Huawei Technologies is scheduled to begin jury selection Tuesday, Sept. 8, in a federal criminal trial in Brooklyn that puts years of U.S. allegations about sanctions, trade secrets and the Chinese technology company’s global business practices before a jury. Huawei has pleaded not guilty and denies wrongdoing. Every charge remains an allegation that prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial matters beyond one company. Huawei remains one of the world’s largest telecommunications-equipment suppliers and has become central to China’s effort to compete in semiconductors and artificial intelligence. The proceedings arrive as governments and companies are reassessing which vendors can be trusted inside critical communications and computing infrastructure.
A long-running prosecution reaches a jury
The Justice Department’s superseding indictment charged Huawei and several subsidiaries in 2020 with racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to steal trade secrets. Prosecutors allege the company used fraud and deception to obtain technology from U.S. companies, violated restrictions involving business in Iran and North Korea, and obstructed investigators.
Huawei contests the government’s account and has described the case as an effort to damage its competitiveness. The company unsuccessfully sought dismissal of major parts of the prosecution. Public court records show that U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly has continued resolving evidence and disclosure disputes ahead of trial, including questions about how third-party companies are identified in filings.
The Associated Press reported that jury selection was set to begin Tuesday. Reuters separately reported that the trial could last about three months and that Huawei continues to deny the charges. The two accounts independently confirm the current trial schedule and the company’s position.
The commercial stakes extend beyond a verdict
The immediate legal question is whether prosecutors can prove the charged conduct. The commercial consequences are broader. Telecommunications networks are long-lived systems with high switching costs, extensive maintenance obligations and access to sensitive data. A criminal trial involving a major supplier can influence government procurement, financing, insurance and customer risk reviews even before a verdict.
For multinational companies, the case illustrates how sanctions compliance and technology sourcing have converged. A vendor can be technically capable and economically attractive while still creating exposure through export controls, banking relationships or government restrictions. Procurement teams therefore need to evaluate corporate structure, jurisdictions, replacement options and the operational cost of a forced transition—not only product performance.
What executives should watch
The trial’s evidentiary rulings may matter as much as its political framing. Executives should watch which corporate records, witness accounts and prior statements reach the jury; how prosecutors connect alleged conduct across subsidiaries; and how Huawei explains the relationships at issue. Those details will determine whether the proceeding produces new, decision-useful information or largely revisits familiar claims.
No company should treat an indictment as a conviction. But boards responsible for infrastructure and enterprise technology cannot ignore a proceeding of this scale. The durable lesson is to build vendor decisions around verifiable controls and workable alternatives. The trial will decide Huawei’s criminal liability in this case; it will also test how law, national security and technology competition now shape the market for critical systems.