US influence on Europe failing as France resists Huawei ban

The White House might have felt banning Huawei was an appropriate measure for national security, but France does not agree with the drastic action.

Speaking at a conference in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron has confirmed the country will not ban Huawei. This is not to say it won’t in the future, but it appears Europe is remaining resolute against the demands of the US. The burden of proof might be a concept easily ignored in the US, but Europe stands for more.

“Our perspective is not to block Huawei or any company,” Macron said. “France and Europe are pragmatic and realistic. We do believe in cooperation and multilateralism. At the same time, we are extremely careful about access to good technology and to preserve our national security and all the safety rules.”

President Donald Trump is most likely a man who is used to getting his own way, and upon assuming office as head of the most powerful government worldwide, he might have thought this position of privilege would continue. However, Europe is being anything but compliant.

In direct contradiction to the Executive Order banning Huawei from supplying any components, products and services to US communications networks, Macron has declared France open is for business. France won’t use the excuse of national security to beat back the progress of China but will presumably introduce mechanisms to mitigate risk.

Germany has taken this approach, increasing the barrier to entry for all companies, not just Huawei. Vendors will have to pass more stringent security tests before any components or products can be introduced to networks, though Chancellor Angela Merkel has also made it clear she intents to steer clear of political ties to the decision.

“There are two things I don’t believe in,” Merkel said in March. “First, to discuss these very sensitive security questions publicly, and second, to exclude a company simply because it’s from a certain country.”

The UK is seemingly heading down a similar route. Alongside the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC), run by GCHQ with the objective of ensuring security and privacy credentials are maintained, the long-awaited supply chain review is reportedly going to place higher scrutiny but stop short of any sort of ban. The official position will be revealed in a few weeks, but this position would be consistent with the UK political rhetoric.

Over in Eastern Europe, governments also appear to be resisting calls to ban the company, while Italy seems to be taking the risk mitigation approach. Even at the highest bureaucratic level, the European Commission has asked member states to conduct an assessment for security assessments. Unless some drastic opinions come back in October, we suspect the official position of the European Union will be to create higher security mechanisms which offer competitive opportunity for all vendors in the market.

For the moment at least, it appears the Europeans are immune to the huffing and puffing making its way across the Atlantic. That said, the trade war with China is set to escalate once again and it would be fair to assume more US delegations will be attempting to whisper in the ears of influential Europeans. At some point, the US will get tougher on Europe, but it does appear those pesky Europeans are stubborn enough to resist White House propaganda and pressure.

A look at how US suppliers have been hit by Huawei news

President Trump’s Executive Order and the decision to place Huawei on the US ‘Entity List’ is going to dominate the headlines over the next couple of days, but what will be the impact on US suppliers?

During the ZTE saga last year, where the firm was banned from using US components in its supply chain, several US firms faced considerable difficulty. With Huawei potentially facing the same fate, the next few days will certainly make for uncomfortable reading for some.

Although the main focus of the news has been on the Executive Order banning any Huawei components or products in US communications infrastructure, the entry onto the ‘Entity List’ should be considered as big. This is effectively the commerce version of a dirty bomb, and some might suggest it is being used to disrupt Huawei’s supply chain and dent its ability to dominate the telco vendor ecosystem.

But what is the impact of losing a major customer? What are the realities these US firms will face if the Secretary of Commerce turns down their application to work with Huawei?

Speaking to members of the financial community, it could be pretty severe.

Losing a customer which accounts for 2-3% of total revenues would be a concern but nothing major. For 5% of revenues, this is a headache, but something the spreadsheets could most likely tolerate. When you start getting to 10% the panic button needs to be hit.

A customer which accounts for 10% of total revenues is a major prize. Losing this revenue would result in a complete rethink in how the business operates, as this could effectively wipe out any profit for the year. If you are in the services industry, it isn’t as much of an issue, but when it comes to manufacturing and components, there are so many different implications.

For example, in the first instance you have to consider how this hits budgets, forecasts, resource allocation and manufacturing strategy.

