The bill requires the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, to deliver to specified congressional committees a report—within one year of enactment—assessing the value, cost, and feasibility of a trans‑Atlantic submarine fiber‑optic cable that would connect the contiguous United States, the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), Ghana, and Nigeria. The statutory assessment must examine security, economic opportunities, existing USVI cable lifespans and readiness, options to engage "trusted" partners, and the prospect of building a secured data center/high‑security cloud facility in the USVI for U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and other national security communications.
The report must be submitted in unclassified form (with an optional classified annex) and may not compel any entity to provide information. The bill borrows the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019's definition framework for “trusted” versus “not trusted,” tying the study to existing national‑security standards.
For practitioners, the measure is a diagnostic step — it does not itself fund construction — but it sets the analytical scope and legal framing that would guide any future policy, procurement, or investment choices around U.S.–Africa connectivity and secure communications infrastructure in the Caribbean and Atlantic basin.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Commerce Department to produce a report, within one year, assessing the value, cost, and feasibility of a new trans‑Atlantic subsea fiber connection linking the contiguous U.S., the U.S. Virgin Islands, Ghana, and Nigeria. The report must analyze security, economic opportunities, infrastructure readiness (including USVI cable lifespans), the potential for a secure USVI data center to support AFRICOM and SOCOM, and options for partnering with "trusted" entities.
Who It Affects
Telecommunications carriers and subsea cable consortia with interests in Atlantic and Caribbean routes, infrastructure investors considering new landing stations or data centers, the USVI government and utilities, DoD components that rely on undersea connectivity (notably U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Special Operations Command), and the governments and regulators of Ghana and Nigeria.
Why It Matters
The report frames how federal agencies and Congress will evaluate strategic undersea connectivity between the U.S. and West Africa, including security criteria and commercial feasibility. Its findings could shape later funding decisions, export controls or restrictions on vendors, and the allocation of public‑private risk for resilient, high‑security communications and data‑hosting in the Caribbean and Atlantic.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute creates a focused, time‑boxed study task for Commerce: assemble relevant federal expertise, consult other agencies as needed, and deliver a single report to key congressional committees within twelve months. Because the bill lists granular assessment topics—from cable lifespans to the viability of an independent‑power data center in the USVI—it functions as a blueprint for what officials must analyze rather than a funding authorization or construction mandate.
Practically, Commerce will need to pull technical, economic, and security analysis together. That means combining submarine cable engineering estimates (route options, capacity, redundancy), cost modeling (build, maintenance, landing‑site upgrades), and regulatory reviews (permitting, landing rights, environmental reviews).
The bill contemplates cross‑agency input—likely involving Defense, State, Treasury, FCC, and NOAA—because the questions span national security, foreign relations, export/control risks, spectrum and landing coordination, and environmental permitting.Two statutory constraints will shape the study's evidentiary base. First, the Secretary may not compel data from private or foreign entities, so the assessment will largely depend on voluntary cooperation, public data, and open‑source analysis.
Second, the bill insists the public report be unclassified, with only an optional classified annex, so congressional oversight will be paired with limited public transparency about sensitive tradeoffs. Finally, by importing the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act's standard for “not trusted” entities, the bill signals that vendor trustworthiness and supply‑chain risk are central to any future decision about who might build or operate elements of the system.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of Commerce must submit the assessment to House Energy and Commerce and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation within one year of enactment.
The report must evaluate the lifespan and current security of submarine cables linking the USVI to the contiguous United States and the USVI’s readiness to support a trans‑Atlantic route.
One statutory element is a feasibility and cost analysis for a secure data center and high‑security cloud facility in the USVI with independent power to support AFRICOM, SOCOM, and national security communications.
The Secretary may not require any entity to provide data for the assessment, meaning the study will rely on voluntary cooperation, public sources, and agency analyses.
The bill adopts the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act definition framework to distinguish “trusted” versus “not trusted” entities for purposes of evaluating partnerships and vendors.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Report requirement and deadline
This subsection creates the primary duty: Commerce must deliver a report within one year to two congressional committees assessing the value, cost, and feasibility of the specific trans‑Atlantic cable route connecting the contiguous U.S., the USVI, Ghana, and Nigeria. Because the duty is to report, not to act, this provision confines the statute's immediate legal effect to information‑gathering and analysis rather than procurement or construction authority.
