Huawei and U.S. Law

February 23, 2021 R46693

Huawei and U.S. Law
February 23, 2021
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Huawei) has grown to be the world’s largest
telecommunications equipment manufacturer since its founding in 1987 by a former engineer in
Stephen P. Mulligan
China’s People’s Liberation Army. The Shenzhen, China-based company has become the focus
Legislative Attorney
of a host of legal actions that seek to protect the United States’ national security and economy. In

2012, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) released a report
Chris D. Linebaugh
describing the potential counterintelligence and security threats posed by Huawei’s access to U.S.
Legislative Attorney
telecommunications systems. Senior officials in the Trump Administration asserted that
Huawei’s products

present an inherent security threat because the Chinese government can force
Huawei to share confidential information or create “backdoors” by which the Chinese

government could access Huawei systems. Huawei denies that its products create a security
threat, and third-party analysts have not reached uniform conclusions about the security of Huawei systems.
Given the security debate, Congress and the executive branch have initiated a variety of legal efforts to limit Huawei’s access
to international supply chains, telecommunications systems, and markets. These legal actions have evolved from narrow
restrictions on federal spending to an effort to remove Huawei equipment from domestic and international
telecommunications networks.
After HPSCI’s 2012 report, the United States enacted several laws that restrict federal procurement of, and grant and loan
spending on, Huawei systems. In 2019 and 2020, Congress and the President expanded their efforts and imposed Huawei-
related restrictions on a broad set of public- and private-sector transactions. In May 2019, the Trump Administration added
Huawei and its affiliates to the Entity List, thereby limiting U.S. companies’ ability to export products and services to
Huawei. On the same day, President Trump issued Executive Order 13873, declaring a national emergency due to the threat
of foreign adversaries exploiting vulnerabilities in U.S. information and communications technology and services (ICTS).
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also taken steps to restrict Huawei’s access to U.S. communications
infrastructure. In November 2019, the FCC prohibited telecommunications carriers from using Universal Service Fund (USF)
subsidies to purchase Huawei products and services. This restriction particularly affects rural telecommunications carriers,
many of which depend on the Universal Service Fund and already use Huawei equipment in their networks. In addition, in
March 2020, the United States passed the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks
Act), which similarly prohibits companies from using FCC-administered subsidies like the USF for certain communications
equipment and services from Huawei and other entities that pose a national security risk. The law also directs the FCC to set
up a program to reimburse carriers for removing and replacing such equipment in their networks. Following the Secure
Networks Act, the FCC issued an additional order establishing the reimbursement program contemplated by the law. The
order goes beyond the Secure Networks Act by requiring carriers receiving USF support to remove and replace existing
Huawei equipment in their networks, regardless of whether they choose to participate in the reimbursement program.
In other legal actions over the past two years, the United States has pursued criminal charges against Huawei and its Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), issued visa restrictions for Huawei employees, and banned trade in Huawei securities. Most
recently, the 116th Congress passed the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (FY2021 NDAA) over President Trump’s veto. The FY2021 NDAA embarks on a new endeavor of using federal
programs to support private competitors to Huawei that can offer secure, alternative communications networks domestically
and abroad.
Some observers view the suite of legal actions involving Huawei as part of a broader effort to “decouple” the United States’
economy from problematic aspects of China’s economy. Others see it as a microcosm of the increasing complexity of
challenges caused by China’s rise on the global stage. Some stakeholders argue that these legal actions may have unintended
consequences, such as denying low-cost technology to American consumers, lost profits for American companies barred
from selling to Huawei, and the risk that technology companies might move operations overseas to avoid U.S. trade
restrictions. Efforts to account for these considerations are ongoing and may continue in the 117th Congress and the Biden
Administration.
This report outlines recent Huawei-related legal activities and examines the statutory authorities underlying each action.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 8 Huawei and U.S. Law

uawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (Huawei)—the world’s largest telecommunications
equipment manufacturer1—is at the center of a host of legal activities that seek to protect
H the United States’ national security and economy. In 2012, the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) released a report describing the counterintelligence and
security threat posed by Huawei’s access to U.S. telecommunications systems and supply chains.2
Senior executive branch officials in the Trump Administration, including the Vice President and
Secretary of State, stated that Huawei’s products present an inherent security threat because the
Chinese government may be able to access confidential information via secret “backdoors” by
forcing Huawei to share such information or provide access to its networks.3 Huawei denies that
it purposefully creates “back doors” for the Chinese government,4 and third-party analysts have
not reached uniform conclusions about the security of Huawei’s products.5
Given the security debate, Congress and the executive branch have initiated a variety of legal
efforts to limit Huawei’s access to international supply chains, telecommunications systems, and
markets. These legal actions have evolved from narrow restrictions on federal spending to an
international effort to remove Huawei equipment from telecommunications networks
domestically and abroad.
After HPSCI’s 2012 report, the United States enacted several laws that restrict federal
procurement of, and grant and loan spending on, Huawei systems.6 These efforts soon expanded
beyond federal spending limitations to include restrictions on a broad set of Huawei-related

1 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Chinese Telecommunications Conglomerate Huawei and Huawei CFO Wanzhou
Meng Charged With Financial Fraud (Jan 28, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-
conglomerate-huawei-and-huawei-cfo-wanzhou-meng-charged-financial [hereinafter January 2019 DOJ Press
Release].
2 See CHAIRMAN MIKE ROGERS AND RANKING MEMBER C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE
ON INTELLIGENCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES
POSED BY CHINESE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES HUAWEI AND ZTE (Oct. 8, 2012), https://republicans-
intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Huawei-
ZTE%20Investigative%20Report%20%28FINAL%29.pdf [hereinafter HPSCI REPORT].
3 See, e.g., Remarks by Vice President and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada in Joint Press Statements | Ottawa,
Canada (May 30, 2019), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-prime-
minister-trudeau-canada-joint-press-statements-ottawa-canada/ (statement of Vice President Pence) (“The simple fact is
that the legal framework within China gives the Chinese government access to information and data that is collected by
Chinese companies like Huawei.”); Interview with U.S. Sec’y of State Michael R. Pompeo by Maria Bartiromo, (May
28, 2019), https://www.state.gov/interview-with-maria-bartiromo-of-mornings-with-maria-on-fox-business-network-5/
(“Huawei is an instrument of the Chinese Government. . . . [If] the Chinese Communist Party wanted to get information
from technology that was in the possession of Huawei, it is almost certainly the case that Huawei would provide that to
them.”); Remarks by Dr. Christopher Ashley Ford, Assistant Sec., Bureau of Int’l Sec. and Nonproliferation, U.S.
Dep’t of State, Multilateral Action on Sensitive Technologies (MAST) Conference, Huawei and its Siblings, the
Chinese Tech Giants: National Security and Foreign Policy Implications (Sep. 11, 2019),
https://www.state.gov/huawei-and-its-siblings-the-chinese-tech-giants-national-security-and-foreign-policy-
implications/ [hereinafter MAST Conference Remarks] (“Firms such as Huawei . . . have no meaningful ability to tell
the Chinese Communist Party ‘no’ if officials decide to ask for their assistance . . . .”).
4 See, e.g., Media Statement Regarding WSJ “Backdoor” Story, HUAWEI.COM,
https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/voices-of-huawei/media-statement-regarding-wsj (last visited Dec. 16, 2020); 5G
Security. Huawei: Facts, Not Myths, HUAWEI.COM, https://www.huawei.com/en/facts/voices-of-huawei/5g-security
(last visited Dec. 16, 2020) [hereinafter Huawei: Facts, Not Myths].
5 See, e.g., ROBERT D. WILLIAMS, EXEC. DIR. PAUL TSAI CHINA CTR., YALE L. SCHOOL, BEYOND HUAWEI AND TIKTOK:
UNTANGLING U.S. CONCERNS OVER CHINESE TECH COMPANIES AND DIGITAL SECURITY 25-26 (Oct. 30, 2020); Timothy
R. Heath, Public Evidence of Huawei as a Cyber Threat May be Elusive, but Restrictions Could Still be Warranted,
RAND (Mar. 7, 2019), https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/03/public-evidence-of-huawei-as-a-cyber-threat-may-be.html.
6 See infra § Federal Spending Restrictions.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 11 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 22 Huawei and U.S. Law

public and private sector transactions.7 In 2019 and 2020, Congress and the executive branch
crafted laws and policies designed to eliminate Huawei’s presence in U.S. telecommunications
networks—even if existing Huawei equipment must be “ripped and replaced.”8 The United States
took other forceful legal actions during this time, pursing criminal charges against Huawei and its
Chief Financial Officer (CFO),9 issuing visa restrictions for Huawei employees,10 banning trade
in Huawei securities,11 and engaging in international efforts to convince foreign countries to ban
Huawei from their networks.12 Most recently, in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY2021 NDAA; Pub. L. No. 116-283),13 passed
over President’s Trump’s veto, the 116th Congress embarked on a new endeavor of using federal
funds to support private competitors to Huawei that can offer secure and affordable
communications networks domestically and internationally.14
Some observers view this suite of legal actions involving Huawei as part of a broader effort to
“decouple” the United States’ economy from problematic aspects of China’s economy.15 Some
contend, however, that these efforts may have unwanted side effects, such as denying low-cost
technology to American consumers, loss of profitability for American companies that can no
longer sell to Huawei, and the risk that technology companies may move operations overseas to
avoid U.S. trade restrictions.16 Efforts to account for these considerations are ongoing and may
continue in the 117th Congress and in the Biden Administration.17 This report outlines recent
Huawei-related legal activities by the U.S. government and examines the statutory authorities
underlying each action.18

7 See infra §§ Export Restrictions; Executive Orders Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(IEEPA); Federal Communications Commission’s Actions.
8 See infra § Federal Communications Commission’s Actions.
9 See infra § United States’ Criminal Prosecutions.
10 See infra § Visa Restrictions.
11 See infra § Executive Order 13959: Securities Ban.
12 See infra § Diplomacy and Foreign Aid.
13 Pub. L. No. 116-283 (2021) [hereinafter FY2021 NDAA]; 166 CONG. REC. D1148 (daily ed. Jan. 1, 2021) (passing
FY2021 NDAA over the President’s veto).
14 See infra § National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
15 See, e.g., Ian Bremmer and Cliff Kupchan, Risk 2: The Great Decoupling, EURASIA GROUP (Jan. 6, 2020),
https://www.eurasiagroup.net/live-post/risk-2-great-decoupling; Jamie Gorelick, Stephen Preston, and Matthew
Ferraro, Decoupling from China: Part 2—Security Requirements, LAW360 (Oct. 29, 2020),
https://www.law360.com/articles/1323848/decoupling-from-china-part-2-security-requirements; Yuan Yang, US Tech
Backlash Forces China to Be More Self-Sufficient, FIN. TIMES (Jan. 15, 2020), https://www.ft.com/content/c6993200-
1ff3-11ea-b8a1-584213ee7b2b. For more discussion of the potential decoupling between the U.S. and Chinese
economies, see CRS In Focus IF10119, U.S.-China Relations, by Susan V. Lawrence, Michael F. Martin, and Andres
B. Schwarzenberg.
16 See infra § Addition of Huawei to the Entity List.
17 See, e.g., Jacky Wong, The U.S.-China Tech War Won’t End Under Biden, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 14, 2020),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-china-tech-war-wont-end-under-biden-11607939916; Jeanne Whalen, Biden
Likely to Remain Tough on Chinese Tech Like Huawei, but with More Help from Allies, WASH POST. (Nov. 16, 2020),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/16/biden-huawei-trump-china/.
18 While this report provides background on Huawei and discusses the impetus for recent U.S. legal activity, it does not
evaluate whether Huawei products actually present security risks or whether the Chinese government could require
Huawei to provide access to data on Huawei systems and equipment.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 6 Huawei and U.S. Law

Background on Huawei
Ren Zhengfei, a former member of the engineer corps of China’s People’s Liberation Army
(PLA), founded Huawei in Shenzhen, China in 1987.19 The company started as an importer of
telecommunications switches—a basic networking technology—but began to develop its own
products in the early 1990s.20 Early on, Huawei promoted its products to rural communities in
China.21 By the late 1990s, it had won large contracts to provide communications infrastructure
for the PLA and major Chinese cities like Beijing.22 Since then, Huawei has expanded its
operations internationally and grown to be the world’s largest manufacturer of
telecommunications equipment.23 Some observers attribute Huawei’s success to financial and
other state support from the Chinese government,24 but the extent to which Huawei’s growth
stems from government support is the subject of debate.25
Early Legal Actions and Congressional Interest
Huawei first attracted congressional attention in the early 2000s, when observers accused it of
violating U.N. sanctions by providing fiber optic technology to the Saddam Hussein regime in
Iraq.26 The company again became the subject of congressional scrutiny in 2007 as part of a