Sales staff are probably the safest here, as the lost revenues will have to be replaced as soon as possible with new customers, but what about the marketing strategy? Do you want to replace the lost capacity with short-term customers (i.e. quicker) or long-term customers which may offer larger orders?

On the R&D side, does a company have dedicated resource working on projects for that customer? What will these staffers do now? Can those projects be re-orientated for another customer?

Finally, on the manufacturing side, there are all sorts of issues. How will the loss of revenue impact the resource recovery plan? How are the manufacturing facilities configured – do you have to close plants?

Another consideration is on your own supply chain and procurement strategies. When supplying products to said customer, you will have to source your own raw materials. Will the loss of this customer result in contracts with suppliers having to be re-negotiated? Will this mean quantity discounts are now impacted?

These are all the considerations when you are losing a customer worth 10-15% of total revenues. Anything above this and you would have to question whether the company can survive, or at least face a major restructure.

Share price of US suppliers to Huawei
Company Share price
Qualcomm -3.18%
Xilinx -4.1%
Western Digital -1.12%
Marvell Technology +0.5%
Seagate Technology +0.43
Texas Instruments +0.045
Skyworks Solutions -4.56%
ON Semiconductor -0.99%
Qorvo -5%
NeoPhotonics -12.9%
Flex -1.13%
Finisar -2.05%
II-VI -2.86%
Maxim Integrated -0.99%
Analog Devices -2%

All share prices at the time of writing (UK: 16:20) – in comparison to market close on 15 May 2019

Looking at Qorvo, executives at semiconductor supplier might certainly have something to worry about. Huawei is features in the ‘top three’ customers for the firm, while on the most recent earnings call, the team discussed the success of Huawei’s smartphone division and in particular the ‘P’ series as a contributor towards a successful quarter. Some have suggested 11% of Qorvo revenues are dependent on Huawei.

Skyworks Solutions, another semiconductor company, has been suffering in recent years. With large parts of the business reliant on smartphone shipments, the global slowdown has been tough. The team work with Huawei on both the mobile and infrastructure side, and while it does work with many tier one firms in both segments, the market is clearly worried about a competitive field and an inability to work with one of the largest telco vendors worldwide.

Both Qorvo and Skyworks supply radiofrequency chips to Huawei, which might have an effect on the Chinese vendors ability to manufacture devices. That said, the supply chain disruption will not be anywhere near as damaging to Huawei as it was to ZTE as it has HiSilicon which manufacturers many of its components.

Xilinx is another which seems to have worn the news quite negatively. The team work with Huawei’s enterprise business unit, helping with video streaming challenges. This might be the smallest business group at Huawei, though the 5G euphoria is set to offer considerable opportunities. Xilinx share price has been recovering after a 17% drop in April, though this has proved to be another set-back.

NeoPhotonics is a company which should be seriously concerned. As a customer, Huawei accounted for more than 46% of the total revenue across 2018. The executive team is relatively open with investors regarding this fact, and this might have been factored into any decision to invest, though this is a massive loss for the business to absorb.

Lumentum is another business which is somewhat reliant on Huawei. While we were not able to nail down specific numbers, the firm supplies fiber optic components to Network Equipment Manufacturers (NEM) and considering there aren’t many of them to supply to, losing Huawei will be a headache.

At Finisar, Huawei described as one of the company’s major customers, though it has seemingly been diversifying its customer base in recent years. In 2017 and 2016, Huawei accounted for 11% and 12% of the annual total respectively, though the percentage is not listed for 2018. This is because the percentage has dipped below 10%, though we were unable to ascertain what the figure now is.

We might have to wait a few weeks to understand the full extent of the impact, and how stringently the US will enforce Huawei’s entry onto the ‘Entity List’, but we suspect there will be some very stressful meetings taking place in numerous offices throughout the US.

Huawei hints at legal retaliation to Trump executive order

US President Trump has issued an executive order calling for major restrictions on technology suspected of assisting ‘foreign adversaries’.

In the Executive Order on Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain Trump states that he reckons “foreign adversaries are increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services.” In response to that perceived threat he is empowering state officials and agencies to take pretty much whatever prohibitive action they deem necessary against any companies they consider to be under the influence of said adversaries.

