In an era where information is power, transparency remains the bedrock of competition and consumer sovereignty. The premise is simple. When equipped with accurate and accessible information, consumers can make informed decisions that align with their values and needs. From product reviews and price comparisons to ethical ratings, transparency tools empower us daily.
Country of Origin Labels on grocery produce exemplify this principle, giving shoppers clarity about where their food comes from. Why isn’t the same standard applied to information technology products and services — especially when authoritarian governments may be behind them?
The Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency (FACT) Act, a bipartisan proposal in Congress, aims to fix this glaring oversight. It’s a no-brainer for national security and consumer empowerment.
The need for transparency in tech is urgent. Consider the federal government’s existing measures: the National Defense Authorization Act includes Section 1260H, which maintains a “no-buy†list of companies tied to adversarial nations. States like Georgia and Florida have gone further, banning procurement from rogue nations. Yet, these restrictions apply only to government purchases.
Everyday consumers are left in the dark. Manufacturers aren’t required to disclose ties to foreign adversaries, and retailers — positioning themselves as mere intermediaries — lack the incentive or resources to investigate product origins. How is the typical American supposed to know if a security camera on the shelf is linked to a hostile government? The short answer: they can’t — unless the government steps in.
Communications equipment is a particularly critical category. These devices connect to networks, collect and store sensitive personal data, and link to clouds and services across the United States and beyond — including China. You might spot an FCC sticker on such a device, signaling it’s authorized for network use. However, the FCC also maintains a “covered list†of manufacturers barred from authorizations due to national security risks — a list bolstered by unanimous congressional action in recent years.
Still, gaps remain. Even after Huawei was banned in 2018 for actions threatening U.S. security, it secured 3,000 FCC authorizations by 2022. The FACT Act and a House companion bill seek to close these loopholes by mandating public disclosure of entities with FCC licenses or authorizations tied to adversarial governments, including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Until now, no law has required public identification of companies linked to foreign adversaries operating in the U.S. tech and telecom markets. The FCC can deny licenses posing security threats, but some entities with ties to hostile regimes still hold approvals. Their products land on store shelves with no warning labels.
Consumers deserve better. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., notes, “Authoritarian regimes like China and Russia are actively working to undermine the security of our domestic communications.†Her bill equips the FCC to assess risks from foreign ties, enhancing our response to network infrastructure threats. Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., echoes this urgency: “Securing our telecommunications systems is crucial for our country’s national security. The FACT Act is a critical step to promote transparency and boost the FCC’s ability to detect risks posed by our adversaries.â€
The stakes are high. Take Hikvision and Dahua, video surveillance providers implicated in China’s oppression of Uyghur Muslims. With help from former FCC lawyers-turned-private-advocates, these companies convinced courts that their technologies — used for systematic human rights abuses — were safe for American homes, schools and offices. Even after Congress acted swiftly to address such threats, some covered entities have dodged accountability through legal challenges. The FACT Act counters this by ensuring transparency isn’t optional. Consumers can’t protect themselves from buying equipment tied to malign actors if they don’t have the information. This legislation fixes that.
Beyond security, the FACT Act reinforces a broader principle: process matters. In an era of deregulation — championed by efforts like the Department of Government Efficiency — laws and policies must still follow the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal agencies, including the FCC, have overstepped before. For two decades, the FCC pushed net neutrality rules, imposing telephony-era obligations on broadband providers without congressional approval — a move the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals deemed unauthorized. The FACT Act, by contrast, is a lawful, bipartisan solution to a real problem, not bureaucratic overreach.
Congress deserves applause for this effort. By requiring the FCC to publicly identify entities linked to adversarial governments, the FACT Act empowers consumers and bolsters national security. It’s not about stifling innovation or burdening businesses — it’s about giving Americans the tools to make informed choices.
In a world where technology shapes our lives and threats lurk in the supply chain, transparency isn’t just a luxury; it’s a necessity. The FACT Act delivers it.