19 See NATHANIEL AHRENS, CENT. FOR STRATEGIC & INT’L STUDIES, CHINA’S COMPETITIVENESS: MYTH, REALITY, AND
LESSONS FOR THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN, CASE STUDY: HUAWEI 2 (2013); Bruce Gilley, Huawei’s Fixed Line to
Beijing, 94 FAR EASTERN ECON. R., Dec. 28, 2000, at 94; Milestones, HUAWEI.COM (last visited Mar. 3, 2020),
https://www.huawei.com/us/about-huawei/corporate-information/milestone. For additional background on the PLA, see
CRS Report R41007, Understanding China’s Political System, by Susan V. Lawrence and Michael F. Martin, at 25.
Some accounts place Huawei’s founding in 1988. See, e.g., Briefing Proliferation Issues, Hearings before the U.S.-
China Security Review Comm’n, 107th Cong (2001), in Compilation of Hearings Held Before the U.S.-China Sec.
Rev. Comm’n, 107th Cong. 579 (2001-2002) (Prepared Statement of Gary Milhollin, Director, Wisconsin Project on
Nuclear Arms Control) [Milhollin Proliferation Statement]; The Huawei Way, NEWSWEEK (Jan. 15, 2006),
https://www.newsweek.com/huawei-way-108201.
20 AHRENS, supra note 19, at 3; Keith Johnson, Elias Groll, The Improbable Rise of Huawei, FOREIGN POLICY (April 3,
2019), https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/03/the-improbable-rise-of-huawei-5g-global-network-china/.
21 See AHRENS, supra note 19, at 3.
22 Id.; Karishma Vaswani, Huawei: The Story of a Controversial Company, BBC (Mar. 6, 2019),
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Huawei.
23 See January 2019 DOJ Press Release, supra note 1.
24 See, e.g., Global Public Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State, Huawei: Myth vs. Fact, (Dec. 9, 2019),
https://translations.state.gov/2019/12/09/huawei-myth-vs-fact/ (“Beijing’s state-backed banks provide tens of billions
of dollars in subsidized financing to Huawei so the [People’s Republic of China] can gain access to foreign markets and
achieve strategic global dominance.”); Melanie Hart and Jordan Link, There is a Solution to the Huawei Challenge,
CTR. FOR AM. PROGRESS (Oct. 14, 2020),
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2020/10/14/491476/solution-huawei-challenge/ (“Beijing
deploys powerful industrial policies to make Huawei equipment cheaper to deploy”).
25 Compare, e.g., sources cited supra note 24 (describing state support for Huawei); with Huawei: Facts, Not Myths,
supra note 4 (“Like many other companies in the telecom industry, we [Huawei] take advantage of government funding
when it’s available, but the sums involved are comparatively small. . . . We don’t get special support from the Chinese
government.”); and AHRENS, supra note 19, at 6-10 (analyzing China’s state support for Huawei as part of a broader
national effort to develop a more independent and self-sustaining domestic telecommunications industrial base); and
Milhollin Proliferation Statement, supra note 19 (attributing Huawei’s success during the 1990s to technology transfers
from U.S. companies).
26 See, e.g., U.S. Policy Toward Iraq: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Middle East and S. Asia of the H. Comm. on
Int’l Relations, 107th Cong. 34, 41 (2001) (discussing Huawei’s transactions in Iraq); 148 CONG. REC. S8337 (daily ed.
Sep. 9, 2002) (statement of Senator Kyl) (“Media reports indicate that the Chinese firm Huawei Technologies—an
important player for many U.S. firms who want to reach the Chinese telecom and data communications market—
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 Huawei and U.S. Law

review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).27 CFIUS is an
interagency committee that advises the President on whether to block or suspend mergers,
acquisitions, and takeovers of U.S. companies because of national security risks.28 In 2007,
Huawei partnered with American private investment firm Bain Capital LP in an effort to acquire
an ownership interest in 3Com Corporation (3Com)—an American digital electronics firm.29 The
deal raised national security concerns because 3Com provided cybersecurity systems to the U.S.
military.30 Some executive branch officials and Members of Congress argued that the acquisition
would compromise cybersecurity protections at the Department of Defense (DOD).31 Several
Members of the 110th Congress urged CFIUS to analyze the transaction and identify national
security concerns, 32 which CFIUS ultimately did.33 Bain Capital abandoned the deal after CFIUS
stated that it intended to recommend that the President stop the acquisition.34
By 2010, Huawei faced greater U.S. government scrutiny as it tried to expand operations in the
United States. At the urging of executive branch officials and some Members of Congress, Sprint
Nextel Corp. (Sprint) excluded Huawei and ZTE Corporation (ZTE)—China’s second largest
telecommunications equipment manufacturer—from a multi-billion contract to supply
telecommunications equipment in the United States.35 Later that year, a group of Senators wrote

assisted Iraq with fiber-optics to improve its air-defense system. This was not only a violation of U.N. sanctions, it also
greatly increased the danger to U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones.”). Some observers criticized U.S.
export control policy at the time because it allowed U.S. companies to transfer technology to Huawei despite reports
that Huawei used American technology in systems sold to U.S. adversaries. See, e.g., Milhollin Proliferation Statement,
supra note 19, at 579-80; Kelly Motz and Jordan Richie, Techno Two-Timing, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 19, 2001),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB984950042398710644.
27 See, e.g., National Industry Security Program: Addressing the Implications of Globalization and Foreign Ownership
for the Defense Industrial Base: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Armed Servs., 110th Cong. 17 (2008) (statement of
Rep. Hunter); 153 CONG. REC. 26339 (2007) (statement of Rep. McCotter).
28 See 50 U.S.C. § 4565. For background on CFIUS, see CRS Report RL33388, The Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States (CFIUS), by James K. Jackson.
29 See, e.g., Congress to Probe 3Com-Huawei Deal, WASH. TIMES (Feb. 2, 2008),
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/2/congress-to-probe-3com-huawei-deal/.
30 See id; U.S.-CHINA ECON. AND SEC. REVIEW COMM’N., THE NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF INVESTMENTS AND
PRODUCTS FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 28-30 (Jan 2011),
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/FINALREPORT_TheNationalSecurityImplicationsofInvestmentsand
ProductsfromThePRCintheTelecommunicationsSector.pdf [hereinafter U.S.-CHINA 2011 REPORT]; Steven R. Weisman,
Sale of 3Com to Huawei is Derailed by US Security Concerns, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 21, 2008),
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-3com.1.10258216.html.
31 See, e.g., Weisman, supra note 30; 153 CONG. REC. 26339 (2007) (statement of Rep. McCotter) (“Communist
China’s Huawei Technologies’ stake in the 3Com Corporation will gravely compromise our free Republic’s national
security.”).
32 See, e.g., National Industry Security Program: Addressing the Implications of Globalization and Foreign Ownership
for the Defense Industrial Base: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Armed Servs., 110th Cong. 17 (2008) (statement of
Rep. Hunter); 153 CONG. REC. 26339 (2007) (statement of Rep. McCotter); see also H.Res. 730, 110th Cong. (2007)
(expressing concern that Huawei’s planned acquisition of an interest in 3Com triggers CFIUS review and that the
preponderance of evidence suggests the proposed acquisition threatens U.S. national security).
33 See, e.g., U.S.-CHINA 2011 REPORT, supra note 30, at 28-29.
34 See, e.g., id.; Bain Capital Drops Its Bid for 3Com, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 21, 2008),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120603627253952409.
35 See Joann S. Luplin and Shayndi Rice, Security Fears Kill Chinese Bid in U.S., WALL ST. J. (Nov. 5, 2010),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704353504575596611547810220; Letter from Senator Kyl et al. to
Honorable Timothy Geithner, U.S. Sec’y of Treasury, et al. (Aug. 18, 2010),
graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20100823-telecom.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 4 link to page 8 Huawei and U.S. Law

to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman expressing concerns about using
Huawei or ZTE technology in U.S. telecommunications systems.36
In 2011, Huawei divested itself of assets purchased from an American company that specialized
in server technology, 3Leaf Systems, after CFIUS raised national security concerns.37 Later that
year, Huawei published an “open letter” to the U.S. government denying the security concerns
and inviting a formal investigation to relieve the U.S. government’s apprehensions.38 HPSCI
responded to the invitation by investigating potential counterintelligence and security threats
posed by Huawei and ZTE.39 In its 2012 report, HPSCI recommended, among other things, that
the United States view Chinese telecommunications companies’ efforts to penetrate U.S. markets
“with suspicion.”40 HPSCI also recommended that Congress consider legislation to “better
address the risk posed by telecommunications companies with nation-state ties or otherwise not
clearly trusted to build infrastructure.”41
Federal Spending Restrictions
Beginning in 2013, the year after HPSCI’s report, Congress began to enact legislation limiting
Huawei and other Chinese telecommunication companies’ access to U.S. markets and supply
chains.42 These legislative efforts began with limitations on specific agencies’ ability to procure
Huawei products and services, but later expanded into broader spending restrictions that apply to
all executive branch agencies.
Appropriations Restrictions
Beginning with the Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act, 2013 (2013 Appropriations
Act), the federal government has enacted a series of appropriations laws that prohibit some
executive branch agencies from using appropriated funds to acquire information technology
systems from entities connected with the Chinese government.43 The provision, which Congress
has placed in an amended format in later appropriations laws,44 applies to the Department of
Commerce (Commerce), Department of Justice (DOJ), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation.45 It restricts these agencies from

36 See Letter from Senator Jon Kyl et al. to Hon. Julius Genachowski, Chairman, FCC (Oct. 19, 2010),
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/minority-media/congressional-leaders-cite-telecommunications-concerns-with-
firms-that-have-ties-with-chinese-government [hereinafter Kyl-FCC Letter] (“We are very concerned that [Huawei and
ZTE] are being financed by the Chinese government and are potentially subject to significant influence by the Chinese
military which may create an opportunity for manipulation of switches, routers, or software embedded in American
telecommunications network[s] so that communications can be disrupted, intercepted, tampered with, or purposely
misrouted. This would pose a real threat to our national security.”).
37 See, e.g. Huawei Drops a Controversial US Takeover Bid for 3Leaf, BBC (Feb. 21, 2011),
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-12520640.
38 See Ken Hu, Deputy Chairman of Huawei Technologies, Chairman of Huawei USA, Huawei Open Letter,
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Huawei20110205.pdf (accessed Mar. 4, 2020).
39 HPSCI REPORT, supra note 2.
40 Id. at 43.
41 Id. at 46.
42 See infra § Appropriations Restrictions.
43 Pub. L. No. 113-6, § 516, 127 Stat. 198, 273 (2013).
44 See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-93, § 514, 133 Stat. 2317, 2427 (2019).
45 See Pub. L. No. 113-6, § 516(a).
Congressional Research Service
5

link to page 9 Huawei and U.S. Law

using appropriated funds to acquire an information technology system made or assembled by an
entity owned, directed, or subsidized by the Chinese government.46 Although the provision does
not name Huawei, some observers and Members of Congress described it as designed to address
risks posed by Huawei and ZTE.47
2018 NDAA
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (2018 NDAA; Pub. L. No. 115-
91), the United States placed Huawei-related restrictions into federal law beyond the
appropriations context.48 The 2018 NDAA prohibits DOD from procuring certain
telecommunications equipment or services from Huawei and others as part of DOD’s missions
related to nuclear deterrence and homeland defense.49 Unlike earlier appropriations provisions,
the 2018 NDAA names Huawei in the legislation.50 The 2018 NDAA prohibits DOD from
procuring, obtaining, extending, or renewing contracts that include telecommunications
equipment or services provided by Huawei, ZTE, or any entity that the Secretary of Defense
reasonably believes is owned, controlled by, or “otherwise connected to” the Chinese or Russian
governments.51 To fall within the 2018 NDAA, the telecommunications equipment or services
must be a substantial or essential component52 or critical technology53 of the system provided to
DOD for its nuclear deterrence or homeland defense missions.54
2019 NDAA
While the appropriations restrictions and 2018 NDAA were limited to specific federal agencies,
section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019
(2019 NDAA; Pub. L. No. 115-232) provides a broader set of Huawei-related restrictions that
apply across the executive branch.55 Section 889(a)(1)(A) bars all executive branch agencies from
procurement or contracting that includes telecommunications equipment or services from
Huawei, ZTE, and certain other Chinese corporations56 as a substantial or essential component or

46 Id. The prohibitions contain an exception if the head of the procuring agency, in consultation with the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) or other “appropriate” federal entity, provides a written determination that the acquisition is in
the national interests of the United States. Id. § 516(b).
47 See, e.g., Adam Mazmanian, China Sourcing Rules Reappear in Appropriations, FCW (July 11, 2013),
https://fcw.com/articles/2013/07/11/wolf-china-technology.aspx.
48 Pub. L. No. 115-91, § 1656, 131 Stat. 1283, 1761 (2017) (codified in 10 U.S.C. § 491 note) [hereinafter 2018
NDAA].
49 Id.
50 Id.
51 Id.
52 DOD procurement regulations define a substantial or essential component as any component “necessary for the
proper function or performance of a piece of equipment, system, or service.” See Covered Defense
Telecommunications Equipment or Services, 84 Fed. Reg. 72231, 72238 (Dec. 31, 2019) [Dec. 31, 2019 NDAA Rule]
(codified at 48 C.F.R. § 252.204-7018).
53 Critical technology is defined in DOD procurement regulations at 48 C.F.R. § 252.204-7018. The definition is
derived from the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-232, § 1703(6) (codified at 50
U.S.C. § 4565(6)). Critical technologies include defense articles and defense services on the U.S. Munitions List;
certain dual-use items on the Commerce Control List; certain nuclear equipment, materials, software, and facilities;
select agents and toxins; and emerging foundational technologies. 48 C.F.R. § 252.204-7018.
54 2018 NDAA, supra note 48, § 1656(b).
55 See Pub. L. No. 115-232, § 889, 132 Stat. 1636, 1917 (2018) [hereinafter 2019 NDAA].
56 Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA applies to Huawei, ZTE, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 Huawei and U.S. Law

critical technology.57 Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the 2019 NDAA bars executive agencies from
transacting with a company that uses Huawei or other covered entities’ telecommunications
equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or critical technology.58 Whereas
the first prohibition (Part A) restricts executive agencies from procuring systems that contain
Huawei equipment or services, the second provision (Part B) prohibits executive agencies from
contracting with companies that use Huawei equipment or services in the companies’ own
systems—even if those systems are not sold to the government.59 Section 889 also prohibits the
use of federal grant or loan funds to obtain anything prohibited in Parts A and B, unless an
exception applies.60
If a company that would be barred from transacting with an executive branch agency requests a
waiver of section 889, the head of the executive agency can issue a one-time waiver for up to two
years, provided the request meets certain conditions.61 The Director of National Intelligence
(DNI) possesses broader waiver authority when the DNI determines that a waiver is in the U.S.
national security interest.62
Huawei’s Legal Challenge to Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA
Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA names Huawei as an entity that is barred from covered
transactions.63 Huawei has argued, however, that the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause64
prohibits Congress from singling out and excluding a specific company in this fashion.65 The Bill
of Attainder Clause forbids the United States from inflicting a “punishment” on a person or entity
by legislative act without a judicial trial.66 Huawei filed a lawsuit in the United States District