On one level this is merely an official confirmation of the position the Trump administration has had on this sort of thing for a while. But it’s also a distinct call for escalation and actively encourages state agencies to be more aggressive in their response to these threats and seems to absolve them of any responsibility to present evidence of wrongdoing before acting.

The words ‘China’ or ‘Huawei’ don’t appear anywhere in the executive order, but it’s pretty clear it’s a response to the ongoing issue of Huawei’s suspected ties to the Chinese state. Of course Huawei has spent the past few months repeatedly denying the allegations, but the US position has if anything hardened and there doesn’t seem to be any more the company can do to prove its innocence.

We received the following statement from Huawei in response to the executive order: “‘We are the unparalleled leader in 5G development. We are ready and willing to engage with the US government and come up with effective measures to ensure product security.

“Restricting Huawei from doing business in the US will not make the US more secure or stronger; instead, this will only serve to limit the US to inferior yet more expensive alternatives, leaving the US lagging behind in 5G deployment, and eventually harming the interests of US companies and consumers. In addition, unreasonable restrictions will infringe upon Huawei’s rights and raise other serious legal issues.”

Most of that has been publicly said by Huawei before, but the final sentence definitely hints at a formal legal response. Huawei has already opened one legal front challenging the legality of the sales restrictions already in place. Assuming US state agencies accept Trump’s invitation to act against it, Huawei may move to question the legality of the executive order itself.

Trump’s hand is hovering over China executive order

President Trump is reportedly on the verge of signing an executive order effectively banning Huawei, and other Chinese companies, from providing any products or services in the US market.

According to Reuters, the signing of the order could happen as soon as this afternoon (Wednesday 15 May) although no companies will be named specifically. It is believed US companies will be banned from purchasing any telco equipment from vendors who are deemed a threat to national security.

The vagueness of the report is perhaps down to the fact the news is not official just yet, although it might well be designed that way in the document. Intelligence agencies will presumably be requesting as much freedom from bureaucratic shackles as possible; vague language in the executive order might be by design.

The White House will allegedly use the power of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which offers the President the luxury of regulating commerce in response to national security concerns.

The executive order certainly comes at a sensitive time, with both the US and China on edge as trade talks have stagnated. The toing and froing over trade tariffs look set to escalate once again, with the reprieve from the threat of global trade war looking to be over.

President Trump has been suggesting talks are still on a steady path through Twitter, but many commentators believe the two superpowers are at odds with each other. Following the Chinese decision to impose tariffs on $60 billion worth of US goods starting in June, the White House is supposedly preparing a new list of $300 billion worth of Chinese imports that would be hit with tariffs of up to 25%.

The executive order, should the rumours prove to be true, could be fatal blow to the trade talks. Huawei is the telco champion of China, the poster boy of Chinese dominance in the technology world. Although Huawei will not necessarily be losing any significant business as a result of the order, it is a symbolic gesture.

While this executive order should come as little surprise, the world should ready itself for further escalation of a trade war between the two economic superpowers. Collateral damage could certainly be notable, especially in Europe where governments have been resisting US pressure to act against Huawei specifically.

Trump starts huffing and puffing with net neutrality veto threat

President Donald Trump is once again threatening as veto should Congress pass the ‘Save the Internet’ Act to reinstate net neutrality rules across the US.

Having largely unwound the net neutrality regulation during the first year of the Trump administration, Congress is one track to continue the seesaw ride which has been net neutrality. In a statement released by the Executive Office of Management and Budget, the White House has promised a veto, quoting statistics and trends which have nothing to do with the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ Act, which it is trying to protect.

The ‘Save the Internet’ Act, introduced by a horde of Democrats led by Representative Anna Eshoo, would effectively undermine the ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’ Act and reinstate net neutrality rules. A vote was supposed to take place on April 9, though this has been delayed thanks to a number of amendments. The vote may well happen this afternoon, April 10.

“Last year, the FCC returned to the light-touch regulatory scheme that enabled the internet to develop and thrive for nearly two decades by promoting internet freedom and encouraging network investment,” the statement reads.

