Jensen Huang resigned as Nvidia's CEO this past week, and a petition demanding his return is gaining traction — but even if the espionage case against him collapses, his old job may stay out of reach.

The "Stand with Jensen" movement, which picked up momentum over the weekend, argues the Nvidia board moved too fast against a legendary chief executive. The petition's core logic: short of a proven case of espionage waged against Huang himself, he should be reinstated at least temporarily, while the board completes a thorough investigation.

"We have not been shown evidence substantiating the espionage allegation. After thirty-three years pouring his heart and soul into NVIDIA, Jensen deserves due process," the organizers wrote in an open letter.

Thirty-three years. That's the length of service the petition leans on. The question is whether it outweighs what the board may actually have been weighing.

What is the espionage case actually built on?

Reporting this weekend cast fresh doubt on the allegations. Business Insider's Alistair Barr examined how firm — or flimsy — the espionage arguments really are, based on recent reporting that questions their strength.

Barr's thesis is political. China hawks in Washington, who want stricter limits on China's access to US AI technology, could have plumped up or exaggerated whatever evidence exists. The motive is straightforward: Huang was a proponent of a less restrictive approach to AI technology in China. Removing him would advance the hawks' cause.

The pivotal figure in the case is an executive at an Nvidia customer with whom Huang is said to have had a relationship. As Barr writes: "The possibility that Alice Huang was a Chinese intelligence agent was likely the key reason Nvidia's board ousted Jensen Huang so quickly."

Barr goes further on the stakes: "What concerns me is the possibility that US intelligence was overstated to help bring down the leader of one of America's most important companies. If that's what happened, officials may have damaged America's lead in AI in the name of protecting it."

That's a serious charge. If intelligence was overstated, the board acted on a pretext, and the petition's backers may have an opening.

Why might a weak espionage case still not save Huang?

Because espionage may not have been the deciding factor at all.

When the board announced it had accepted Huang's resignation this week, it gave no reasons. But suppose the board concluded — now or in the future — that espionage wasn't in play. Would that be enough to keep Huang in the corner office? Probably not, given what's on the record about his conduct.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that Huang "confessed" last week to Nvidia's general counsel about the affair. That wording matters. It suggests he wasn't forthcoming about it before then.

There's more. Huang misled the media, on the record, about the relationship. And the Times, reporting before the resignation, revealed that the relationship was extramarital and with a direct report — a governance problem in its own right, independent of any intelligence angle.

The Times put the governance principle bluntly: "In the world of corporate governance, the worst thing a chief executive can do is lie, especially in a crisis. It is a reason they get fired."

So which question decides his future?

It comes down to this: is Huang out because he left his company and country vulnerable to espionage, or because of his general conduct — including how forthcoming he was, or wasn't, with Nvidia's board?

If the board acted hastily on spying concerns that ultimately don't hold up, that's not good, and the forces behind the "Stand with Jensen" petition may have a real chance. Reinstatement, even temporary, would become a live option.

But if the strength of the espionage case wasn't the root of the board's thinking — if what mattered was honesty and trustworthiness at the top of a trillion-dollar chipmaker — then this chapter of Nvidia leadership is closed. Thirty-three years of service doesn't buy back trust that a general counsel had to extract by confession.

The petition may or may not succeed. Either way, it has surfaced the question the board now has to live with: did it fire a spy risk, or a liar? Only one of those answers gets Huang his desk back.