it's called innocent until prove guilty for a reason, it's the system working as intended.
And the US have exploited it too and are still doing it.
As an example, read the transcript of Victoria Nuland conversation about the future of Ukraine during the time President was someone NATO disliked for not being anti Russian enough.
Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, *Fuck the EU*.
Did Nuland pay for saying it? Of course not. On the contrary, she was awesomely compensated for her work.
That principle applies to laws, in order to minimize the chance of abuse when investigating criminal and civil charges.
This is not the same. This is about national security, and specifically enforcing national security policies. You do not need presumption of innocence to determine if you should embargo a country, expell a diplomat, and ban a suspicious supplier from your critical infrastructure.
Are you saying that US decision makers are the ones to blame here?
> and ban a suspicious supplier from your critical infrastructure.
I don't think China controls through tik tok what country the US should or should not embargo...