“Since the new rule was adopted in 2018, consumers have benefited from a greater than 35 percent increase in average, fixed broadband download speeds, and the United States rose to sixth, from thirteenth, in the world for those speeds. In 2018, fiber was also made available to more new homes than in any previous year, and capital investment by the Nation’s top six Internet service providers increased by $2.3 billion.”

Let’s break this down claim by claim, starting with the broadband speeds.

The statement is of course correct, broadband speeds have been increasing but this has nothing to do with repealing net neutrality laws. The White House seems to be using an Ookla report from December which uses data from Q2 and Q3 2018. Broadband speeds did increase year-on-year, though the repeal of net neutrality rules only occurred in June, mid-way through this period suggesting broadband speeds were already on the up.

Removing net neutrality rules was not like flicking a switch to make the internet faster. According to the Republicans, it was supposed to more freely enable investment in the network, something which would take months, if not years, to realise the benefits of. Linking these speeds to any success of the repeal is at best incompetent or at worst, directly misleading.

On the fibre side, the statement claims that fibre deployments are on the increase though this again might have nothing to do with the net neutrality repeal. Firstly, as part of the Time Warner transaction AT&T was forced through regulation (ironic) to deploy more fibre broadband. Secondly, fibre deployments were gradually increasing and the increase in the US is in-line with overarching trends. It’s not necessarily a new development which should be attributed to any form of external influence or catalyst.

The threat of a veto is never far away, but so far it has proved to be nothing more than hot air from the inflated President. Despite having threatened vetoes for infrastructure, immigration and security bills which have not taken his fancy, the President has only used the power of veto once since his appointment. This might change now a Democrat Congress will be pushing through bills which he won’t like however.

While the power of the veto is something which can be viewed as undemocratic, it is not uncommon. Barack Obama used the veto 12 times during his tenure, as did George Bush before him. Bill Clinton bagged 37 vetoes between 1993-2001, while George Bush Senior managed 44 in his four-year presidency.

Amazingly, these all pale in comparison to the leader of the veto. Grover Cleveland, the only US President to serve non-consecutive terms (1885-89 and 1893-97), used the right to veto an incredibly 584 times, while seven more were over-ridden by the sitting politicians.

Although the ‘Save the Internet’ Act does look doomed to failure, perhaps that is not necessarily as important as it would seem. The bill would still have to pass through the Republican controlled Senate, which would have been incredibly unlikely, though it gives a measure of support.

Before too long, the lawsuits from the 23 Attorney Generals supporting net neutrality across the country will start to be considered, and there is the small matter of the 2020 election. Trying to decide which way the next Presidential election will head is a futile task, though a Democrat heading back into the White House is not unforeseeable.

Should the Republicans lose the election, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai would step down from his position, as is customary, and a Democrat Chairman would be installed. This would effectively tip the balance of voting power back towards the Democrats in the FCC (3-2), allowing rules such as net neutrality to make a return.

Despite all the efforts to kill net neutrality, the concept is still hanging on. It might not have a home in the rulebook any more, but Pai is finding it difficult to block any legislative paths to return the rules. The ‘Save the Internet’ Act will most likely fail, either being shot down by the Senate or vetoed by Trump, but it demonstrates the intentions of a Democrat administration.

FCC and Oval Office locking horns over 5G

The FCC originally looked like a diligent foot-soldier for the President, but with the nationalised 5G infrastructure argument seemingly emerging again, heads are set to butt.

Reports have been emerging in various corners that the White House is revisiting plans to develop a nationalised 5G network, a plan originally raised in January 2018 to keep the US at the front of the technology arms race. The plan was shot-down back then, and the FCC has already raised set the tone of resistance through social media over the last week or so.

Following the President’s twitter rant last month, which saw the Commander-in-Chief bemoan progress being made by the telcos, FCC chiefs set their position out quite firmly.

In the case of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a retweeted message from 2018 reiterates a point which was made when the plans were first suggested; hands-off from the government is the best stance. This seems to be one of the only positions the Democrat and Republican representatives on the board of the FCC seem to agree on; the telcos should build the US 5G network, not the government.

