second is the board's decision on a permanent chief executive, which remains outstanding. The third is the petition itself, which continues to gather signatures and to attract public attention.

The Saturday post does not change any of those events. It adds a commercial argument to a campaign that had previously been framed in terms of personal support and public opinion. Whether that argument proves accurate will depend on evidence that has not yet been published, and the burden of proof rests with those making the claim rather than with those questioning it.

Sources

Sources: Reuters; CNA; The Economic Times. Reporting dated 14 November 2026. The petition signature figure is as reported by the petition site and was rising at the time of reporting.