The Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025 allows state and federal correctional facilities to use jamming systems to prevent unauthorized wireless communications within their facilities, under certain restrictions and guidelines.
David Kustoff
Representative
TN-8
The "Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025" allows state and federal correctional facilities to use jamming systems to prevent unauthorized wireless communications within their facilities. These systems must be confined to the housing areas of the facility, and the state is responsible for all associated costs. Before implementation, correctional facilities must consult with local law enforcement and notify the Bureau of Prisons.
This legislation, the "Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2025," proposes a significant shift in how wireless communication is managed within correctional facilities. At its core, the bill would give state and federal prisons, jails, and similar facilities the green light to install and operate "jamming systems." The explicit goal, according to Section 2, is to block wireless signals – think cell phones, potentially other devices – being used illicitly by inmates or linked to contraband within the facility.
Under this proposal, correctional facilities could deploy technology designed specifically to disrupt wireless communications. However, Section 2 states this jamming power is meant to be geographically limited, restricted primarily to the "housing facilities" within the prison walls. Before flipping the switch, facilities would need to consult with local law enforcement and public safety officials. They'd also have to notify the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. If a state-run facility sets up a system, the state picks up the entire tab for installation and operation.
The intended outcome is clear: cut off unauthorized communication used for criminal activities inside prisons. However, the practical effects could ripple outwards. While aimed at contraband devices, the bill raises questions about potential interference with legitimate communications. Family members or legal counsel trying to reach inmates might find their calls blocked if systems aren't perfectly contained. Section 2 also requires consultation but doesn't specify outcomes, and the term "contraband devices" isn't narrowly defined, leaving room for interpretation. There's also the potential, though the bill restricts jamming to housing areas, for signal disruption to affect nearby neighborhoods or emergency communications if not implemented precisely.
A key provision in Section 2 explicitly limits the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) authority over these specific jamming systems within correctional facilities. Typically, the FCC regulates the airwaves tightly to prevent interference. This bill carves out an exception, potentially reducing federal oversight on how these systems are deployed and managed. While proponents might argue this streamlines security measures, it also raises concerns about accountability and ensuring the technology is used responsibly, without unduly restricting necessary communication or causing unintended external interference. The balance between enhancing security and safeguarding communication rights, alongside technical precision, will be critical if this moves forward.