Although the White House has not released any official statement confirming its favour of a nationalised 5G infrastructure, the defensive position entrenched by Pai and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel suggest there have been conversations which neither like. These tweets could be viewed as in-direct opposition, with the pair attempting to get ahead of the game.

According to Politico, this isn’t the only conflict which is emerging either. The Trump 2020 re-election campaign team have been pushing the benefits of a government-owned, wholesale infrastructure, while the current Trump political administration are keen to avoid the topic. While the disagreement is hearsay and reports for the moment, it would not surprise us if the Trump campaign led with such a promise.

This sort of political manoeuvre fits perfectly into the Trump playbook from his first election campaign. It hits pain-points for US citizens in the politically less-attractive states, the very people Trump was able to mobilise in 2016. However, attacking the digital divide in rural communities is not a new trick, Hilary Clinton used this tactic in 2016 also, but a nationalised 5G infrastructure will appeal to those who feel ignored by corporates. Trump has shown he can communicate effectively to those who believe they are under-represented by mainstream politics, and this angle could prove to be an effective tool.

The idea which seems to have been raised here is to create a wholesale network in partnership with a private third-party. The government would fund the deployment of the network, while the third-party would manage the operations and wholesale business, creating a system which would operate like the electricity market, with parties ‘purchasing connectivity’ on a rolling basis.

Theoretically, this position sounds wonderful. The arguments for nationalisation are often very compelling, and it could be justified as an effective way to spend tax-payers money. However, nationalised businesses and infrastructure have been shown to be ineffective time and time again. The government is not equipped to manage such projects in the long-run and not savvy enough to compete against private entities when they emerge. It might sound very appealing to voters who are stuck in the chasm of the digital divide, but it will not help the US in the global technology arms race.

As Brenden Carr, a Republican FCC Commissioner, notes above, private industry is the best way to secure a leadership position in 5G. This is a lesson which has been learned numerous times over the years in the US; when you leave private industry alone, simply creating a legislative and regulatory framework to encourage growth, much can be gained. In the technology world, this is perfectly evident with the success of Silicon Valley.

The dominance of the US on the technology stage is being widely challenged, though it seems the ego of the Trump party is getting in the way of logic. First to market does not necessarily mean the best, but this seems to be the angle which the President’s team is taking.

The big question is what impact this will have on the future for the Republican party. Should these rumours of a nationalised network evolve into reality, a split may well appear in the rank and file. The Republican FCC representatives are clearly not happy about this position, and neither are the science and technology advisors in the White House. However, you can’t argue that such a campaign promise would be very attractive to those who currently reside on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Here is what the Trump 2020 electoral campaign team will have to assess; is the long-term detriment of communications infrastructure a fair trade-off for the lure of ‘Middle America’ votes in the 2020 election? We suspect they won’t be looking much further beyond 2024.

Trump opposition to AT&T/Time Warner deal was personal revenge – report

Few would consider Donald Trump a conventional President but attempting to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner to get revenge for poor coverage would be another level.

Trump’s distaste for CNN is widely known, though The New Yorker is now claiming the President’s opposition to AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner was little more than a personal vendetta against the newsroom for poor coverage as opposed to an ideological protest against market consolidation. We’re not too sure whether to be surprised by such an accusation, such is the dramatic impact to the status quo Trump has had on politics.

It is claimed President Trump was attempting to pressure the Department of Justice into blocking the monstrous acquisition as revenge for the negative news coverage on Time Warner-owned CNN. According to The New Yorker, in a meeting with Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen and former Chief of Staff John Kelly, the President said:

“I’ve been telling Cohn to get this lawsuit filed and nothing’s happened. I’ve mentioned it fifty times. And nothing’s happened. I want to make sure it’s filed. I want that deal blocked.” Gary Cohn was, at the time, the Director of the National Economic Council – the main Presidential policy-making forum for economic matters.

The New Yorker then goes onto to claim Cohn resisted the push from the President, with aides suggesting he did not understand the ‘nuances’ of antitrust and competition law.  The Department of Justice did eventually file its complaints, though these were eventually overturned by a Federal Judge, with the DoJ then turning to the court of appeals.

