Yes the obvious concern is potential risk. But the PR spin is angry Americans (and allies) screaming China bad with no (public) evidence of back doors and a preponderance of public reports from governments and private security researchers that Huawei is clean. That's the kind of irrational sentiment Huawei wants to cultivate - innocent until proven guilty. Any rational person can see it's absurd to have China build critical infrastructure in the US who has unique security concerns as a hegemon. But her allies and other nations, not so much. This spin might be all that's needed for to rationalise Huawei.

Personally, I just wouldn't be surprised if Huawei is actually operating cleanly on paper (in terms of back doors) out of pragmatism and foresight because confrontation with US security apparatus seems inevitable. Hence the lack of evidence from even private security researchers with no incentive to conceal. Huawei knows they're not getting into US. The PR is for 190 other countries, some of which might be five eye allies with how things are going.

I arrived at the same conclusion.

The US is in panic, because not only is there a sense of crisis because the rest of the world is less and less willing to put up with the undemocratic behaviour of the US spying apperatus, this also hurts every US tech product abroad.

If I have to choose between potential future spying by china and actual in progress spying by the US, maybe I might go with china for now.

This threat model could apply to any Chinese companies or even any company outside US. Does that mean US could only use US-manufactured equipment? Does that mean the end of free market? Isn't the law system an evident based system? Is it enough to have such belief that it could go wrong to block competition?