At a guess, the hilarity comes from the 'challenge' part. It makes it sound like Huawei is being challenged to do something different - which is pretty laughable by any standard the US intelligence agencies apply to themselves.

It is a bit like an Olympic athlete losing a race and seriously complaining that the competition trained too hard and challenging them to 'live a little more' (imagining that scene with a slightly miffed but condescending athlete cracks me up) - I mean, theoretically maybe, but the attitude that the competition should just give up is pretty funny.

The "challenge" to Huawei are legal steps those countries are taking to block Huawei from spying on them, not some argument about the universal morality of espionage. Interpreting this as hypocricity is a result of a conceptual confusion: countries exists to defend their interests, not to enforce a level playing field. Of course it is in the interest of the US to be allowed to do things that others countries aren't allowed to do. For example: the US wants to have nuclear weapons while preventing potential enemies from getting nuclear weapons. Does this seem equally "hilarious" to you?

> For example: the US wants to have nuclear weapons while preventing potential enemies from getting nuclear weapons. Does this seem equally "hilarious" to you?

It does.

I find it far more hilarious that you think the US, or any other country, should strive for a balanced playing field between it and its enemies, or that the world would actually be a better place because of that.

You're reading too much into what I said.