It’s worth noting is that The New Yorker is not a friend of President Trump. Owned by Conde Nast, the editors are apparently given complete freedom from the parent company, with the publication having endorsed Barack Obama in 2012 and Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election. The main topic of the New Yorker piece was an investigation into the relationship between right-leaning Fox News and President Trump.

While there certainly is a left-sided slant, it is also a highly respected title which has never failed a fact check according to the Media Bias/Fact Check website. This should not be considered as unusual as there are very few (if any) mainstream media titles in the US (or worldwide for that matter) which can honestly state they are impartial; there is always some sort of political bias.

What this does indicate is the growing, and not always positive, influence of politics of the TMT segments. Although politicians might have been slow off the mark in regard to the digital euphoria, they are certainly catching up quickly. Mass market communication has dramatically shifted away from traditional media in recent years, and the politicians are following the wake.

For AT&T, this is a headache which it will be happy to put in the past. Last week, a US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected an appeal from the Department of Justice challenging the Federal Judge which overturned its complaint against the acquisition. The DoJ claimed AT&T would have “both the incentive and the ability to raise its rivals’ costs and stifle growth of innovative, next-generation entrants”, though the Federal Judge and the appeals court dismissed the antitrust claims.

The number of lawsuits, counter-lawsuits and appeals has now created an incredibly complicated timeline, but there does not seem to be many routes of resistance left. Sooner or later, AT&T will be able to start figuring out how to recoup the $107 billion it decided to spend on Game of Thrones.

Trump tweets about 6G

Somebody seems to have told US President Donald Trump there’s a mobile industry trade show coming up so he’s using his favoured medium to get involved.

Trump opened a two-part Tweet by saying “I want 5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible.” This laudable wish was presumably prompted by the imminence of Mobile World Congress 2019 and some kind of need to be seen to be aware of it, but it’s not at all clear what Trump expects them to achieve.

We’re not avid followers of Trump’s Twitter output but he generally seems to use the platform to do one of the following: trumpet his political achievements, defend himself from perceived attacks, insult people he doesn’t like, criticise the media, or just try to wind up as many people as possible. His telecoms tweets don’t seem to fall into any of these categories, however.

In his second Tweet he said “I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies.” This is intriguing but again it’s not clear what he’s referring to. On the surface he seems to be berating domestic telcos for lagging behind in the 5G race, but another interpretation could be some kind of olive branch to Huawei, which offers some of the most advanced technologies. Who knows?

Whether that’s his primary intention or not, anything Trump tweets seems to trigger a legion of Twitter obsessives apparently just waiting to take offense. Some of the more ‘liked’ responses are worth paying attention to, if only to get a measure of how the message is being received. Be warned though, the Twitter rabbit-hole can be a very dark place.

 

Trump’s Huawei executive order not much more than a power play

Rumours are swirling around Washington DC suggesting President Donald Trump is on the verge of signing another executive order, this one the final blow to Huawei’s US ambitions.

While the document itself will actually have very little impact on Huawei’s business, it is more of a symbolic blow to the kit vendor, as well as other Chinese businesses looking to exploit the riches of the Land of the Free. While the rumours were originally reported last week, by the time you get back to the office on Monday the order may well have been signed.

In a single signature, Huawei, a representation of China’s ambitions in the global technology and telecommunications industry, could be officially and explicitly shut out of the worlds’ largest economies.

Although details on the executive order are limited to rumour and hearsay for the moment, officials have stated this order will not impact electronics companies or products which incorporate Chinese components. This is a political move to demonstrate the power of the US. Trump is making a statement to China; look at what I can do to one of your flagbearers.

As it stands, Huawei’s involvement in US communications infrastructure is pretty minimal. T-Mobile US CEO John Legere has very publicly stated his business will very much avoid using Huawei equipment, while back in August Trump signed the Defense Authorization Act into law which effectively banned any meaningful work Huawei or ZTE could do in the US.

