Hm, I think you and I mean a different thing by 'national security'. I think of, like, spying, or trying to insert malicious vulnerabilities in software (attack), etc.
Like maybe if Huawei were accused of being used by the Chinese government to spy on America, it would make sense to require a license to sell tech to Huawei. (I have sometimes seen it accused of such; I have no idea how credible such accusations are; but this is an example of what 'national security' means to me, particularly in regard to requiring licenses to do business with a particular company).
You seem to be talking about whether TSMC gets a federal subsidy or not to open a factory or not as 'national security'. I mean, I get how the general economic environment has 'national secuirty' implications; how the future access to semiconductor market has 'national security' implications. But if that's "national security" it seems like the entire economy is "national security", and "national security" doesn't actually mean anything. Especially when Huawei is being penalized for concerns about a different company?
With that understanding of national security, is there any aspect of international trade negotiations that isn't "national security", or any international trade measure that can't be said to be "justified by national security"? Do you have an example of any international trade measure (a tariff, an embargo, a subsidy, a penalty, a ban, any method of one nation trying to get an economic/trade advantage over another) that you do not think would be "national security" related under this understanding? Is there such a thing?
Among other things, it's another reminder that the era of legal-norms-based international trade has been brought to an end...