Digital Technology Company, Dahua Technology Company, any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities, and any entity
that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director National Intelligence (DNI) and the FBI Director,
reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of China. Id.
§ 889(f).
57 Id. § 889(a)(1)(A). The definitions of “substantial or essential component” and “critical technology” are identical in
DOD regulations implementing the 2018 and 2019 NDAAs. Compare 48 C.F.R. § 252.204-7018 (required contract
clauses implementing 2018 NDAA) with 48 C.F.R. § 4.2101 (regulations implementing 2019 NDAA).
58 2019 NDAA, supra note 55, § 889(a)(1)(B).
59 Some observers and Members of Congress debate whether Part B of Section 889 is overbroad and should be
narrowed legislatively or through implementing regulations. See, e.g., Justin Doubleday, Senate Proposal to Delay
Huawei Ban Faces Stiff Opposition from China Hawks, INSIDE CYBERSECURITY (Dec. 14, 2020),
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/senate-proposal-delay-huawei-ban-faces-stiff-opposition-china-hawks.
60 Id. § 889(b)(1). Section 889 includes certain exceptions to its grant and loan fund restrictions, including (1) entities
that provide a service that connects the facilities of a third-party, such as backhaul, roaming, or interconnection
arrangements, and (2) “telecommunications equipment that cannot route or redirect user data traffic or permit visibility
into any user data or packets that such equipment transmits or otherwise handles.” Id. § 889(b)(3). For additional
discussion on the grant and loan fund restrictions, see OFFICE MGMT. BUDGET, PROHIBITION ON COVERED
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT,
https://www.performance.gov/CAP/Sec.%20889%20of%202019%20NDAA_FAQ_20201124.pdf.
61 2019 NDAA, supra note 55, § 889(d). The entity seeking a waiver must provide a “compelling justification” for
additional time to implement the law, and the head of the executive agency must submit to Congress a “full and
complete laydown of the presences of covered telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services in the
entity’s supply chain and a phase-out plan to eliminate” such equipment or services. Id. § 889(d)(1).
62 Id. § 889(d)(2).
63 2018 NDAA, supra note 55, § 889. For a list of other entities identified in the 2019 NDAA, see supra note 56.
64 See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9 (“No Bill of Attainder or ex post factor Law shall be passed.”).
65 See generally Complaint, Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, No. 4:19-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6,
2019) [hereinafter Huawei Complaint].
66 See Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 323 (1866) (“A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 10 link to page 8 Huawei and U.S. Law

Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging, among other things, that the 2019 NDAA violates
this prohibition.67 Relying on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Bill of Attainder Clause68
and recent federal appellate court decisions rejecting claims based on it,69 the district court
rejected Huawei’s constitutional challenge and dismissed the suit in February 2020.70
Export Restrictions
While annual appropriations provisions and the 2018 and 2019 NDAAs marked the opening salvo
in what has become a broader legal confrontation between Huawei and the U.S. government,
those restrictions generally were limited to transactions involving federal spending in the form of
procurement and grant and loan funds.71 Entities that did not participate in federal procurement or
receive grant and loan funds could continue to transact business with Huawei without violating
the restrictions.72 In May 2019, the Trump Administration expanded the scope of Huawei-related
prohibitions outside the federal spending context by exercising its authority under the Export
Controls Act of 2018 (ECA).73
The ECA provides the President with powers to control the export of, among other things, certain
U.S. dual-use goods and technology.74 A dual-use item can serve both civilian purposes and
military, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, or law enforcement purposes.75 The ECA
requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish and maintain a list, known as the Entity List, of
foreign entities that are subject to export license requirements because they are threats to U.S.
national security and foreign policy.76 The ECA authorizes the executive branch to control

punishment without a judicial trial.”).
67 See Huawei Complaint, supra note 65.
68 See, e.g., Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 468-84 (1977) (describing three avenues for determining
whether a law inflicts a punishment within the meaning of the Bill of Attainder Clause: (1) a historical analysis, (2) a
functional text; and (3) an analysis of Congress’s motivation for the law in question).
69 See, e.g., SBC Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 154 F.3d 226, 247 (5th Cir. 1998) (concluding that the Telecommunications
Act of 1996’s restrictions on 20 specific former subsidiaries of AT&T was not a Bill of Attainder); ACORN v. United
States, 618 F.3d 125, 136–42 (2d Cir. 2010) (rejecting Bill of Attainder challenge to provision of the 2010
Consolidated Appropriations Act that excluded the non-profit organization ACORN and “affiliates, subsidiaries, and
alli[es]” from federal funding); Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 909 F.3d 446, 453-64
(D.C. Cir. 2018) (holding that a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 prohibiting
federal procurement of “hardware, software or services” developed by Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab
did not violate the Bill of Attainder Clause).
70 See Memorandum Opinion and Order, Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. v. United States, No. 4:19-cv-00159 (E.D.
Tex. Feb. 18, 2020). For additional discussion of Huawei’s suit and the Bill of Attainder Clause, see CRS Legal
Sidebar LSB10274, Huawei v. United States: The Bill of Attainder Clause and Huawei’s Lawsuit Against the United
States, coordinated by Joanna R. Lampe.
71 See supra § Federal Spending Restrictions.
72 While the NDAAs limited the federal government’s ability to procure Huawei systems, they did not prevent state
governments from doing so. See Frank Konkel, Report Warns of Tech Threats from ‘Other’ Chinese Companies,
NEXTGOV (Feb. 24, 2020) (“While the federal government has cracked down on the use of Chinese-owned companies
at the federal level in recent years over espionage and data safety concerns, at least 43 states hold important IT
contracts with other Chinese-owned companies and could be at risk . . . .”).
73 50 U.S.C. §§ 4801-4826.
74 Id. § 4812. For background on the ECA and its authority, see CRS Report R41916, The U.S. Export Control System
and the Export Control Reform Initiative, by Ian F. Fergusson and Paul K. Kerr and CRS In Focus IF11627, U.S.
Export Control Reforms and China: Issues for Congress, by Ian F. Fergusson and Karen M. Sutter.
75 50 U.S.C. § 4801(2).
76 Id. § 4813(a)(2). The Entity List is available at 15 U.S.C. pt. 744, supp. 4. The ECA requires the Secretary of
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 28 link to page 12 Huawei and U.S. Law

exports, re-exports,77 and “in-country transfers” (i.e., transfers within a foreign country78) to
companies on the Entity List.79 The Bureau of Industry and Science (BIS) in the Department of
Commerce maintains the Entity List.80
Addition of Huawei to the Entity List
In several final rules, issued over the course of 2019 and 2020, BIS added Huawei and more than
150 non-U.S. affiliates of Huawei to the Entity List.81 An interagency committee82 determined
that there is reasonable cause to believe that Huawei has been involved in activities that are
contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.83 The interagency
committee cited Huawei and its affiliates’ alleged violation of U.S. sanctions on Iran (which are
also the subject of a criminal prosecution, discussed below84) as an illustration of the risks
Huawei poses to U.S. national security and foreign policy.85
Because Huawei and other Chinese telecommunications companies depend on certain U.S.
products, such as microchips, for their equipment, the prohibition of exports from the United
States can potentially damage their business.86 For example, in 2018, U.S. export restrictions on
ZTE reportedly forced ZTE to suspend business operations temporarily when it could not access
the U.S. semiconductors needed for its supply chain.87 At the same time, there may be compelling

Commerce to consult with the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Energy and “the heads of other Federal agencies as
appropriate” in establishing the Entity List. 50 U.S.C. § 4813(a).
77 The term “re-export” refers to the shipment of an item subject to export controls from one foreign country to another
foreign country. 15 C.F.R. § 734.14.
78 See id. § 734.16 (“[A] Transfer (in-country) is a change in end use or end user of an item within the same foreign
country. Transfer (in-country) is synonymous with In-country transfer.”).
79 See 50 U.S.C. § 4812(a)(1).
80 Bureau of Indus. and Sci., Dep’t of Commerce, FAQs – Entity List FAQs, https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/cbc-
faqs/cat/36-entity-list-faqs-2#faq_281 (last visited Feb. 26, 2021)
81 Addition of Entities to the Entity List, 84 Fed. Reg. 22961 (May 21, 2019) (codified at 15 C.F.R. pt. 744) [hereinafter
May 21, 2019 Rule]; Addition of Entities to the Entity List and Revision of Entries on the Entity List, 84 Fed. Reg.
43493 (Aug. 21, 2019) (codified at 15 C.F.R. pt. 744) [hereinafter August 21, 2019 Final Rule]; Addition of Huawei
Non-U.S. Affiliates to the Entity List, 85 Fed. Reg. 51596 (Aug. 20, 2020) (codified at 15 C.F.R. pts. 736, 744, 762)
[hereinafter August 20, 2020 Final Rule].
82 The End-User Review Committee is composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce, State, Defense,
Energy and, “where appropriate,” the Treasury. 15 C.F.R. pt. 744, supp. 5 appx.
83 May 21, 2019 Rule, supra note 81, at 22961. See also August 20, 2020 Final Rule, supra note 81, at 51596
(addressing the “continuing threat to U.S. national security and U.S. foreign policy interests posed by Huawei and its
non-U.S.-affiliates”).
84 See infra § United States’ Criminal Prosecutions.
85 May 21, 2019 Rule, supra note 81, at 22961-962.
86 See, e.g., Janne Suokas, Huawei Lists 33 US Companies Among Core Suppliers, GLOBAL TIMES (Nov. 30, 2018),
https://gbtimes.com/huawei-lists-33-us-companies-among-core-suppliers (“In November 2018, Huawei released a list
of core suppliers, and 33 of 92 suppliers were U.S. companies.”);Yuan Yang and Lucy Hornby, China Raises Alarm
Over Its Dependency on Foreign Chips, FIN. TIMES (July 18, 2018), https://www.ft.com/content/410306d8-8ae0-11e8-
bf9e-8771d5404543 (“China relies on imported semiconductors to build the hardware — including phones, telecoms
gear and computers — that account for almost one-third of its exports . . . .”). But see Asa Fitch and Dan Strumpf,
Huawei Manages to Make Smartphones Without American Chips, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 1, 2019),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-manages-to-make-smartphones-without-american-chips-11575196201 (“Huawei
has made significant strides in shedding its dependence on parts from U.S. companies.”).
87 See, e.g., Sijia Jiang, China’s ZTE Says Main Business Operations Cease Due to U.S. Ban, REUTERS (May 9, 2018),
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-zte-ban/chinas-zte-corp-says-main-business-operations-cease-due-to-u-s-ban-
idUSKBN1IA1XF?il=0.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 Huawei and U.S. Law

reasons to avoid causing serious commercial harm to Huawei and other Chinese
telecommunications firms. For example, some rural areas of the United States depend on Huawei
for their telecommunications infrastructure, and an export ban can hinder telecommunications in
rural America.88 Denial of exports may also affect the revenue and profitability of U.S. businesses
that cannot sell their products to companies on the Entity List.89 Moreover, not all exports to
Huawei present the same level of national security concerns, according to Commerce.90 And
addition of Huawei and its affiliates to the Entity List could prevent American companies from
participating in international organizations that develop standards for 5G systems and other
technology.91
To account for these competing considerations, BIS has sought to calibrate its export
restrictions—contained in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)92—by authorizing
certain limited types of exports to Huawei. Shortly after adding Huawei to the Entity List, BIS
temporarily authorized exports to Huawei and its affiliates, provided the exports were: (1)
necessary to maintain and support existing telecommunications networks and equipment; (2)
necessary to provide service and support to existing Huawei handsets; (3) made to provide
information related to cybersecurity vulnerabilities in Huawei networks or products or research
related to cybersecurity; and (4) part of engagement with Huawei and its affiliates necessary for
developing 5G standards at a recognized international standards body.93
This temporary authorization—which BIS called a temporary general license—expired on
August 13, 2020.94 But BIS amended its regulations to exclude permanently variations of the

88 See, e.g., Reply Comments of the Rural Wireless Ass’n, Inc. at 15, In the Matter of Protecting Against Nat’l Sec.
Threats to the Commc’ns Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, 33 F.C.C. Rcd. 4058 (2018) (estimating that 25% of
members of the Rural Wireless Association would be impacted by the proposal to limit use of certain federal funds to
purchase equipment or services from Huawei and ZTE). See August 20, 2020 Final Rule, supra note 81, at 51599
(“Companies detailed would be required for their organization or industry to cease using Huawei equipment. Time and
money were common themes, emphasizing that continued short-term reliance on Huawei for maintaining existing
systems in the U.S. will be required.”); Ceilia Kang, Huawei Ban Threatens Wireless Service in Rural Areas, N.Y.
TIMES (May 25, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/25/technology/huawei-rural-wireless-service.html (“Huawei
is essential for many wireless carriers that serve sprawling, sparsely populated regions because its gear for transmitting
cell signals often costs far less than other options.”).
89 See, e.g., Asa Fitch, Broadcom to Take $2 Billion Hit from Huawei Ban, WALL ST. J. (June 13, 2019),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/broadcom-lowers-revenue-outlook-amid-trade-tensions-11560459528; Jeanne Whalen et
al., Huawei Supply Ban Roils Stocks as U.S. Companies Begin to Cut Off China Tech Giant, WASH. POST (May 20,
2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/20/google-cuts-off-huawei-after-trump-administration-
crackdown/.
90 See August 20, 2020 Final Rule, supra note 81, at 51598 (explaining that, in BIS’s view, certain limited sets of
exports to Huawei and its affiliates may be “consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests”);
Alexandra Alper and Karen Freifeld, U.S. to Approve Sales It Deems Safe to Blacklisted Huawei, REUTERS (July 9,
2019), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei-tech/us-to-approve-sales-it-deems-safe-to-blacklisted-
huawei-idUSKCN1U41GP (reporting that the Secretary of Commerce stated during a conference that the Department
of Commerce will issue export licenses to Huwaei “where there is no threat to U.S. national security”).
91 See Release of “Technology” to Certain Entities on the Entity List in the Context of Standards Organizations, 85 Fed.
Reg. 36719 (June 18, 2020) (codified at 15 C.F.R. pts. 744 and 772) [hereinafter Standards Organizations Rule]. See
also Ari Schwartz, Standards Bodies are Under Friendly Fire in the War on Huawei, LAWFARE (May 5, 2020),
https://www.lawfareblog.com/standards-bodies-are-under-friendly-fire-war-huawei.
92 The EAR is located in 15 C.F.R. pts. 730-774.
93 Temporary General License, 84 Fed. Reg. 23468, 23468-69 (May 22, 2019).
94 August 20, 2020 Final Rule, supra note 81, at 51600.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 13 link to page 12 link to page 11 Huawei and U.S. Law

third95 and fourth96 categories from export restrictions. Some commentators and stakeholders
called for BIS to extend or adopt permanently all facets of the temporary general license, but BIS
determined that the United States national security and foreign policy interests did not support
maintaining the first and second categories of transactions.97
BIS also issues other licenses, known as specific licenses, that authorize individual U.S.
companies to export to Huawei and its affiliates under defined conditions.98 While the temporary
general license automatically applied to all exporters that met its requirements, BIS only grants
specific licenses to companies that apply for them.99 For example, Microsoft Corp. (Microsoft)
reportedly applied for and received a specific license to export certain “mass-market” software to
Huawei and its affiliates.100 Media outlets report that Commerce officials have told members of
the semiconductor industry that it will grant licenses if companies can demonstrate their
technology does not support 5G systems.101
Foreign Direct Product Rule and De Minimis Rules
While U.S. export restrictions in the EAR apply to all U.S. origin items, wherever located,102 they
can also apply to certain foreign-made items. Under the foreign direct product rule, the EAR
applies to certain foreign-made goods that are created as a “direct product” of U.S.-origin
items.103 And under the de minimis rules, the EAR applies to items that contain more than certain
specified percentages of U.S. content.104 After Huawei was added to the Entity List in 2019,
reports emerged that many U.S.-owned companies were able to use foreign subsidiaries and
affiliates to continue exporting to Huawei under these rules.105 In particular, Commerce found that

