The government deciding to not purchase that equipment for their own use in sensitive networks is one thing. (And this was already in place before this executive order.)
Banning corporations from doing that in their own commercial networks is another thing (and that is what happens now).
And pressuring other countries (either via ambassadors or other venues) and threatening with sanctions when they come to their own conclusions is yet another thing again.
> Banning corporations from doing that in their own commercial networks is another thing
I'd argue that it depends.
Many of the corporations that would run this type of equipment end up transmitting, storing, or using sensitive and/or secret information (ranging from corporate trade secrets/IP to classified information), or could be open to abuse in other meaningful ways (cell towers recording private phone calls from important people, etc). There's no real limit to the potential abuse.
We only have to look at what the US Govt has done already, and that's with a legal system designed to prevent such a thing, as well as needing voluntary cooperation from independent private companies. Change all that to largely nationalized companies and a legal system which doesn't care... and you can see where it can go.
Ideally the network equipment would never see anything but encrypted traffic. There is no reason why a cell tower should be able to get access to the voice data of a call.
Now of course we all know that the crypto at least in GSM was horribly weak and optional, because that is the way the US and France liked it, whereas countries such as Germany wanted strong crypto, fearing surveillance by then-enemy Russia next door.
EDIT: Anyone know how that is going to be in 5G? I would be surprised if we get decent end to end encryption, but did they at least limit the number of network elements that can access the voice data?
If US government wanted us secure, they'd let us buy Type 1- and TEMPEST-certified gear that is strong enough to stop their pentests with minimal side channels, too. That's Defense-only. The stuff they recommend for rest of us are built on things like Linux which consistently has vulnerabilities, some of which they and foreign hackers use.
I'd consider blocking foreign products that might be insecure if they'd:
(a) Let me buy their secure products for same use cases. The WAN encryptors and Inline, Media Encryptors w/ trusted paths come to mind.
(b) Start recommending, sponsering, and evaluating more high-security systems like they did under TCSEC. Especially covering the costs of the platform with open, permissively-licensed code so others have fewer excuses not to build on it.
Your premise only works if all nations are the same, all goals of all nations are the same, and all nations are all peaceful and allied, no nations ever compete, and there are no military threats ever. That isn't true of course. You'll notice I didn't say anything about one nation being good or evil, rather, it's about the actual reality of the situation: the US and China are going to be strategic competitors indefinitely, not pals, not close allies. The same holds true for the US and Russia. Nothing is going to fundamentally change about that, period. These nations are permanent rivals, so long as their stature is what it is.
China has openly touted that their intention is global dominance (in all regards, including military, economic and technology). They haven't been shy about it for a long time. Given their economic and military scale today, you have to take that very seriously.
The US spends anywhere from 100% to 150% more on its military than what China does. That's mostly a difference in salary expenses in the US vs China. In properly adjusted terms, China is already matching or exceeding the US on military spending right now.[1] What will it look like when their economy is another 50% larger? How are the smaller, weaker nations in Asia going to deal with China if they're already annexing territory the size of France in the region? And then, in theory at least, their military is going to get drastically stronger.
A large amount of future global economic expansion will occur in Asia. So when you combine those two points, again, you have to treat the rise of China as a very serious matter for economic and military security if you're a superpower with outsized global interests as in the case of the US. That also goes for countries all over the globe that deal with China locally, and especially in Asia. Two of the best and most prosperous US allies are Japan and South Korea, who are also two of the world's largest economies. The US has an enormous vested interest in their well-being.
It makes no sense - no matter what you believe about the US or China - to pretend that the US should just treat China like they're another random smaller nation of no concern or special consideration. The exact opposite is the case. The US and China are going to compete at most things and it will split the world in half.
Banning corporations from doing that in their own commercial networks is another thing (and that is what happens now).
And pressuring other countries (either via ambassadors or other venues) and threatening with sanctions when they come to their own conclusions is yet another thing again.