FCC Chair Gets Veto Power Over New Communications Security Council: Who Gets Left Out?

The Communications Security Act is setting up a new advisory council focused on keeping our phone and internet networks secure, reliable, and interoperable. Think of it as a dedicated task force advising the FCC on how to prevent the next major network outage or cyber threat. Within 90 days of this Act passing, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has to either create a brand-new body or designate an existing one to become the Council on communications security, reliability, and interoperability (SEC. 2).

The Security Council’s Mandate and Makeup

This new Council is required to include representatives from the communications industry, public interest groups, academia, and government (Federal, State, local, and Tribal). This mix is meant to ensure all stakeholders have a seat at the table when discussing critical infrastructure. The Council members will serve two-year terms and must produce public reports every two years with recommendations on strengthening our digital infrastructure. The FCC is required to post these reports publicly, which is a win for transparency, giving the public a look at the high-level security advice the FCC is receiving.

The 'Not Trusted' Clause: A Gatekeeper with Broad Power

Here’s where the bill takes a sharp turn: the FCC Chair is the sole person who appoints all members, and they hold the power to exclude any organization or institution deemed “not trusted.” This designation applies if the Chair publicly decides an entity is owned by, controlled by, or influenced by a foreign adversary, or simply poses a threat to U.S. national security (SEC. 2, Defining Key Terms). While the security goal is understandable, this grants the FCC Chair significant, unilateral authority to decide who gets to advise the government on critical communications policy.

Real-World Stakes for Industry Players

For businesses and organizations, this "not trusted" clause is a huge deal. If you run a major communications company or a public interest group that relies on international partnerships or funding, the FCC Chair could potentially use this subjective power to block you from having a voice on the Council—even if you have crucial technical expertise. The bill explicitly states that industry and public/academic representatives can only be appointed if the Chair doesn’t deem them "not trusted." This means the Chair can effectively shape the Council’s composition to exclude voices they find inconvenient, potentially limiting the diversity of technical and policy perspectives being brought forward. While the Chair must use specific criteria from the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 when making a threat determination, the initial decision to label an entity as a national security threat still rests entirely with one person.

In short, the Communications Security Act creates a crucial advisory body aimed at securing our digital lives, which is a clear benefit. However, it also concentrates serious gatekeeping power in the hands of the FCC Chair, allowing them to unilaterally decide which industry players and public advocates are trustworthy enough to help shape the future of U.S. communications security.