95 BIS regulations permit disclosure to Huawei and affiliates of “information regarding security vulnerabilities in items
owned, possessed, or controlled by Huawei or any of its non-U.S. affiliates when related to the process of providing
ongoing security research critical to maintaining the integrity and reliability of existing and currently ‘fully operational
network’ and equipment.” Id. at 51629 (codified at 15 C.F.R. pt. 736 n.2).
96 BIS regulations authorize release of certain technology to “members of standards organization without a license,
including Huawei, if released for the purpose of contributing to the revision or development of a standard.” See
Standards Organizations Rule, supra note 90, at 36719.
97 August 20, 2020 Final Rule, supra note 81, at 51598-600.
98 See, e.g., U.S. Begins Issuing Some Licenses for Companies to Supply Goods to Huwaei, REUTERS (Nov. 20, 2019),
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-china-huawei-tech/u-s-begins-issuing-some-licenses-for-companies-to-supply-
goods-to-huawei-idUSL2N2800JU (“The U.S. Commerce Department confirmed Wednesday it has begun issuing
licenses for some U.S companies to supply non-sensitive goods to China’s Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.”).
99 For additional analysis of U.S. export licensing policy, see CRS Report R41916, supra note 74, at 3.
100 Stephen Nellis and Alexandra Alper, Microsoft Granted License to Export “Mass-Market” Software to Huawei,
REUTERS (Nov. 21, 2019), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-huawei/microsoft-granted-license-to-export-
mass-market-software-to-huawei-idUSKBN1XV2LE. See also Josh Horwitz, Intel gets U.S. Licenses to Supply Some
Products to Huawei, REUTERS (Sep. 22, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/intel-huawei-idUSKCN26D0I3.
101 Kathrin Hille, Edward White, Kana Inagaki, US Allows Sales of Chips to Huawei’s non-5G Businesses, FIN. TIMES
(Oct. 28, 2020), https://www.ft.com/content/508b0828-bcd5-46a6-84f8-d05cb2887e0a.
102 15 C.F.R. § 743.4(a)(2).
103 Id. §§ 734.4(a)(4), 736.2(b)(3).
104 Id. § 734.4. For additional discussion of the de minimis rule and its components, see Bureau of Indus. and Sci.,
Dep’t of Commerce, De Minimis Rules and Guidelines (Nov. 5, 2019),
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/1382-de-minimis-guidance/file.
105 See, e.g., Ian King and Jenny Leonard, U.S. Companies Find Legal Ways Around Trump’s Huawei Blacklist,
BLOOMBERG (June 25, 2019), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-26/u-s-companies-are-finding-a-
legal-way-around-huawei-blacklist; Dan Strumpf et al., American Tech Companies Find Ways Around Huawei Ban,
WALL ST. J. (June 25, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-tech-companies-find-ways-around-huawei-ban-
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 12 link to page 15 Huawei and U.S. Law

Huawei “continued to use U.S. software and technology to design semiconductors, undermining
the national security and foreign policy purposes of the Entity List by commissioning their
production in overseas foundries using U.S. equipment.”106
To counteract this trend, BIS amended the foreign direct product rule twice in 2020 so that it has
broader application to Huawei and its affiliates on the Entity List.107 The amended rule makes
technical changes to the EAR designed to prevent Huawei from acquiring microchips made
outside the United States that are developed or produced with tools sourced from the United
States.108 Although the rule changes are technical, some commentators view them as likely to
cause a major disruption to Huawei’s manufacturing capability.109 Other observers assert that the
rule change will adversely affect the U.S. semiconductor industry and other American technology
companies that sell products used in Huawei’s supply chains.110 Commerce and Department of
State officials contend the change is necessary to prevent Huawei and its affiliates from
circumventing U.S. export restrictions.111
Media outlets reported in 2020 that the Trump Administration also was considering modifying the
de minimis rules in an attempt to limit transactions further with Huawei involving U.S.-sourced
items.112 The de minimis rules permits companies that make and export products to Huawei from
outside the United States to incorporate U.S. components, technology, and software if the U.S.
content does not exceed 25% of the product’s value.113 News outlets reported that the Trump

11561517591.
106 U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Office of Pub. Affairs, Commerce Addresses Huawei’s Efforts to Undermine Entity list,
Restricts Products Designed and Produced with U.S. Technologies (May 15, 2020),
https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/05/commerce-addresses-huaweis-efforts-undermine-entity-list-
restricts.
107 See Export Administration Regulations: Amendments to General Prohibition Three (Foreign-Produced Direct
Product Rule) and the Entity List, 85 Fed. Reg. 97 (May 19, 2020) (codified as amended at 15 C.F.R. pt. 744 n.1);
August 20, 2020 Final Rule, supra note 81, at 51629 (codified at 15 C.F.R. pt. 744 n.1).
108 The changes to the foreign direct product rule for Huawei and its affiliates on the Entity List are codified at footnote
1 to 15 C.F.R. pg. 744. See also U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Office of Pub. Affairs, Commerce Department Further
Restricts Huawei Access to U.S. Technology and Adds Another 38 Affiliates to the Entity List, (Aug. 17, 2020),
https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/08/commerce-department-further-restricts-huawei-access-us-
technology-and (“This amendment further restricts Huawei from obtaining foreign made chips developed or produced
from U.S. software or technology to the same degree as comparable U.S. chips.”).
109 See, e.g., Life is Getting Much Harder for Huawei, BLOOMBERG (Aug. 20, 2020),
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-08-21/life-is-getting-much-harder-for-huawei.
110 See, e.g., Semiconductor Indus. Ass’n, SIA Statement on Export Control Rule Changes, (Aug. 17, 2020),
https://www.semiconductors.org/sia-statement-on-export-control-rule-changes-2/; Richard Altieri and Benjamin Della
Rocca, U.S. Further Tightens Huawei Blacklist, Putting a “Blanket Ban” on the Company, LAWFARE (Aug. 28, 2020).
111 See Commerce Department Further Restricts Huawei Access to U.S. Technology and Adds Another 38 Affiliates to
the Entity List, supra note 108; Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Sec’y of State, Press Statement, The United States Further
Restricts Huawei Access to U.S. Technology, (Aug. 17, 2020), https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-further-restricts-
huawei-access-to-u-s-technology/. (“[The amended] Foreign Direct Product Rule . . . will prevent Huawei from
circumventing U.S. law through alternative chip production and provision of off-the-shelf (OTS) chips produced with
tools acquired from the United States.”).
112 See, e.g., Alexandra Alper et al., Trump Administration Moves Toward Blocking More Sales to Huawei: Sources,
REUTERS (Jan 14, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-huawei/trump-administration-moves-toward-blocking-
more-sales-to-huawei-sources-idUSKBN1ZD2VD; Bob Davis and Katy Stech Ferek, Tech Tensions Simmer in
Washington as U.S., China Near Trade Truce, WALL ST. J. (Jan. 14, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/tech-tensions-
simmer-in-washington-as-u-s-china-near-trade-truce-11579041159.
113 15 C.F.R. § 734.4(d).
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 15 link to page 12 Huawei and U.S. Law

Administration considered reducing the de minimis threshold to 10% for Huawei transactions,114
and the 116th Congress introduced at least one bill that would require Commerce to reduce the
threshold,115 but thus far no change has been made.
Conditions on Huawei’s Removal from the Entity List
Normally, an interagency committee116 in the executive branch chaired by Commerce is
responsible for “all decisions to make additions to, removals from or changes to the Entity
List.”117 In Huawei’s case, however, Congress placed conditions on Commerce’s ability to
remove Huawei from the list.118 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(2020 NDAA; Pub. L. No. 116-92) provides that the Secretary of Commerce may not remove
Huawei from the Entity List unless the Secretary certifies119 that four conditions exist:
1. Huawei has resolved the charges that were the basis for its addition to the Entity
List;
2. Huawei has resolved any other charges that it violated U.S. sanctions;
3. “[R]egulations have been implemented that sufficiently restrict exporting to, and
importing from, the United States items that would pose a national security
threat” to U.S. telecommunications systems;
4. Commerce has mitigated, to the maximum extent possible, other threats to U.S.
national security posed by Huawei.120
The 2020 NDAA also requires Commerce to provide an annual report describing licenses issued
for exports to Huawei.121
Executive Orders Under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
Although U.S. export restrictions have significant legal and economic consequences, they do not
affect all transactions involving Huawei and U.S. companies. In particular, the addition of
Huawei to the Entity List does not, on its own accord, prevent importing Huawei products into
the United States.122 Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the

114 See supra note 112.
115 S. 3316, 116th Cong. (2020).
116 See supra note 82.
117 15 C.F.R. pt. 744, supp. 5.
118 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-92, § 1260I (2019).
119 Commerce must provide its certification to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. Id. § 1260I(c)(1).
120 Id. § 1260I(a)(1-4).
121 Id. § 1260I(b).
122 Accord Bureau of Indus. and Sci., U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Huawei Entity List and Temporary General License
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) at 2, (Sep. 18, 2019), https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/pdfs/2447-
huawei-entity-listing-faqs/file (“Imports of Huawei goods into the United States are not impacted by the addition of
Huawei and its affiliates to the Entity List.”).
Congressional Research Service
13

Huawei and U.S. Law

President possesses much broader authority to influence Huawei imports and other Huawei-
related transactions and property interests.123
IEEPA grants the President power to regulate diverse economic transactions when the President
declares that a national emergency exists.124 Upon an emergency declaration, the President may
(subject to certain exceptions125) investigate, regulate, or prohibit foreign exchange transactions,
transfers of credit involving foreign nationals or foreign countries, and imports or exports of
currency and securities involving any persons or property subject to U.S. jurisdiction.126 IEEPA
also allows the President to block or “freeze”127 foreign-owned property and assets.128
Executive Order 13873: Information and Communications
Technology and Services
On May 15, 2019 (the same day Commerce announced the addition of Huawei to the Entity List),
President Trump issued Executive Order 13873.129 In that executive order, President Trump
declared that a national emergency exists because of the threat of foreign adversaries creating and
exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services (ICTS).130
In response to this threat, Executive Order 13873 prohibits various transactions131 involving
foreign-owned132 ICTS when Commerce, in consultation with other executive branch agencies,133
makes two determinations.134
First, Commerce must determine that the transaction involves ICTS designed, developed,
manufactured, or supplied by persons or entities owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary.135 The executive order defines foreign adversary

123 Pub. L. No. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626 (1977) (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1708).
124 For detailed analysis of IEEPA, see CRS Report R45618, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act:
Origins, Evolution, and Use, coordinated by Christopher A. Casey.
125 Exceptions to IEEPA authority are defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b).
126 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(A).
127 “Blocking” and “freezing” generally are synonymous terms that refer to an “across-the-board prohibition against
transfers or dealings of any kind with regard to the property.” See U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, OFAC FAQs: General
Questions (last updated Feb. 6, 2019), https://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/faqs/Sanctions/Pages/faq_general.aspx.
128 50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B).
129 Exec. Order No. 13873 of May 15, 2019, Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services
Supply Chain, 84 Fed. Reg. 22689 (published May 17, 2019).
130 Id.
131 The term “transaction” in Executive Order 13873 includes any “acquisition, importation, transfer, installation,
dealing in, or use . . . .” Id. § 1.
132 Id. More specifically, the transaction must involve property in which a foreign country or foreign national has any
interest, including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service. Id.
133 Executive Order 13873 directs the Secretary of Commerce to consult with the “Secretary of the Treasury, the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, the Administrator of General Services, the
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and, as appropriate, the heads of other executive departments
and agencies (agencies)….” Id.
134 In addition to the requisite determinations by Commerce, in order to fall under Executive Order 13873, the
transaction must post-date the executive order and be made by an individual or entity subject to U.S. jurisdiction or
involve property subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Id. § 1(a).
135 Id. § 1(a)(i).
Congressional Research Service
14

link to page 18 link to page 17 link to page 17 Huawei and U.S. Law

as those “engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse” to
U.S. security or the safety of U.S. persons.136 In its regulations implementing the order, discussed
below,137 Commerce identified China (including Hong Kong), Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia,
and the Nicolás Maduro regime138 in Venezuela as foreign adversaries.139
Second, to fall within the scope of Executive Order 13873, Commerce must determine that the
transaction presents:
1. An undue risk of sabotage or subversion to ICTS in the United States;
2. An undue risk of catastrophic effects on the security or resiliency of critical
infrastructure or the digital economy in the United States; or
3. Unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S.
persons.140
Executive Order 13873 authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to develop rules and regulations to
implement the order and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA.141 Some
observers interpreted the order as designed to, among other things, address the risks posed by
Huawei and other Chinese communications equipment manufacturers.142
ICTS Review Process
In January 2021, Commerce issued an interim final rule (ICTS Rule) which implements
Executive Order 13873 in a way that differs from many prior IEEPA-based national
emergencies.143 Many executive orders that invoke IEEPA lead to the compilation of a list of
individuals144 or entities145 with whom transactions are restricted.146 Other IEEPA-based executive
orders prohibit transactions involving specific items.147 In the ICTS Rule, however, Commerce

