Huawei's controlling ownership structure is opaque. They might be controlled by the PLA, or maybe just the Ren family by themselves. Employees get shares, but nothing in terms of controlling ownership, and it is all cashed out when they leave.

On the other hand, even if Huawei is controlled by the PLA, so what? They are under Chinese jurisdiction anyways, so the Chinese government could already do pretty much whatever it wanted to with it. The same for an American company under American jurisdiction.

I did some research. Huawei's ownership system is so radical that probably no one in the West and few in China realized what it is. It is collective ownership in the socialist sense, or a commune. The paradox of this kind of ownership system is that the company is simultaneously owned by everyone and no one in particular, meaning all revenues and profits go back to all employees and reinvestment and no outside investors and financial capitals get anything, while nobody in particular can say I'll quit and take my share of the company - there is no 'private property' in the company.

Legally the ownership of the company is set up to be 1% for Ren Zhengfei and 99% for a owner's committee under a legally sanctioned trade union. It's a strange setup because trade unions in China are lame ducks and usually don't do anything, but Huawei's ownership is set up this way so that the trade union 'owns' 99% of the company to represent the collective ownership, which is not what trade unions were legally intended for.

It's Socialism in One Company, the leadership does not own anything but has the power to decide how to use everything, and it exploits its employee like the SU and China did in their early stage. This is unfathomable to the West so the only conclusion by the media could be opaque and government-owned.

If the employees only "own" part of the company while they're employed in good standing, that's not ownership at all. They're just leasing that share, and paying for it quite dearly with 996-ICU work, for that matter. While control and decision-making authority is definitely not held by those employees.

The employees do own permanent 'shares' and enjoy proportional dividends but they cannot liquidate the shares at market price when they quit the company. This is socialist collective ownership for you. Like I said, the employees paradoxically do not own the company in the private property sense but in the collective sense. You can say the same thing for any socialist countries. It would be naive to judge it as simple kleptocracy.

As is the relationship between the US government and The Trump Organization...

Poor comparison. If Apple and Motorola was run by the DoD that would be better.

is it really? Donald Trump runs both for his own profit as he sees fit.