I don't see an issue if the US Government themselves wants to not use certain companies (foreign or otherwise).

The issue is when the US Government tries to tell private US Companies who and how they should do business with certain foreign companies, and forgets to provide any actual evidence for their assertions.

This all could be avoided by simply publishing what Huawei is meant to have done. Otherwise it just strikes of a trade-war/protectionism but using "cyber security" as a justification.

The Constitution is very clear that treaties are the law of the land, and every state must abide by them (including the private companies and citizens in that states). A trade ban / embargo is a form of treaty.

Article VI Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests

Signed in convention September 17, 1787. Ratified June 21, 1788

...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

> A trade ban / embargo is a form of treaty.

This is not at all a treaty. Actual treaties require a 2/3rds approval of the Senate, which has not happened.

It is, at best, on the level of 'executive order', which can (and, IMHO, should) be challenged in court per 'checks and balances'.

A treaty is normally considered to be an agreement ratified between two or more countries. How is the US trade ban like a treaty?

I think it's more likely this derives simply from some Federal level law which is why it gets its power over states and individuals.

It's illegal for a government entity to just decide they don't like somebody without due process.

The carnival atmosphere in Washington is bad for everyone. The Tweeter-in-chief undermines his own authority by governing in the public square. It makes any counter-party position much stronger, as they can easily manipulate the emotions of the president, and the negotiators on the ground have very little leverage within the US camp. A random ad on TV may change strategy!

Where in the law is it required that the government must offer due process in relation to contractual business deals with corporations? Is 'due process' even the correct term for that type of thing? You seem to be conflating the government punishing someone for crimes without due process to convict that person of said crimes.

There are a wide variety of laws around procurement and finance that govern these actions.

But can you cite an exact one relevant to this conversation?

The due process was Congress passing a law which allows an adjustable list to be made by the executive.

This whole on-again off-again relationship is incredibly unusual. Strange times we live in.

I had a manager like that. The bottom line is who he was talking to. Every decision was based on not losing face or winning the current meeting and if that meant affecting earlier decisions, he could roll the current meeting back also, no? Just not now, but later.

The thing which helped him (survive( was that he owned (part of) the company so his decisions could not be questioned easily, same as our president.

The government is still bound by law, and unless he formally removes them from the restricted entity list there isn't much choice on how to proceed. It is not legal to special case Huawei, they must act fairly within the entire class of restricted entities.

Trump frequently gets tripped up on this - he wants to make decisions with immediate effect. He would be more effective if he played off it, "I'd love to fix that but we have to follow process first...".

Fair points.

Huawei has been seen as a shady actor for over a decade now. It was during Obama's term that the House Intelligence Committee deemed Huawei a national security threat.

Trump said last Friday that the issue of Huawei will be saved for the very end of US-China trade talks.

Once you have shown your hand, now the other side has a number of new contingencies to address over the coming years. Even if you strike a deal with them, you are putting off the inevitable. It's like Trump started a half-ass war that he was not really interested in even seeing through his term, more than long term. Don't think we have seen frenemies since before WWI.

I am surprised how any Chinese companies came this far into the west, theyre all just communist arms disguised as big corps. Kudos to the chinese, its difficult to pull this off