136 Id. § 3(b).
137 See infra § ICTS Review Process.
138 For background on the Maduro regime the competing claims to recognition as Venezuela’s government, see CRS
Report R44841, Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations, coordinated by Clare Ribando Seelke.
139 Securing the Information and Technology and Services Supply Chain, Interim Final Rule; Request for Comments,
86 Fed. Reg. 4909 (2021) (codified at 15 C.F.R. pt. 7) [hereinafter ICTS Rule]. The Secretary of Commerce has
discretion to revise the list of foreign adversaries “as necessary.” 15. C.F.R. § 7.4.
140 Exec. Order No. 13873, supra note 129, § 1(a)(ii).
141 Id. § 2.
142 See, e.g., President Trump Issues Executive Order Seemingly Aimed at China and Huawei, TIME (May 15, 2019),
http://time.com/5589947/executive-order-huawei-products/; Dan Strumpf, Toko Kubota, and Wenxin Fan, Silicon
Valley Will Feel Sting of Export Restrictions Against Huawei, WALL ST. J. (May 16, 2019),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-will-feel-sting-of-export-restrictions-against-huawei-11558021918 (“The
Commerce Department action was paired with a White House executive order seen as a precursor to a ban on selling
Huawei-made products in the U.S.”).
143 See ICTS Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. at 4909. For additional information on the ICTS Rule, see CRS In Focus IF11760, The
Information and Communications Technology and Services (ICTS) Rule and Review Process, by Stephen P. Mulligan.
144 See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13818, Annex A, Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights
Abuse or Corruption, 82 Fed. Reg. 60839 (issued Dec. 20, 2017).
145 See, e.g., Exec. Order. 13942, Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, and Taking Additional Steps to Address the
National Emergency with Respect to Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain, 85
Fed. Reg. 48637 (issued Aug. 6, 2020); Exec. Order No. 13581, Annex A, Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal
Organizations, 76 Fed. Reg. 44757 (issued July 24, 2011).
146 See CRS Report R45618, supra note 124, at 19 (surveying IEEPA executive orders).
147 See, e.g., Exec. Order. No. 12735, Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation, 55 Fed. Reg. 48587 (issued
Congressional Research Service
15

Huawei and U.S. Law

has established a new review process through which the Secretary of Commerce will evaluate
individual transactions on a “case-by-case basis, based upon the particular facts and
circumstances” to determine whether they raise the risks described in Executive Order 13873.148
Because the rule regulates individual ICTS transactions—broadly defined as “any acquisition,
importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any [ICTS]”149—it could subject a wide
range of commercial interactions to a new review process.150
The ICTS Rule provides three ways to initiate review of a transaction: (1) Commerce can
unilaterally begin review at the Secretary of Commerce’s discretion; (2) other federal agencies
can request that Commerce review a transaction; or (3) Commerce can begin review upon receipt
of public or other types of information.151 Commerce also plans to create a licensing process
through which companies can seek pre-approval for a proposed or pending ICTS transaction.152
If, after an initial review, Commerce concludes that an ICTS transaction may pose an undue or
unacceptable risk, Commerce must engage in an interagency consultation.153 After the
consultation, Commerce will make an initial determination on whether to permit a transaction,
prohibit it, or propose measures to mitigate risks.154 Unless it permits the transaction in full,
Commerce must provide a written determination to the parties.155 Next, the parties have 30 days
to respond to the initial determination and propose their own remedial measures.156 If the parties
respond,157 Commerce must engage in a second interagency consultation.158 After that
consultation, Commerce may issue a final, written determination on whether the transaction is
prohibited, not prohibited, or permitted subject to an agreement on risk-mitigation measures.159
The total process must be completed within 180 days, unless Commerce determines in writing
that additional time is necessary.160 Violation of Commerce’s final determination can result in
civil and criminal penalties.161
To be subject to the ICTS review process, a transaction must meet several criteria. An individual
or entity owned, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign adversary must conduct

Nov. 16, 1990).
148 ICTS Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. at 4909.
149 15 C.F.R. § 7.2.
150 See ICTS Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. at 4911 (“The Department [of Commerce] acknowledges that the term[] “transaction,”
. . . [is] broad, and retain[s] [its] commonly-accepted meaning[] in the rule.”); Alan Enslen and Julius Brodie,
Commerce Rules May Heighten Network Security Enforcement, LAW360 (Jan. 3, 2020),
https://www.law360.com/articles/1230258/commerce-rules-may-heighten-network-security-enforcement (“The
proposed regulations are far reaching and stand to impact a wide range of industries, as the ICTS sector is integrated
into just about every significant U.S. industry imaginable . . . .”).
151 15 C.F.R. § 7.103.
152 ICTS Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. at 4913. The ICTS Rule states that Commerce intends to publish procedures governing the
licensing process by March 15, 2020. Id.
153 15 C.F.R. § 7.104.
154 Id. § 7.105.
155 Id. § 7.105(b). The initial determination may be served on the parties or published in the Federal Register. Id.
§ 7.105(b)(2).
156 Id. § 7.107.
157 If the parties do not respond to the initial determination within 30 days, Commerce may issue a final determination
without undertaking a second interagency consultation. Id. § 7.107(f).
158 Id. § 7.108.
159 Id. § 7.109.
160 Id. § 7.109(b).
161 Id. § 7.200.
Congressional Research Service
16

Huawei and U.S. Law

the transaction.162 The transaction must have a nexus to the United States by involving property
subject to U.S. jurisdiction or being conducted by an individual or entity subject to U.S.
jurisdiction.163 The transaction also must involve property in which a foreign country or foreign
national has an interest, and the process only applies to transactions initiated, pending, or
completed after January 19, 2021.164 Finally, the transaction must involve one of the following
types of technology:
1. ICTS that will be used by a party to a transaction in a critical infrastructure sector, as
designated in Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD 21);165
2. Software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to wireless local area
networks, mobile networks, satellite payloads, satellite operations and control, cable
access points, wireline access points, core networking systems, or long- and short-haul
systems;
3. Software, hardware, or products or services integral to data hosting or computing services
that process or are expected to process sensitive personal data on more than one million
U.S. persons;
4. Certain ICTS products—including webcams, routers, modems, and drones—when more
than one million units have been sold to U.S. persons;
5. Software designed primarily for connecting with and communicating on the Internet that
is in use by more than one million U.S. persons; or
6. ICTS that is integral to artificial intelligence and machine learning, quantum key
distribution, quantum computing, drones, autonomous systems, or advanced robotics.166
The ICTS Rule excludes from review a U.S. person’s acquisition of ICTS items as part of a U.S.
government-industrial security program because those acquisitions are subject to other forms of

162 Id. §§ 7.2-7.3. When determining whether the foreign adversary requirement is met, Commerce may consider:
(1) whether the party [to the transaction] or its component suppliers have headquarters, research,
development, manufacturing, test, distribution, or service facilities or other operations in a foreign
country, including one controlled by a foreign adversary; (2) personal and professional ties between
the party—including its officers, directors or similar officials, employees, consultants, or
contractors—and any foreign adversary; (3) laws and regulations of the foreign adversary in which
the party is headquartered or conducts operations, including research and development,
manufacturing, packaging, and distribution; and (4) any other criteria that the Secretary deems
appropriate.
Id. § 7.100(c).
163 Id. § 7.3(a).
164 Id.
165 PPD 21 designates the following critical infrastructure sectors: chemical; commercial facilities; communications;
critical manufacturing; dams; defense industrial base; emergency services; energy; financial services; food and
agriculture; government facilities; healthcare and public health; nuclear reactors, materials and waste; transportation
systems; and waste and wastewater systems. Presidential Policy Directive – Critical Infrastructure Security and
Resilience, (Feb. 12, 2013), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-
directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil.
166 15 C.F.R. § 7.3(a)(4).
Congressional Research Service
17

link to page 6 link to page 21 Huawei and U.S. Law

U.S. government oversight. 167 It also excludes any transaction that CFIUS, discussed above, 168
is actively reviewing or has reviewed.169
Executive Order 13959: Securities Ban
In November 2020, President Trump issued his second Huawei-related executive order using
IEEPA authority, Executive Order 13959, Addressing the Threat from Securities Investments that
Finance Chinese Military Companies.170 The executive order prohibits U.S. persons from
engaging in any transaction in publicly traded securities of any Communist Chinese Military
Company (CCMC), effective January 11, 2021.171 It also prohibits any transaction in securities
that are derivative of, or designed to provide investment exposure to such publicly traded
securities.172 Companies that purchased such securities before the order’s effective date must
divest them by November 11, 2021.173 The definition of CCMC is derived from the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, as amended (1999 NDAA; Pub. L. No. 105-261),
which defines CCMC as an entity that is (i) owned or controlled by, or affiliated with, the
People’s Liberation Army or a ministry of the Chinese government, or that is owned or controlled
by an entity affiliated with the Chinese government’s defense industrial base; and (ii) is engaged
in commercial services, manufacturing, producing, or exporting.174 Huawei is included in the list
of CCMCs, which the Secretary of Defense prepares.175
Other Supply Chain Protection Initiatives
Other executive branch agencies have started efforts to protect U.S. communications networks
from alleged security threats potentially caused by Huawei and other entities. For example, in
November 2018, the Department of Homeland Security convened the Information and
Communications Technology Supply Chain Risk Management Task Force—a public-private
partnership formed to provide recommendations on how to identify and manage risk to the global
information and telecommunications supply chain.176 The Department of State engaged in the
Multilateral Action on Sensitive Technologies (MAST) process, a group of 15 nations that meet to

167 Id. § 7.3(b)(1). See also ICTS Rule, 86 Fed. Reg. at 4913.
168 See supra § Early Legal Actions and Congressional Interest.
169 15 C.F.R. § 7.3(b)(2).
170 Exec. Order No. 13959 of Nov. 12, 2020, Addressing the Threat from Securities Investments that Finance Chinese
Military Companies, 85 Fed. Reg. 73185 (published Nov. 17, 2020) [hereinafter Exec. Order 13959].
171 Id. § 1(a).
172 Id.
173 Id. § 1(b).
174 See Pub. L. No. 105-261, § 1237, as amended by Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 1233 and Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 1222
(codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1701 note).
175 Exec. Order 13959, supra note 170, at Annex. The executive order labels “Huawei” as a CCMC, and it does not
identify any specific Huawei corporate entity or entities. Id.
176 Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Press Release, DHS Announces ICT Supply Chain Risk Management Task Force Members
(Nov. 15, 2018), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/11/15/dhs-announces-ict-supply-chain-risk-management-task-force-
members. See also DEP’T OF HOMELAND SEC., INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SUPPLY CHAIN RISK
MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE: INTERIM REPORT (Sep. 2019),
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ICT%20Supply%20Chain%20Risk%20Management%20Task%20
Force%20Interim%20Report%20%28FINAL%29_508.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18

Huawei and U.S. Law

share information about technology transfer threats.177 And the SECURE Technology Act,178
which became law in December 2018, established an interagency Federal Acquisition Security
Council (FASC).179 The FASC is responsible for, among other things, developing a government-
wide strategy that addresses information and telecommunications supply chain risks and
facilitates information-sharing within the government and with the private sector.180
Federal Communications Commission’s Actions
The FCC and the U.S. Congress have taken steps to restrict Huawei’s access to U.S.
telecommunications infrastructure. These actions primarily affect smaller telecommunications
carriers who rely on the Universal Service Fund (USF). The USF subsidizes, among other things,
voice and broadband internet service in rural and high-cost areas.181 Federal law requires long-
distance telecommunications carriers (such as AT&T and Verizon) to contribute a percentage of
their revenue to maintain the USF,182 and the FCC uses the fund to support eligible
telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that serve high-cost areas.183
In November 2019, the FCC issued an order (2019 Order) prohibiting ETCs from using USF
funds to purchase Huawei or ZTE equipment or services.184 At the same time, it issued a Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2019 FNPRM) that proposed requiring ETCs to remove and
replace existing Huawei and ZTE equipment from their networks (often called “rip-and-
replace”185) and proposed establishing a reimbursement program to cover the cost of the removal
and replacement.186
Following the FCC’s adoption of its order and proposed rule, Congress passed the Secure and
Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act), which the President
signed into law in March 2020.187 Like the 2019 Order, the Secure Networks law prohibits
companies from using FCC administered subsidies to obtain or maintain “covered
communications equipment or services” that pose national security risks to U.S. communications
networks, including certain Huawei or ZTE equipment.188 The Secure Networks Act also directs
the Commission to establish a rip-and-replace reimbursement program, similar to the one

177 See Remarks by Dr. Christopher Ashley Ford, Assistant Sec., Bureau of Int’l Sec. and Nonproliferation, Conference
on Great Power Competition, Bureaucracy and Counterstrategy: Meeting the China Challenge (Sep. 11, 2019),
https://www.state.gov/bureaucracy-and-counterstrategy-meeting-the-china-challenge/. [hereinafter Ford Remarks].
178 Pub. L. No. 115-390, 132 Stat. 5173.
179 The Federal Acquisition Security Council includes representatives from the Office of Management and Budget
(which also chairs the Council), GSA, DHS, ODNI, DOJ, DOD, and Commerce. See 41 U.S.C. § 1321.
180 Id. § 1323.
181 In re Universal Serv. Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litig., 300 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1114 (D. Kan. 2003);
Universal Service, FCC, https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service (last visited Feb. 1, 2021).
182 47 U.S.C. § 254(d).
183 Id. §§ 214(e), 254(e).
184 In the Matter of Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC
Programs, Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order, 34 FCC Rcd. 11423 (2019)
[hereinafter 2019 Order and FNPRM].
185 See, e.g., Ajit Pai, Protecting National Security and Public Safety, FCC (Oct. 28, 2019), https://www.fcc.gov/news-
events/blog/2019/10/28/protecting-national-security-and-public-safety.
186 2019 Order and FNPRM, 34 FCC Rcd. at 11470, para. 122.
187 47 U.S.C. §§ 1601–1609 (2020).
188 Id. §§ 1601–1602.
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 23 Huawei and U.S. Law

contemplated in the 2019 FNPRM, and requires ETCs to remove covered equipment if they
participate in that program.189
The FCC has taken steps to implement the Secure Networks Act, most notably by adopting
another final order in December 2020.190 This order establishes the reimbursement program
required by the Secure Networks Act.191 The order also goes beyond the Secure Networks Act by
requiring carriers receiving USF support to remove and replace existing covered equipment in
their networks, regardless of whether they choose to participate in the reimbursement program.192
Shortly after this final order was adopted, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021 (Pub. L. No. 116-260), which provides funding for the reimbursement program and makes
several changes to the program’s scope.
These actions have significant implications for rural carriers and their customers and are
discussed further below.

