In a unanimous vote Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission advanced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish a formal process for identifying communications license holders under the control of foreign adversaries. The move is part of a broader push by the Commission to enhance national security protections across U.S. networks and infrastructure.
The proposal outlines a framework for collecting and certifying information on whether regulated entities are owned by, or subject to influence from, governments designated as adversarial to the United States. If adopted, the process would apply both retroactively and on an ongoing basis.
The FCC is now seeking public comment on how best to gather and maintain a comprehensive list of licensees and authorization holders with ownership, jurisdiction, or operational ties to such entities. Although the agency currently collects some foreign ownership data, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said the system lacks uniformity and overlooks several potential vectors of foreign control.
“For our national security strategy to succeed, we must identify risks before they can be exploited,” Carr said. “The FCC does not have a uniform approach for identifying foreign adversaries that may hold an interest in an FCC license or authorization. Nor has our approach taken into account the various ways that foreign adversaries can exercise control.”
Carr described the action as “quick and early” and pointed to bipartisan legislation in both chambers of Congress that would support a more transparent regulatory framework. He also reiterated his long-standing call for the FCC to publish a list of all entities with concerning ties to foreign adversaries.
“This item was an agency-wide effort engaging staff from seven bureaus and four offices,” Carr noted, saying the NPRM will bring “sunlight” to the Commission’s oversight of national security threats. The proceeding will weigh legal, technical, and operational considerations, with input expected from stakeholders across the communications and policy landscape.
