Huawei’s trial in New York puts corporate conduct before a jury, while US sanctions on Huawei raise wider questions about network security, technology access and whether governments can rely on a supplier fighting allegations as its research costs keep rising.
Prosecutors accuse the Chinese telecommunications company of stealing American technology, deceiving banks and evading restrictions through business involving Iran and North Korea and describes it as racketeering enterprise.
Huawei disputes the accusations. Beyond Brooklyn, the proceedings could inform decisions about equipment supporting communications, public services, and national infrastructure.
US Pursuing Criminal Investigation of Huawei
The US criminal charges against Huawei concern alleged fraud, theft and sanctions violations. They don’t establish that its equipment enables spying. A distinction government must preserve when assessing network security.
The jury in the Eastern District of New York has heard from 61 prosecution witnesses, and Huawei has begun presenting its defense.
“The trial is about crimes, not about spying, right?” asked Michael Kovrig, a former Canadian diplomat who runs the geopolitical research firm, Kovrig Group, and who spent nearly three years detained in China.
For countries with Huawei sanctioned through trade restrictions, the question extends beyond purchasing equipment. Operators must weigh whether maintenance, software updates, and future upgrades stay dependable when a supplier faces legal and commercial pressure.
Kovrig said prosecutors were seeking to demonstrate a pattern spanning 20 years. Huawei argues that isolated misconduct by individuals does not prove a companywide conspiracy. China describes the proceedings as American economic bullying.
With Huawei facing criminal charges, the company’s defense matters alongside the prosecution’s evidence. A jury must assess the allegations; political suspicion cannot substitute for that process.
The proceedings connect Huawei and federal courts with decisions far beyond American borders. Governments considering 5G networks may examine the evidence when deciding whether to retain equipment, approve purchases or require replacement.
However, sanctions against Huawei and a criminal verdict serve different purposes. Trade controls restrict access to technology or markets, while the trial determines responsibility for specific alleged offences.
For operators, US sanctions on Huawei can complicate planning even before a verdict. Replacing installed equipment could consume money otherwise available for coverage, while continued dependence requires confidence in support and supply.
“It puts evidence on the public record, tested by Huawei’s own lawyers, decided by a jury of citizens for every bank and government to see,” said Kovrig, who added that the alleged crimes have victims whatever Huawei sells.
That makes the Huawei sanctions investigation relevant to trust, without turning every allegation into proof. Governments should identify specific risks and explain how restrictions address them.
History also carries human consequences. Canada arrested Huawei chief financial officer (CFO) Meng Wanzhou in 2018, after which China detained Kovrig and fellow Canadian Michael Spavor. Kovrig calls his imprisonment hostage diplomacy; China denies arbitrary detention.
For Huawei under criminal investigation, corporate accountability therefore sits within a diplomatic dispute. Decisions affecting networks should still distinguish courtroom findings from national rivalry.
Research Spending Tests Huawei’s Independence
Alongside US sanctions on Huawei, financial results show the cost of pursuing alternatives to restricted foreign supplies. First-half net profit fell 36% to $3.54 billion (23.81 billion yuan), despite revenue rising 9.6% to $69.61 billion (467.82 billion yuan).
The decline is accelerating, as profit fell 32% in the same period a year earlier, and the cost of products rose 12.4% in the latest half, outpacing revenue growth. Operating cash flow swung from $4.76 billion (31.8 billion yuan) consumed.
Research and development spending increased 25% to $18.06 billion (121.38 billion yuan), accounting for 25.9% of revenue.
With Huawei sanctioned, investment in chips, software and AI can support competitiveness. However, money committed to domestic alternatives also creates immediate pressure before products generate sufficient returns.
The company said all businesses recorded annual revenue growth during the half, although it provided no segment breakdown. Its full-year outlook remained under review because of external uncertainty and higher costs.
The effects of American sanctions on Huawei include restricted access to advanced chips and Google’s Android operating system. Annual revenue fell 29% in 2021 before recovering, reaching $131.07 billion (880.9 billion yuan) in 2025.
A Huawei sanction list alone cannot explain whether restrictions achieve their objectives. Policymakers also need to assess supply dependencies, available substitutes and consequences for customers relying on existing networks.
Meanwhile, Huawei economic sanctions form part of wider disputes over access to technology. Anthropic’s separate report illustrates tensions over AI capabilities but supplies no evidence establishing Huawei’s responsibility in its criminal case.
Anthropic accused seven Chinese laboratories, including Alibaba, Moonshot, DeepSeek and Xiaomi, of attempts to extract Claude’s capabilities. It alleged operators linked to Alibaba generated more than 151 million exchanges between May and July of this year.
Enforcement Remains Contested
In August, Representative John Moonlenaar, who chairs the House Select Committee on China, wrote to the Commerce Department urging it to enforce a rule requiring chipmakers to screen orders that could disguise sanctioned buyers. Moonlenaar said the rule existed to close a loophole Hauwei and chip designer, Sophgo, had exploited.
The dispute shows how Huawei economic sanctions depend on administrative decisions rather than statute alone, because the rule’s reach narrowed when the current administration declined to enforce a related measure it references. The US criminal charges against Huawei proceed on separate evidence, and sanctions against Huawei require their own evidential basis.
For Huawei facing criminal charges, future competitiveness depends partly on proving its technology can develop under restrictions. Customer confidence will also depend on conduct, reliable support and scrutiny of the evidence.
The longer US sanctions on Huawei remain in place, the more important these choices become for countries with limited budgets. Security assessments should consider technical safeguards, supplier behavior and replacement plans, with room to challenge official conclusions.
Ultimately, US sanctions on Huawei leave governments balancing security, affordability and continuity. Their decisions should explain what evidence justifies restrictions, how networks will remain operational and who bears the cost when suppliers become geopolitical liabilities.
Inside Telecom provides you with an extensive list of content covering all aspects of the tech industry. Keep an eye on our Telecom sections to stay informed and up-to-date with our daily articles.