Rural Telecommunications Carriers and Huawei
While larger carriers such as AT&T and Verizon have indicated they do not use Huawei
equipment in their U.S. networks,193 many rural carriers use Huawei’s technology in their
networks for cost reasons.194 For instance, the Rural Wireless Association (RWA), a trade
association representing providers of wireless phone and broadband service, estimated in
2018 that 25% of its members had deployed Huawei or ZTE equipment in their networks.195
Because rural carriers rely on the USF to operate, these limitations on USF recipients’ use of
Huawei equipment have significant implications for Huawei’s presence in the nation’s
communications network.196

189 Id. § 1603.
190 In the Matter of Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC
Programs, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd. 14284 (Dec. 11, 2020).
191 Id. at 14285, para. 1.
192 Id. at 14290–14309, paras. 17–50.
193 See, e.g., Jessica Bursztynsk, Verizon CEO: We’re Doing Just Fine Without Using Any Equipment from Chinese
Tech Giant Huawei, CNBC (July 11, 2019), https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/11/ceo-hans-vestberg-says-verizon-does-
not-use-any-huawei-equipment.html; David Shepardson, AT&T CEO Says China’s Huawei Hinders Carriers from
Shifting Suppliers for 5G, REUTERS (March 20, 2019), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-att-ceo-huawei-tech/att-ceo-
says-chinas-huawei-hinders-carriers-from-shifting-suppliers-for-5g-idUSKCN1R12TX; Todd Shields, T-Mobile CEO
to Congress: We Won’t Use Huawei Equipment After Spring Acquisition, FORTUNE (Feb. 12, 2019),
https://fortune.com/2019/02/12/t-mobile-congress-testimony-huawei-equipment-sprint-acquisition/; Dianne Zatz, Liana
B. Baker, Greg Roumeliotis, Exclusive: T-Mobile, Sprint see Huawei Shun Clinching U.S. Deal – Sources, REUTERS
(Dec. 14, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sprint-corp-m-a-tmobile-huawei-exclu/exclusive-t-mobile-sprint-
see-huawei-shun-clinching-u-s-deal-sources-idUSKBN1OD2HO.
194 Rural Wireless Association, Reply Comments, In the Matter of Protecting Against National Security Threats to the
Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, at i (July 2, 2018) [hereinafter RWA
NPRM Reply Comments] (“[M]any RWA members and other rural wireless carriers have lowered costs by utilizing
less costly Chinese-manufactured network infrastructure equipment to provide wireless broadband service to rural
America.”).
195 Rural Wireless Association, Reply Comments, In the Matter of Protecting Against National Security Threats to the
Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, at 15 (Dec. 7, 2018) [hereinafter
RWA NDAA Reply Comments] (estimating that “at least 25% of its carrier members would be impacted” by a
requirement to “rip-and-replace” Huawei or ZTE equipment.).
196 RWA NPRM Reply Comments, supra note 194, at 10–11 (Explaining that its members rely on USF funds because,
due to “[l]ow population density, high poverty rates, difficult terrain, and challenging weather conditions in many rural
Congressional Research Service
20

link to page 9 link to page 17 Huawei and U.S. Law

2019 Order
In November 2019, the FCC adopted the 2019 Order, prohibiting ETCs from using USF funds to
purchase, upgrade, maintain, or otherwise support any services or equipment provided by Huawei
and ZTE.197 To support its action, the FCC explained that Congress and the executive branch had
repeatedly raised concerns over the threat of foreign actors exploiting U.S. communications
networks.198 The Commission cited, in particular, congressional and executive actions such as the
2019 NDAA and Executive Order 13873.199 The 2019 Order also states that the Commission
found it “very significant” that the DOJ supported its conclusion that USF funds should “be used
to deploy infrastructure and provide services that do not undermine our national security.”200
The FCC further reasoned that the record supported specifically designating Huawei and ZTE as
the initial entities covered by the USF fund prohibition.201 The 2019 Order states that both
companies have “ties to the Chinese government and military apparatus,” and it cites the 2012
HPSCI report for the proposition that Chinese state security laws obligate these companies “to
cooperate with any request by the Chinese government to use or access their systems.”202 The
FCC rejected Huawei’s arguments that its U.S. affiliates are not subject to these state security
laws, reasoning that affiliates remain subject to Chinese law “[i]rrespective of their physical
location.”203 While the 2019 Order’s designation of Huawei and ZTE as covered entities only
served as an “initial designation,” the 2019 Order gives the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau (PSHSB) authority to make a final designation after a period of public
comments.204 It further directs the PSHSB to make future determinations about whether to
designate additional companies or to reverse earlier determinations.205 On June 30, 2020,
following the comment period, the PSHB issued its final designation decision on Huawei and
ZTE, naming them as covered entities (Designation Orders).206 Huawei sought review of the
designation, but, on Dec. 11, 2020, the Commission rejected its challenges and upheld the
PSHB’s designation.207

parts of the country . . . there is simply not a business case for rural wireless broadband service providers to provide
service absent USF support.”).
197 2019 Order and FNPRM, 34 FCC Rcd. at 11423.
198 Id. at 11425–28, paras. 6–17.
199 Id. at 11427–29, paras. 13, 17. See §§ 2019 NDAA and Executive Order 13873, infra, for a further discussion of
these actions.
200 2019 Order and FNPRM, 34 FCC Rcd. at 11433, ¶ 28.
201 Id. at 11439–41, paras. 43–46.
202 Id. at 11442, para. 48.
203 Id. at 11442, para. 49. Among other things, the Order refers to the fact that the “Chinese government maintains an
internal Communist Party Committee within Huawei that can exert additional influence on the company’s operations
and decisions.” Id. at 11443, para. 50.
204 Id. at 11449, para. 65.
205 2019 Order and FNPRM, 34 FCC Rcd. at 11449, para. 64.
206 In the Matter of Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC
Programs – Huawei Designation, Order, 35 FCC Rcd. 6604 (June 30, 2020); In the Matter of Protecting Against
National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs – ZTE Designation, Order, 35
FCC Rcd. 6633 (June 30, 2020).
207 In the Matter of Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC
Programs – Huawei Designation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 35 FCC Rcd. 14435 (Dec. 11, 2020).
Congressional Research Service
21

link to page 9 link to page 25 Huawei and U.S. Law

As a legal basis for the 2019 Order’s prohibition, the FCC reasoned that its “authority to place
reasonable public interest conditions on the use of USF funds” is “well established.”208 The FCC
explained that Section 254 of the Communications Act allows the Commission to consider the
extent to which USF-supported telecommunications services are “consistent with the public
interest, convenience, and necessity.”209 More generally, section 201(b) of the Communications
Act allows the Commission to promulgate rules and regulations “as may be necessary in the
public interest to carry out the provisions of [the] Act.”210 The FCC wrote that it is “well
established” that “promotion of national security is consistent with the public interest” because
Section 1 of the Communications Act states that the FCC was created for, among other things,
“the purpose of national defense [and] for the purpose of promoting safety of life and
property.”211 The 2019 Order also states that it is implementing or otherwise furthering the goals
of other federal laws, including Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA212 and federal law that prohibits
unauthorized surveillance in telecommunication carriers’ networks.213
Huawei has petitioned for review of the 2019 Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.214 While this case remains ongoing, one key issue is the extent to which the
Communications Act allows the FCC to consider national security as part of its public-interest
analysis. In its briefing, Huawei argues that the Act does not allow the Commission to make
national security determinations—both in the universal service context and generally—because,
among other things: (1) national security does not further any of the statutorily enumerated goals
of the universal service program;215 (2) whenever the Act confers power to make national security
judgments, it gives it to the President, rather than the Commission;216 and (3) the Act’s public-
interest standard must be interpreted based on the broader context of the Act and “cannot be
interpreted to give national security authority to the FCC, when that authority is statutorily and
constitutionally committed to the President.”217Along with the arguments based on the
Communications Act, Huawei’s briefing makes several other statutory and constitutional
arguments. For instance, Huawei argues that the 2019 Order is “arbitrary and capricious” in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because, among other thing, it ignores evidence
that the rule would undermine the purposes of the USF provision.218 Huawei further argues that
the Order’s initial designation of Huawei violated the Constitution’s Due Process Clause by

208 2019 Order and FNPRM, 34 FCC Rcd. at 11434, para. 29.
209 Id. at 11434–35, paras. 31–33.
210 Id. at 11436, para. 34.
211 Id. at 11435–36, paras. 33–34.
212 See supra § 2019 NDAA.
213 See Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1004 (requiring telecommunications carriers
to ensure “any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching
premises” is done only pursuant to “lawful authorization” and with “affirmative intervention of an individual officer or
employee of the carrier acting in accordance with [FCC regulations]”).
214 Petition for Review, Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. v. FCC, No. 19-60896 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2019) [hereinafter
Huawei Petition].
215 Petitioners Brief, Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. v. FCC, No. 19-60896, at 27–30 (5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2020)
[hereinafter Huawei Brief]. Section 254(b) enumerates several “principles” on which the Commission “shall base
policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service,” including providing “access to advanced
telecommunications and information services” in “all regions of the Nation” and providing consumers “in rural, insular,
and high cost areas” with “access to telecommunications and information services.” 47 U.S.C. § 254(b).
216 Huawei Brief, supra note 215, at 28–29.
217 Id. at 33–35.
218 Id. at 44–51.
Congressional Research Service
22

Huawei and U.S. Law

depriving it of its “constitutionally protected reputational interests” without affording an adequate
pre-deprivation hearing.219
2019 FNPRM
Along with the Order, the FCC issued the 2019 FNPRM.220 In the 2019 FNPRM, the Commission
proposed to condition any future USF support on recipients agreeing not to use equipment or
services from “covered companies” for a period of time.221 The proposed covered companies
would be the same companies designated national security threats under the 2019 Order (i.e.,
Huawei and ZTE).222 The FCC also proposed requiring ETCs receiving USF funds to remove and
replace existing equipment and services provided by covered companies from their network
operations.223 To mitigate the cost of this replacement, the FCC proposed to establish a
“reimbursement program” that would offset “reasonable transition costs.”224 The FCC proposed
seeking an “appropriation or authorization of funds from Congress” to fund this reimbursement
program.225 It also sought comment on the appropriate funding needed to cover replacement
costs, noting that the estimated costs of removing and replacing the covered equipment varied,
with one commentator estimating it at “approximately $150 million plus installation” and another
estimating costs of “$800 million to $1 billion.”226
Secure Networks Act
Overview
With the Secure Networks Act (Pub. L. No. 116-124), signed into law in March 2020, Congress
acted to provide additional statutory grounds and direction for the FCC’s current efforts to limit
Huawei’s presence in the U.S. communications network.227
Much like the 2019 Order, the Secure Networks Act prohibits companies from using FCC
administered subsidies to obtain or maintain communications equipment or services that pose
national security risks to U.S. communications networks.228 The Act directs the FCC to publish a
list of the equipment and services subject to this limitation (the Covered List).229 Equipment or
services must meet two conditions for it to be added to the Covered List. First, either (1) certain
agencies have made a “specific determination” that the particular equipment or services are a
national security risk230 or (2) the equipment or services are covered by section 889(f)(3) of the

219 Id. at 57–63. The federal district court presiding over Huawei’s challenge to Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA
rejected a similar due process challenge. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 51-53, Huawei Technologies USA,
Inc. v. United States, No. 4:19-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2020).
220 2019 Order and FNPRM, 34 FCC Rcd. at 11470, para. 122.
221 Id.
222 Id. at 11472, para. 127.
223 Id. at 11470, para. 122.
224 Id.
225 Id. at 11476–77, para. 143.
226 Id. at 11477, paras. 144–145.
227 Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1601–1609 (2020).
228 Id. §§ 1601–1602.
229 Id. § 1601(a).
230 The determination must have been made by an “appropriate national security agency,” an “executive interagency
Congressional Research Service
23

Huawei and U.S. Law

2019 NDAA (i.e., be equipment or services provided by Huawei and ZTE).231 Second, the
equipment or services must be “capable of” (1) “routing or redirecting user data traffic or
permitting visibility into any user data or packets that such equipment or service transmits or
otherwise handles,” (2) “causing the network of a provider of advanced communications service
to be disrupted remotely,” or (3) “otherwise posing an unacceptable risk to the national security of
the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.”232
Furthermore, similar to the 2019 FNPRM, the law directs the FCC to implement a so-called “rip-
and-replace” reimbursement program.233 Under this program, small234 communications providers
would be reimbursed for the cost of removing and replacing equipment on the Covered List.235 To
participate in the program, applicants would have to provide an “initial reimbursement cost
estimate” and supporting materials.236 While participation in the program is voluntary, providers
who chose to participate in the program must complete the “permanent removal, replacement, and
disposal” of covered equipment or services within one year of receiving the funds, unless the
FCC grants an extension.237 While the law does not expressly appropriate any funds for the
program, it appears to assume an initial reimbursement budget of $1 billion, as it directs the FCC
to notify Congress if it determines during implementation of the reimbursement program that $1
billion “will not be sufficient to fully fund all approved applications for reimbursements” under
the program.238 The law requires the FCC to begin rulemaking within 90 days after its enactment
to implement the reimbursement program.239
Lastly, the Act includes a reporting requirement, directing “each provider of an advanced
communications service” to submit an annual report to the Commission detailing whether they
have “purchased, rented, leased or otherwise obtained any covered communications
equipment.”240 Providers must further include a “detailed justification” for their use of the
equipment and state whether they have removed or replaced the equipment or plan to do so.241
FCC Implementation and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
The FCC has taken several steps to integrate the Secure Networks Act into its ongoing actions.
On July 17, 2020, the FCC released a declaratory ruling finding that, by adopting the 2019 USF
Order, it had already “substantially implemented” the Secure Networks Act’s subsidy

body with appropriate national security expertise,” or the Department of Commerce pursuant to Executive Order No.
13873. Id. § 1601(c)(1)–(2), (4).
231 Id. § 1601(c)(3).
232 Id. § 1601(b)(2).
233 Id. § 1603.
234 The Secure Networks Act, as originally enacted, provided that carriers could receive funding assistance if they have
“2,000,000 or fewer customers.” Pub. L. No. 116-124, § 4(b)(1), 133 Stat. 158 (2020). However, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, amended this provision by increasing the limit to 10,000,000 million or fewer customers.
Pub. L. No. 116-260, Div. N, Tit. IX, § 901 (2020).
235 47 U.S.C. § 1603(a).
236 Id. § 1603(d)(2).
237 Id. § 1603(d)(6).
238 Id. § 1603(d)(5)(B).
239 Id. § 1603(g).
240 Id. § 1604(a).
241 Id. § 1604(c).
Congressional Research Service
24

