Before reading anything into this, sort what is known from what is guessed. The reporting says a board is preparing to remove a CEO after reports of affairs. That is a private-conduct story that became a corporate-risk story because one of the people involved is alleged to be a Chinese spy. The ordinary reading is the likely one: a board with no succession plan, a founder with enormous leverage, and a scandal that arrived in two parts. Nothing supplied shows a coordinated plan by anyone.
The political angle needs the same care. Yahoo's headline says Trump's ties to Huang are in the spotlight, and Axios says Lutnick stalled chip curbs. Those are headlines. Having a relationship with a chief executive, or being asked about one, is not a position on an investigation into him, and a shouted-question answer is a remark, not a policy. I will not read a signal into any of it until someone on the record says something.
One more plain point. Huang's own admission of the first affair, per the Journal, is a person choosing to say it before it was published. That may be damage control, habit or counsel. I would say damage control is my reading, not a fact.