Trump contradicts Mnuchin on Huawei, trade, national security

President Donald Trump's comments on Huawei on Monday are directly at odds with statements made a few hours earlier by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a very problematic situation for the White House's position against the company.

Mnuchin, who spoke to Japan's CNBC on Sunday, said Washington's concerns over Huawei are separate "national security" issues from the trade, which will be "solved in one way or another" .

Then on Monday morning, Trump called CNBC's "Squawk Box" and said, "I see this as a threat, and at the same time, he could very well do something with Huawei in the trade talks with China. China wants to make an agreement, they want to make a deal much more than me. "

The White House needs to clarify its position on Huawei immediately – especially if US equities against the company come under economic or national security concerns. Otherwise, the measures taken by the administration could undermine years of strong assertions by the intelligence services that Huawei's equipment is too dangerous for the nation to function within our borders.

On the sidelines of previous trade negotiations, US officials said Huawei's potential involvement in the US national infrastructure was too risky to be admitted, which made particularly problematic the claim that this position apparently intractable could change for economic reasons.

The case against Huawei is made even more complicated because much of the information supporting the actions of the executive against the company are still private and classified, and have never made available to the public.

This case includes many claims that Huawei has direct links to the Beijing Communist Government and that the company was created to create technical equipment capable of achieving China's espionage objectives. A well-known 2012 intelligence report presented these allegations in general terms, with little detail. The information in this report is still widely used as the basis of the allegations against Huawei today.

Meanwhile, Huawei has denied all these accusations, insisting that it belongs to private interests and is not beholden to Beijing.

Huawei's problems are now more important than ever as we get closer to a future fueled by 5G and we are having an increasingly difficult relationship with China.

Since the arrest of Huawei's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, in Vancouver in December, we learned that the Justice Ministry claimed that Meng had facilitated fraud by doing business with Iran, then lied to the banks about the origin of the product.

But the allegations do not involve espionage, nor any details about the company's ties with the Chinese government.

Another case in federal court, involving Huawei's alleged theft of trade secrets at T-Mobile, had already been tried several years ago by a civilian court. It describes an isolated plot to copy a robot used to test mobile devices. No big conspiracy there either.

These cases do not support the view that Huawei is the result of a decades-long conspiracy to create a technology-driven, China-sponsored, spy-led espionage program. China, which could undermine US infrastructure.

It is difficult to understand why the government or the legislators did not give us more details.

There are other "obvious" cases of cyber-treachery for which the US government has been able to reveal details specific to public consumption. The proof is the vast hacking charges we have seen in the last two years of the Justice Ministry – with the 12 Russians identified as allegedly conspiring to influence the 2016 election.

These allegations put an end to any assumption that Russia would not have really tried to influence the 2016 election. The allegation of conspiracy contained in this document is clear and enlightened. It describes precisely how the Ministry of Justice believes that hackers have implemented their plan, with the support of the Kremlin.

Another example: the June 2018 indictment of a North Korean cybercriminal, Park Jin Hyok. In this document, the FBI and partner investigators have identified backdoors containing malware in technical equipment and described how Park would have colluded with its original government, even under the umbrella of a corporation. screen supported by the government.

The Ministry of Justice has produced such amazing documents about Chinese and Iranian pirates. Many of these indictments make a clear distinction between government sponsorship and the espionage or theft activities of these accused. Similar additional facts would help to understand why we are taking such bold and unprecedented action against Huawei.

Removing the vast majority of information regarding Huawei, its alleged espionage activities and its links with the government as "classified" would be acceptable if we were not already in a "national emergency" – and if we were not The aircraft did not make the same claims under the same umbrella for much of the decade.

Remember that the above Russian indictment regarding computer hacking – including the full investigation – has largely unfolded in the space of two years only. For Americans who remember the yellow cake, just saying something is classified or adding a small sample of evidence just does not have the weight that it had before.

Several government officials have explained publicly and privately that the "evidence" was not really essential: allowing the equipment is too big a risk due to the nature of the equipment. 39, technological infrastructure.

According to this view, allowing a foreign power to produce essential technology that feeds all US infrastructure is too risky, and future software updates of this equipment would pose a risk of too much infection.

It's a pragmatic argument. It would be a solid policy. If the White House says that our relations with China, particularly with regard to technology, are too fragile to allow a company in this country to sell us the equipment that is the backbone of our power grids and our factories water treatment, so let's say that.

But this is not the argument put forward by the Trump administration, nor by any previous administration. They claimed that Huawei, in particular, had systematically conspired both to steal the intellectual property of US companies and to give himself an unlimited power of global espionage, among other mischief.

These were very general allegations, made over the years, with very little corroboration to support.

This time has changed. The executive order and the national emergency have changed, and the hesitant attitude of the White House on why we need a national emergency continues to strengthen this situation. We need clarification – no matter what, more precisely – about what underpins Huawei's fears as quickly as possible.

WATCH: According to Trump, Huawei's question could be part of a trade deal with China