Huawei and U.S. Law

limitations.242 Furthermore, on December 11, 2020, the FCC issued a final order (2020 Order)
implementing the Act’s remaining provisions.243 Namely, the 2020 Order implements the Secure
Networks Act by (1) establishing the reimbursement program to subsidize small communications
providers that rip-and-replace equipment on the Covered List; (2) establishing procedures and
criteria for creating and maintaining the Covered List; and (3) adopting reporting requirements
for carriers to inform the FCC about the ongoing presence of equipment on the Covered List in
communications networks.244 The 2020 Order also goes beyond the Secure Networks Act by
requiring any ETCs receiving USF funds, as well as participants in the reimbursement program,
to rip-and-replace covered equipment from their networks.245
While the 2020 Order made ETC’s rip-and-replace obligation contingent on a “Congressional
appropriation to fund the Reimbursement Program,”246 the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2021, appropriates $1.9 billion to “carry out” the Secure Networks Act, with $1.895 billion of that
amount going towards the reimbursement program.247 The Appropriations Act also includes
several amendments to the Secure Networks Act’s provisions on the reimbursement program. For
instance, it broadens the entities eligible for funding, allows reimbursement for the removal of
equipment covered by the 2019 Order and Designation Orders (which cover any Huawei and ZTE
equipment, rather than simply Huawei and ZTE equipment on the Covered List), and establishes
a prioritization paradigm that favors small providers and non-commercial educational institutions
in the allocation of reimbursement funds.248 On February 17, 2021, the Commission adopted a
notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks comment on proposals to implement these changes.249
United States’ Criminal Prosecutions
The United States has brought several criminal charges involving Huawei.250 In the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, a grand jury indicted two Huawei
affiliates251 on charges arising from the alleged theft of trade secrets from T-Mobile USA (T-
Mobile) and obstruction of justice when T-Mobile threatened to file a lawsuit.252 In the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the United States is pursuing a criminal

242 Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Protecting Against National Security
Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, 35 FCC Rcd. 7821, 7828, para. 22 (July 17,
2020).
243 Second Report and Order, Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain
Through FCC Programs, 35 FCC Rcd. 14284 (Dec. 11, 2020).
244 Id. at 14285, para. 1.
245 Id. at 14290–14309, paras. 17–50.
246 Id. at 14290, para. 18.
247 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, Div. N, Tit. IX, § 906(2) (2020).
248 Id. § 901.
249 Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications
Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89 (Feb. 17, 2021).
250 Huawei is involved in a range of civil litigation with private entities that is outside the scope of this report. See, e.g.,
Mike LaSusa, Huawei Hits Verizon With a One-Two Punch of Tech IP Suits, LAW360 (Feb. 6, 2020),
https://www.law360.com/articles/1241400/huawei-hits-verizon-with-a-one-two-punch-of-tech-ip-suits; Takashi
Kawakami, Samsung and Huawei Drop Lawsuits in Latest Smartphone Truce, NIKKEI ASIAN REV. (May 15, 2019),
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Samsung-and-Huawei-drop-lawsuits-in-latest-smartphone-truce.
251 The defendants in the Western District of Washington are Huawei Device Co., LTD and Huawei Device USA, Inc.
252 Indictment, United States v. Huawei Device Co., LTD and Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. CR19-010 (RSM) (W.D.
Wash., Jan. 16, 2019).
Congressional Research Service
25

Huawei and U.S. Law

indictment against Huawei, two corporate affiliates,253 and Meng Wanzhou—Huawei’s CFO and
the daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei.254 The New York prosecution arises out of alleged
misappropriation of intellectual property and an alleged scheme to avoid U.S. sanctions on Iran
and North Korea.255
Huawei denies the charges in both prosecutions.256 Huawei also has filed a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) suit against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia seeking documents relating to the investigation and prosecution of Huawei and Meng,
U.S.-China trade relations, and 5G competition. 257
In December 2018, Canadian authorities arrested Meng pursuant to a U.S. extradition request
arising out of the New York prosecution.258 Later that month, Chinese authorities arrested two
Canadian citizens in China on espionage charges, in what some observers interpret as retaliation
for Meng’s arrest.259 Meng is challenging the extradition request in the Canadian legal system.260
The two Canadian citizens remain in Chinese custody.261 Some Members of the 116th Congress
introduced measures that would have commended Canada for apprehending Meng and expressed
concern over China’s detention of Canadian citizens.262

253 The corporate affiliates in the Eastern District of New York case are Huawei Device USA Inc. and Skycom Tech
Co. Ltd.
254 Third Superseding Indictment, United States v. Huawei Technologies, Ltd. et al., No. 18-457(S-2) (AMD) (E.D.
N.Y., Feb. 13, 2020).
255 See id.
256 See, e.g. Stewart Bishop, Huawei Denies RICO, Trade Secret Theft Charges in NY Case, LAW360 (Mar. 4, 2020),
https://www.law360.com/articles/1250204/huawei-denies-rico-trade-secret-theft-charges-in-ny-case?te_pk=97fb4a2a-
382f-4f2e-8ebf-ecb90855ae1a&utm_source=user-alerts&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tracked-entity-alert.
257 Complaint at ¶ 2, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al., No. 20-
cv-03155 (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 2020). See also Kelcee Griffis, Huawei Sues Trump Admin. For ‘Stonewalling’ FOIA
Requests, LAW360 (Nov. 2, 2020), https://www.law360.com/articles/1325126/huawei-sues-trump-admin-for-
stonewalling-foia-requests.
258 See generally Robert J. Palladino, Deputy Spokesperson, U.S. Dep’t of State, Press Statement, Canada’s Legitimate
Arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou (Dec. 21, 2018), https://www.state.gov/canadas-legitimate-arrest-of-huawei-
cfo-meng-wanzhou/.
259 See, e.g., Chun Han Wong, et al., ‘No Coincidence’: China’s Detention of Canadian Seen as Retaliation for Huawei
Arrest, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 12, 2018), https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-coincidence-chinas-detention-of-canadian-seen-
as-retaliation-for-huawei-arrest-11544619753; Chris Buckley et al., China Arrests 2 Canadians on Spying Charges,
Deepening a Political Standoff, N.Y. TIMES (May 16, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/world/asia/china-
canadian-arrested.html.
260 Meng reportedly is discussing a potential “deferred prosecution agreement” with U.S. authorities that would permit
her return to China in exchange for an admission of wrongdoing See, e.g., Jacquie McNish et al., U.S. in Talks With
Huawei Finance Chief Meng Wanzhou About Resolving Criminal Charges, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 4, 2020),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-in-talks-with-huawei-finance-chief-meng-wanzhou-about-resolving-criminal-charges-
11607038179?st=zc6p8p07ewhsda7&reflink=article_gmail_share.
261 See, e.g., Peter Zimonjic, Vassy Kapelos, Support of Canadians gives Michael Kovrig Hope, Says His Wife on 2nd
Anniversary of Arrest, CAN. BROADCASTING CORP. (Dec. 9, 2020), https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kovrig-spavor-
china-two-year-anniversary-1.5835373.
262 See H.Res. 521, 116th Cong. (2019).
Congressional Research Service
26

link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 32 link to page 32 Huawei and U.S. Law

The United States has also pursued charges against at least one Chinese national, Bo Mao, for
conspiring with an unnamed company, which media outlets reported to be Huawei, to steal
intellectual property (IP) from a U.S. company.263 Mao, a Chinese professor working at a Texas
university, pled guilty as part of plea agreement to one count of making false statements to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation during its investigation into the alleged IP theft.264 Mao was
sentenced to time served with three years supervised release and has been permitted to return to
China.265
Visa Restrictions
In July 2020, the United States stated it would use existing provisions in U.S. immigration law to
restrict the ability of Huawei and other Chinese telecommunication company employees to obtain
U.S. visas.266 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien is inadmissible to the United
States if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe the alien’s entry “would have
potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States . . . .”267 Secretary
of State Pompeo announced that the United States was imposing visa restrictions on “employees
of Chinese technology companies that provide material support to regimes engaging in human
rights abuses globally.”268 Secretary Pompeo described Huawei as an “arm of the [Chinese
Communist Party’s] surveillance state that censors political dissidents and enables mass
internment camps . . . .”269 Huawei denies that it participates in human rights violations.270
Diplomacy and Foreign Aid
Some in Congress have expressed interest in whether U.S. allies abroad permit Huawei products
in their communications networks.271 Executive branch officials in the Trump Administration

263 See United States Sentencing Memorandum, U.S. v. Mao, No. 1:19-cr-00392 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2020), ECF No.
82 [hereinafter U.S. v. Mao Sentencing Memorandum]. While the United States uses a pseudonym for Huawei in its
filings, referring to it as “Company 1,” its allegations mirror a civil suit in which a jury found Huawei misappropriated
the trade secrets of a U.S. company, and media outlets publically identified “Company 1” as Huawei. See Stewart
Bishop, Professor Charged in IP Theft Case Related to Huawei Rap, LAW360 (Sep. 3, 2019),
https://www.law360.com/articles/1195086; Karen Freifield, Chinese Professor Pleads Guilty to Lying to FBI in
Huawei-related Case, REUTERS (Dec. 4, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-tech-usa/chinese-professor-
pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-fbi-in-huawei-related-case-idUSKBN28E394; see also Verdict Form at Question No. 41,
Huawei Technologies Co. LTD. v. Huang, No. 4:17-cv-893 (E.D. Tex., June 26, 2019), ECF No. 476 (jury verdict form
in misappropriation civil case against Huawei).
264 U.S. v. Mao Sentencing Memorandum, supra note 263, at 2.
265 Judgment, U.S. v. Mao, No. 1:19-cr-00392 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2020), ECF No. 74.
266 Michael R. Pompeo, U.S Sec’y of State, Press Statement, U.S. Imposes Visa Restrictions on Certain Employees of
Chinese Technology Companies that Abuse Human Rights (July 15, 2020), https://www.state.gov/u-s-imposes-visa-
restrictions-on-certain-employees-of-chinese-technology-companies-that-abuse-human-rights/ [hereinafter Visa
Restrictions Statement].
267 18 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(c).
268 Visa Restrictions Statement, supra note 266.
269 Id.
270 See Huawei’s Commitment to Human Rights 2020, HUAWEI.COM, https://www-file.huawei.com/-
/media/corporate/local-site/uk/pdf/huawei_human-rights-commitment_2020.pdf (last visited Dec. 14, 2020). For more
background on human rights issues in China, see CRS Report R45956, Human Rights in China and U.S. Policy: Issues
for the 116th Congress, by Thomas Lum and Michael A. Weber.
271 See infra note 279–280.
Congressional Research Service
27

link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 31 Huawei and U.S. Law

encouraged foreign countries not to use Huawei equipment in their 5G networks,272 with some
success.273 For example, after announcing that it would permit Huawei products in noncritical
elements of its 5G networks,274 the United Kingdom changed course in July 2020 and announced
that it would bar domestic telecommunications operators from using Huawei equipment when
building the country’s 5G networks.275 The Trump Administration launched or engaged in other
multilateral efforts to promote construction and use of global 5G networks that do not use Huawei
systems.276
Some observers contend that Huawei’s access to Chinese financial state support has allowed
Huawei to sell its products and services at discounted prices worldwide.277 Media outlets have
reported that the Trump Administration considered using foreign aid and development programs
to help wireless carriers in foreign countries buy equipment from Huawei’s major non-Chinese
rivals—Sweden’s Ericsson AB, Finland’s Nokia Corp., and South Korea’s Samsung Electronics
Co.278 Some Members of the 116th Congress introduced bills that would have prohibited the
United States from sharing intelligence with any country that uses Huawei technology in its 5G

272 See, e.g., Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Sec’y of State, Europe Must Put Security First with 5G, POLITICO EUROPE (Dec.
2, 2019), https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-must-put-security-first-with-5g-mike-pompeo-eu-us-china/.
273 Compare, e.g., WILLIAMS, supra note 5 (“[A] growing number of countries have either formally banned or
otherwise taken steps to exclude Huawei from their 5G networks. These include Australia, Japan, the United States, the
United Kingdom, France, Sweden, India, Vietnam, and Taiwan.”); and Amy Kazmin and Stephanie Findlay, India
Moves to Cut Huawei Gear from Telecoms Network, Fin. TIMES (Aug. 24, 2020),
https://www.ft.com/content/55642551-f6e8-4f9d-b5ba-a12d2fc26ef9; with, e.g., Lindsay Maizland and Andrew
Chatzky, Huawei: China’s Controversial Tech Giant, COUNCIL FOREIGN RELATIONS (Aug. 6, 2020),
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/huawei-chinas-controversial-tech-giant (“Russia’s 5G network will be built with
Huawei’s help, and Malaysian telecommunications firms have signed preliminary agreements with Huawei.”); and
William Boston and Stu Woo, Huawei Gets Conditional Green Light in Germany as Government Approves Security
Bill, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 16, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-gets-conditional-green-light-in-germany-as-
government-approves-security-bill-11608117504 (“A bill approved by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet that would
allow Huawei’s continued presence in Germany still requires parliamentary approval.”).
274 See Dominic Raab, U.K. Foreign Sec’y, Foreign Secretary’s Statement on Huawei (Jan. 28, 2020),
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-statement-on-huawei; Mike Cherney and Dan Strumpf,
Taking Cue from the U.S., Australia Bans Huawei from 5G Network, WALL ST. J. (Aug. 23, 2018),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-bans-chinas-huawei-from-5g-network-rollout-1534992631.
275 Press Release: Huawei to Be Removed from UK 5G Networks by 2027, GOV.UK (July 14, 2020),
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/huawei-to-be-removed-from-uk-5g-networks-by-2027.
276 See U.S. Dep’t of State, The Clean Network, STATE.GOV, https://www.state.gov/the-clean-network/ (last visited Dec.
21, 2020) (describing the United States’ Clean Network program, which foreign countries and corporations can join, as
a “comprehensive approach to safeguarding the nation’s assets including citizens’ privacy and companies’ most
sensitive information from aggressive intrusions by malign actors, such as the Chinese Communist Party”); Paul Triolo
and Kevin Allison, In Struggle with China, US Advances Industrial Policy of its Own, EURASIA GROUP (June 11, 2020),
https://www.eurasiagroup.net/live-post/struggle-china-us-advances-industrial-policy (discussing U.S. participation in
multilateral fora designed to counter Chinese influence, such as the Economic Prosperity Network and Blue Dot
Network).
277 See supra note 24. See also Maizland and Chatzky, supra note 273.
278 See Stu Woo, Facing Pushback from Allies, U.S. Set for Broader Huawei Effort, WALL ST. J. (Jan. 28, 2020),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facing-pushback-from-allies-u-s-set-for-broader-huawei-effort-
11579775403?mod=article_inline&mod=article_inline (“Washington plans to use the State Department’s Digital
Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Export-Import Bank
of the U.S. and U.S. International Development Finance Corporation . . . [to] help wireless carriers in foreign countries
buy equipment from Huawei’s rivals . . . .”).