Security, economic opportunities, and infrastructure readiness analysis
These paragraphs require Commerce to assess digital and national‑security risks and economic opportunities associated with the route, plus the technical readiness of USVI telecommunications to support increased traffic. For implementers, that means producing risk matrices on threats to cable integrity, analyzing market demand and investment returns, and auditing whether existing USVI infrastructure (landing stations, power, fiber backhaul) can accept a new trans‑Atlantic landing without major upgrades.
Data center and secure cloud feasibility in the USVI
The statute explicitly asks for analysis of establishing a high‑security data center in the USVI—with independent power—to host AFRICOM, SOCOM, and other national security communications. The practical import is dual: technical feasibility (power, cooling, redundancy, regulatory compliance) and strategic impact (proximity to subsea routes and potential to offload classified or sensitive traffic). The report must weigh cost, site security, and how such a facility fits into DoD and interagency architectures.
Information collection limits and report classification
Subsection (c) bars Commerce from mandating data submissions, which limits coercive data collection and pushes the agency toward voluntary engagement, surveys, and open sources. Subsection (d) requires the public report be unclassified (with an optional classified annex), balancing congressional transparency with the ability to protect sensitive technical or national‑security details in closed form.
Definitions and trust framework
The bill defines “trusted” and “not trusted” entities by reference to section 2(c) of the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, and it earmarks the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information as the responsible official. That linkage directs Commerce to evaluate potential partners and vendors under an existing national‑security screening framework and signals that supply‑chain and vendor risk assessments will be integral to the final recommendations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Technology across all five countries.
Explore Technology in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. Department of Defense components (AFRICOM and SOCOM): a secure, proximate cable and a USVI data center could reduce latency, improve resiliency for theater communications, and provide a geographically advantageous hosting site for mission‑critical services.
- US Virgin Islands government and local economy: improved cable connectivity and a new data center project could attract investment, create construction and operations jobs, and upgrade local telecommunications infrastructure and redundancy.
- Telecommunications infrastructure investors and subsea cable operators: if the assessment shows commercial viability, private consortia gain a new route opportunity and potential landing‑site upgrades; the report also clarifies security criteria investors must meet.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Commerce and participating federal agencies: preparing a technically rigorous, interagency report within one year will require staff time, contractor support, and coordination costs without a dedicated appropriation in the bill.
- Private cable operators and potential data center developers: although the bill does not appropriate construction funds, developers face costs for feasibility studies, permitting, and potential security requirements if they wish to be deemed “trusted” partners.
- US Virgin Islands utilities and regulators: the territory will likely absorb planning, permitting, and infrastructure upgrade tasks (power, land use, backhaul) to host a landing station or data center, potentially requiring capital investment or concessions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing national‑security control and vendor trustworthiness against commercial reality and partner cooperation: securing a trans‑Atlantic route (and a fortified USVI data center) demands strict trust standards and possibly government involvement, but private capital, multinational operators, and partner‑country consent are essential to build, operate, and finance subsea infrastructure—and those commercial actors may not meet the bill’s security criteria or may demand terms that complicate U.S. strategic objectives.
The statute sets an analytical agenda but leaves several consequential implementation variables open. First, because the Secretary cannot compel data, the report risks gaps where private operators or foreign partners decline to cooperate; missing proprietary engineering or cost data will weaken any firm cost estimate and could bias conclusions toward conservative assumptions.
Second, the bill ties vendor evaluation to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act’s criteria, which injects an inherently national‑security driven lens into what would otherwise be a commercial feasibility study; that approach may exclude potential private investors or vendors with significant regional footprints but disputed trust status.
Third, the provision for a high‑security USVI data center raises classic tradeoffs: co‑locating national security services near commercial routes improves latency and control but concentrates critical assets in a geographically limited and disaster‑prone location (hurricanes, grid vulnerability). Environmental and international permitting are other practical constraints—undersea routes crossing multiple jurisdictions, requirements for landing rights in Ghana and Nigeria, and U.S. federal and territorial permitting regimes will shape timelines and costs.
Finally, the bill does not appropriate funds or create procurement authority; if the report recommends federal support, Congress and agencies would face a separate set of political and budgetary decisions about financing structure, liability sharing, and operational control.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.