Huawei’s, and ZTE to a lesser extent, condemnation has become nothing more than a symbol of US dominance on the technology world. Trump is posturing, demonstrating what will happen to anyone who challenges the US leadership position. Over the last few months, US delegations have been visiting governments around the world to pitch the idea of a ban, admittedly with varied success, though there have been some willing to listen. Banning ZTE from using US components or IP brought the firm to the brink of extinction. The US forced Canada to arrest the Huawei CFO. A lot of this is a demonstration of power.

This is of course a complex and rich tapestry, and there are numerous intertwining and independent narratives going on. Some of it will be political, some economic, some espionage assumptions will be true and there will be validity to accusations of a government-influenced unfair playing field. This is an incredibly complex matter. But look at what the executive order actually is.

Huawei is already incredibly limited in the US, the damage to ambitions has already been dealt, this is chest beating from Trump.

Time Warner acquisition resistance could turn ugly for Trump

President Donald Trump’s administration certainly has been a different shade of politics for the Oval Office, though actions and alleged prejudice could come back to haunt the Commander in Chief.

Despite being proclaimed a resounding victory for the Republicans, the mid-term elections could have gone a hell of a lot better. With the House of Representatives swinging back into the hands of the Democrats, not only will Trump find passing his questionable legislation more difficult, but his actions over the first two years of the Presidency could be called into question.

In an interview with Axios, California Congressman Adam Schiff, who is also the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested an investigation into the President would now be able to make a material impact because of the swing of power across the aisle. The President’s tax records will once again become a topic of conversation, though the appropriateness of his objections to AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner will also come under scrutiny, as will his seemingly personal vendetta against Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

While the President’s actions have constantly been condemned by critics and political opponents, there has been little opportunity to do anything considering Trump’s political foundations. With majorities in both Houses of Congress, the Republican party have been able to block, or at least stifle, any investigations. However, with last week’s mid-term elections swinging the House of Representatives into a Democrat majority things might be about to change.

Trump’s opposition to the AT&T and Time Warner deal has been widely publicised, dating back to the Presidential campaign trail. Some have suggested his hatred for Time Warner owned CNN is the reasoning behind the probes and appeals against the acquisition, though this will come under question through the investigations.

“We don’t know, for example, whether the effort to hold up the merger of the parent of CNN was a concern over antitrust or whether this was an effort merely to punish CNN,” said Schiff.

While the deal has been greenlight by District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Richard Leon, the Department of Justice is appealing the decision, suggesting Judge Leon is ignorant to the facts and the economic implications of the deal. It has been reported the Trump administration has been pressuring the DoJ to pursue the appeal and attempt to derail the acquisition.

Looking at the spat with Jeff Bezos, this has been tackled on several fronts. Not only has President Trump constantly berated the excellent reporting by the Washington Post, privately owned by Bezos, Trump has been targeting the tax activities of Amazon. Back in March, Trump tweeted he would be tackling the tax set-up at Amazon, sending share price down 2%, while he has also been reportedly pressuring the Post Office to charge Amazon more, despite the eCommerce revolution seemingly saving the service with the vast increases in package delivery.

These are just two examples relevant to the telecoms and technology industry, but the Democrats are seemingly going for the throat. Tax records will be called into question, as well as reports the President blocked the FBI from moving its headquarters because it would negatively impact business as one of his hotels, located opposite the bureau’s offices.

For the moment, this seems to be nothing more than political posturing, as while the statements might appease those in opposition to Trump, they are nothing more than statements. The Democrats will not assume their majority in the House of Representatives for two months, a long-time in the lightly-principled world of politics. Much could change during this period.

What the change in political landscape could mean more than anything else is a bit more stability. President Trump has been praised by his supporters as a man of action, though actions are of questionable benefit to business executives who crave legislative, regulatory and policy consistency. Only with the promise of consistency can businesses made long-term strategies to conquer the world, but with Twitter a constant threat of change it is understandable some are nervous.

With the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, Trump will find it much more difficult to force through any controversial or overly aggressive policies, though there is also the threat of legislative standstill. The US political landscape has certainly been an interesting one over the last two years, though it could become even more interesting over the next two for completely different reasons.