Congressional Research Service
28

link to page 5 Huawei and U.S. Law

networks.279 Other Members proposed resolutions encouraging U.S. allies not to use Huawei
systems and equipment in their infrastructure.280
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (FY2021 NDAA)
The most recently passed Huawei-related legislation came in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY2021 NDAA), passed over President’s Trump’s veto in December
2020.281
Section 1058
Section 1058 of the FY2021 NDAA limits the Secretary of Defense’s ability to locate a major
weapons systems or permanently assign forces in a country with “at risk” 5G or sixth generation
(6G) wireless network equipment, software, or services if U.S. military personnel and their
families will be directly connected to the “at risk” networks.282 Executive branch officials
previously have voiced concern about Huawei equipment installed near U.S. military bases.283
Prior to making a base or forces assignment that falls within Section 1058’s parameters, the
Secretary of Defense must consider risks in the host country posed by “at-risk vendors,” which is
defined to include Huawei and ZTE.284
Section 9202
Some officials in the Trump Administration and Members of the 116th Congress expressed the
desire to encourage development of information and communications companies in the United
States or allied nations that can better compete with and serve as alternatives to Huawei.285 U.S.
companies do not manufacture certain key elements of the infrastructure necessary for 5G

279 See H.R. 5661, 116th Cong. § 1(a) (2020); S. 3153, 116th Cong. § 1(a) (2020).
280 See, e.g., H.Res. 827, 116th Cong. § 1 (2020) (“[T]he Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland is encouraged to reject or amend the National Security Council’s decision on telecommunications
security in a manner that excludes high-risk vendors, such as Huawei, from the country’s 5G infrastructure . . . .”);
S.Con.Res. 10, 116th Cong. (2019) (calling on the United States and its allies to limit risks associated with use of
Huawei and other Chinese communications companies’ products). See also Letter from 20 U.S. Senators to Members
of Parliament, U.K. House of Commons, (Mar 3, 2020), https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/040d4bec-
953e-49fd-866c-3f44785b2134/03.03.20-sasse-schumer-letter-to-uk-parliament.pdf (letter from 20 U.S. Senators to the
U.K. House of Commons urging the United Kingdom to revisit its recent decision to allow Huawei in certain portions
of its telecommunications network).
281 See FY2021 NDAA, supra note 13.
282 Id. § 1058(a).
283 E.g., FCC Wants to Know if Huawei Gear is Near U.S. Military Bases, BLOOMBERG LAW (Nov. 5, 2019),
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/fcc-wants-to-know-if-huawei-gear-is-near-u-s-military-bases.
284 Id.
285 See, e.g., Ellen Nakashima and Jeanne Whalen, Barr Suggests U.S. Consider Investing in Nokia, Ericsson to
Counter Huawei, WASH. POST. (Feb. 6, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-warns-against-
chinese-dominance-of-5g-super-fast-networks/2020/02/06/1da26794-48ec-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html; Press
Release, Office of Senator Mark Warner, National Security Senators Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Develop 5G
Alternatives to Huawei, (Jan 14, 2020), https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/1/national-security-
senators-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-develop-5g-alternatives-to-huawei.
Congressional Research Service
29

link to page 6 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 Huawei and U.S. Law

telecommunications systems.286 At the same time, some observers believe Chinese state support
of Huawei and other communications companies have helped those companies develop their
products, gain market share, and reinvest profits in research and development.287 In response to
this dynamic, the 116th Congress included provisions in the FY2021 NDAA that authorize funds
to support 5G research and promote telecommunications equipment providers that can act as
alternatives to Huawei in the United States and abroad.288
Section 9202 of the FY2021 NDAA establishes a Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund
(Innovation Fund), which can make grants of up to $50 million to support, among other things,
the promotion and deployment of certain communications network technology, including 5G
technology and equipment.289 The Administrator of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) is to administer the Innovation Fund with the advice of an
interagency advisory board.290
Section 9202 also creates a Multilateral Telecommunications Security Fund (Multilateral Telecom
Fund) to be administered by the Secretary of State, in consultation with an interagency group.291
The provision authorizes the Secretary of State to create a common funding mechanism with the
United States’ foreign partners to “support the development and adoption of secure and trusted
telecommunications technologies.”292 It also calls for the Secretary of State “to secure
commitments and contributions from trusted foreign partners such as the United Kingdom,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan” while pursuing three objectives:
(i) Advancing research and development of secure and trusted communications
technologies;
(ii) Strengthening supply chains; and
(iii) Promoting the use of trusted vendors.293
Finally, Section 9202 requires the executive branch to consider how to enhance U.S.
representation at international 5G standards-setting bodies, such as the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU).294 Some observers believe that the Chinese government exerts
influence over international bodies that set 5G technical standards to benefit Huawei and other

286 For discussion of the “race to 5G,” see CRS Report R45485, Fifth-Generation (5G) Telecommunications
Technologies: Issues for Congress, by Jill C. Gallagher and Michael E. DeVine, at 8. Some observers question the
ability of U.S. technology companies to offer viable alternatives to Huawei. See, e.g., Henry Kressel, O-Ran No Near-
Term Challenger to Huawei, Ericsson, ASIA TIMES (Dec. 29, 2020), https://asiatimes.com/2020/12/opening-the-
telecom-equipment-market-wont-be-easy/.
287 See supra note 25. Huawei denies that it has achieved success because of state support, claiming that government
subsidies account for less than one percent of total revenue. See Huawei: Facts, Not Myths, supra note 4.
288 FY2021 NDAA, supra note 13, § 9202(a). See also Press Release: Warner & Rubio Applaud Passage of 5G
Legislation (Dec. 11, 2020), https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/12/warner-rubio-applaud-passage-
of-5g-legislation (“The [legislation from which Section 9202 is derived] seeks to encourage and support U.S.
innovation in the race for 5G by providing funds to support research and development in Western-based alternatives to
Chinese equipment providers Huawei and ZTE.”).
289 FY2021 NDAA, supra note 13, § 9202(a)(1).
290 Id.
291 Id. § 9202(a)(2).
292 Id. § 9202(a)(2)(B).
293 Id.
294 Id. § 9202(b).
Congressional Research Service
30

link to page 6 link to page 5 Huawei and U.S. Law

domestic Chinese firms.295 Some Members of the 116th Congress and officials in the Trump
Administration described American leadership in these standards-setting bodies as important for
advancing U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic interests.296
Title XCIX: Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors
(CHIPS) for America
Title XCIX of the FY2021 NDAA, titled Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors
for America Act (commonly referred to as the CHIPS for America Act),297 requires the Secretary
of Commerce to establish a program to provide financial assistance to incentivize investment in
the U.S. semiconductor manufacturing industry.298 Grants are not to exceed $3 billion per project
unless the President certifies to Congress that a larger investment is necessary to “significantly
increase . . . reliable domestic supply of semiconductors relevant for national security and
economic competitiveness[,]” and to meet national security needs.299 Title XCIX also requires,
among other things: (1) establishment of public-private partnerships to incentivize domestic
microchip production;300 (2) a study of the U.S. industrial base to support microelectronic
production;301 (3) the creation of a Multilateral Semiconductors Security Fund;302 and (4) funding
for microelectronic research and development in federal agencies.303 While these provisions do
not target Huawei or its products directly, some observers view federal support for the microchip
industry as part of a broader effort to ensure U.S. companies maintain a foothold in technology
supply chains that are essential for products made by Huawei and other foreign technology
companies.304

295 See, e.g., Hart and Link, supra note 24; Alan Beattie, How the US, EU, and China Compete to Set Industry
Standards, FIN. TIMES (July 25, 2019), https://www.ft.com/content/0c91b884-92bb-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271; Brett. D.
Schaefer, Dean Cheng, and Klon Kitchen, Chinese Leadership Corrupts Another U.N. Organization, HERITAGE FOUND.
(May 11, 2020), https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/chinese-leadership-corrupts-another-un-
organization.
296 U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Commerce Clears Way for U.S. Companies to More Fully Engage in Tech Standards-
Development Bodies, (June 15, 2020), https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2020/06/commerce-clears-way-
us-companies-more-fully-engage-tech-standards (quoting U.S. Secretary of Commerce as stating, “The Department is
committed to protecting U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by encouraging U.S. industry to fully engage
and advocate for U.S. technologies to become international standards.”); Letter from Senator James M. Inhofe et al. to
Wilbur Ross, U.S. Sec’y of Commerce, et al. (Apr. 14, 2020),
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4565c857-270a-4375-abb7-
4d65ad416ebc/B99D3ED832787BD956653CC3A4176071.20200414-letter-to-secretary-of-commerce-on-5g-
standards-final.pdf (“It is critical for U.S. companies to participate fully in these standards-setting bodies to ensure that
their technologies are represented in the standards.”).
297 Title XCIX includes provisions that originated in two bills introduced in the 116th Congress: (1) the CHIPS for
America Act, S. 3933, 116th Cong. (2020) and H.R. 7178, 116th Cong. (2020), and (2) the American Foundries Act of
2020, S. 4130, 116th Cong. (2020).
298 FY2021 NDAA, supra note 13, tit. XCIX, §§ 9901-08.
299 Id. § 9902(a)(3)(B).
300 Id. § 9903.
301 Id. § 9904.
302 Id. § 9905.
303 Id. § 9906.
304 See, e.g., Robert A. Manning, The U.S. Finally Has a Sputnik Moment with China, FOREIGN POLICY (Oct. 29 2020)
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/29/us-china-sputnik-moment-technology-competition-semiconductors/; Hirsh
Chitkara, A Newly Proposed Bipartisan Bill Would Earmark $22 Billion to Lure Chip Manufacturers to US, BUS.
INSIDER (June 12, 2020), https://www.businessinsider.com/chips-for-america-act-will-shift-chip-manufacturing-to-us-
Congressional Research Service
31

link to page 8 link to page 11 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 22 link to page 32 link to page 4 Huawei and U.S. Law

Conclusion
The federal government’s legal actions involving Huawei have evolved from straightforward
spending restrictions to a multifaceted effort to ban the company from telecommunications
networks in the United States and internationally. What began as appropriations restrictions in
2013 evolved in the FY2018 NDAA into a procurement ban in DOD’s sensitive nuclear and
national defense missions.305 That narrow procurement ban expanded in the FY2019 NDAA to an
executive branch-wide ban on procuring from any company that uses Huawei products and
services.306 In 2019, legal actions transitioned from the procurement context to the realm of
international trade as the executive branch added Huawei to the Entity List and invoked the
President’s IEEPA authority.307 In 2019 and 2020, the FCC took steps to limit Huawei’s presence
in U.S. telecommunications networks, and Congress provided additional direction for these
efforts with the Secure Networks Act, enacted in early 2020.308 As the Trump Administration
pursued diplomatic efforts to convince allied countries to ban Huawei from their 5G networks in
2020, the 116th Congress passed the FY2021 NDAA, which contemplates using federal funds to
support private competitors to Huawei domestically and abroad.309
Some observers view the increasing complexity of the legal actions involving Huawei as a
microcosm of the broader challenges presented by China’s rise on the global stage.310 At the same
time, U.S. officials have sought to account for potential negative impacts of these escalating
actions by, for example, calibrating U.S. export regulations to allow American companies to work
with Huawei when identifying cybersecurity vulnerabilities or working in international standards-
setting organizations.311 The United States also has shown willingness to take increasingly strict
actions—such as narrowing the foreign direct product rule for Huawei and its affiliates or
instituting a “rip and replace” program—when this is deemed necessary for national security and
American interests.312 Given the competing considerations in Huawei policy, a balancing of
interests may continue in the 117th Congress and in the Biden Administration.

2020-6.
305 See supra § Federal Spending Restrictions.
306 See id.
307 See supra §§ Export Restrictions, Executive Orders Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(IEEPA).
308 See supra § Federal Communications Commission’s Actions.
309 See supra § National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
310 See, e.g., WILLIAMS, supra note 5, at 1 (“Washington’s growing focus on the risks posed by Chinese technology
companies operating in the United States embodies the complexity of the challenges confronting U.S. policymakers in
responding to China’s rise in technological, economic, and geopolitical power.”); Lu Chuanying and Nicolas
Huppenbauer, What the Huawei Case Can Teach Us About the U.S-China Power Game, in PERSPECTIVES ON THE
GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER IN 2019: A U.S.-CHINA ESSAY COLLECTION 36, 39 (2019) (“The Huawei dispute is one case
in point against the backdrop of the larger power game between the United States and China, and it reflects [a] . . .
trend toward securitization and economic competition in the bilateral relationship.”). For a discussion of China’s
economic rise, see CRS Report RL33534, China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for
the United States, by Wayne M. Morrison.
311 See supra notes 95 and 96.
312 See supra §§ Foreign Direct Product Rule and De Minimis Rules, Federal Communications Commission’s Actions.
Congressional Research Service
32

Huawei and U.S. Law

Author Information

Stephen P. Mulligan
Chris D. Linebaugh
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46693 · VERSION 1 · NEW
33

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Feb. 23, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Foreign Affairs

National Defense

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON