The NETWORKS Act would authorize the President to use authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to block significant transactions involving foreign telecommunications companies that produce fifth-generation or future-generation technology and that act in ways contrary to United States national security interests. It targets entities deemed to engage in economic or industrial espionage against U.S. persons and gives a 90-day clock after enactment for implementing the sanctions regime.
The bill also carves out humanitarian exemptions and provides a waiver mechanism, along with penalties for violations, and includes a defined framework for what counts as an “untrusted telecommunications vendor.” This framework signals a move toward more assertive use of economic statecraft to secure critical communications networks.
From a compliance and risk-management perspective, the NETWORKS Act requires screening of foreign-affiliated entities in the telecom supply chain and clear criteria for designation. It also lays out the operational boundaries—what trades are blocked, what humanitarian exceptions apply, and how waivers can be used—so practitioners can map potential exposure and adjust vendor management accordingly.
At a Glance
What It Does
The President must use IEEPA authorities beginning 90 days after enactment to block and prohibit significant transactions in property of a foreign person described in the bill if those assets are in, come within, or are controlled by United States persons.
Who It Affects
Foreign persons that produce fifth or future-generation telecom technology and conduct business contrary to U.S. security interests, and United States persons and entities that interact with such entities.
Why It Matters
Establishes a formal mechanism to deter economic espionage in next-gen telecom tech, protect critical infrastructure, and align U.S. policy with security objectives around supply-chain risk and national security.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The NETWORKS Act creates a sanctions regime tied to foreign telecommunications companies involved in economic or industrial espionage against U.S. persons. Under IEEPA, the President would be empowered to block significant transactions in property of a designated foreign person within the United States or under U.S. control, 90 days after enactment.
A foreign person is designated if they produce fifth- or future-generation telecommunications technology and conduct business in a way that the President determines threatens U.S. national security interests.
The bill includes important carve-outs: routine intelligence activities under the National Security Act and humanitarian transactions remain exempt from sanctions. It also provides a renewable waiver up to 90 days if continued sanctions are vital to national security.
Implementation would rely on existing IEEPA authorities, with penalties set to levels established by the statute, and it builds on a definition of an “untrusted telecommunications vendor” drawn from prior law. Section 3 lays out the mechanics of designation, sanctions, exceptions, and enforcement, while Section 2 frames a policy rationale for securing networks through economic tools.For compliance professionals, the NETWORKS Act translates into concrete actions: screen counterparties for involvement in restricted tech, assess supply-chain risk, and prepare for potential asset freezes or prohibitions on transactions.
The policy is designed to push firms toward more secure vendor ecosystems and to align corporate risk management with national security objectives, without removing humanitarian supply channels or intelligence activities that are already regulated.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes the President to block significant property transactions of designated foreign 5G tech producers under IEEPA, starting 90 days after enactment.
A foreign person is designated only if they both produce fifth- or future-generation telecom tech and act contrary to U.S. security interests.
Humanitarian exemptions apply to food, medicine, medical devices, humanitarian aid, and related transactions.
The President may grant renewable 90-day waivers if vital to U.S. national security; penalties follow IEEPA’s framework.
A key construction excludes participation in standards-setting bodies and existing third/fourth-generation networks from sanctions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This Act may be cited as the NETWORKS Act. The short title identifies the bill and frames its purpose as countering threats from foreign wireless OEMs through sanctions and related measures.
Sense of Congress
The Sense of Congress emphasizes that secure telecommunications networks are critical to national security, expresses concern about untrusted vendors (notably from the People’s Republic of China), and urges use of economic statecraft to promote secure networks among the United States and its allies.
Presidential sanctions authority
Beginning 90 days after enactment, the President would exercise IEEPA powers to block and prohibit all significant transactions in property of a foreign person described in subsection (b) if the property is in the United States, passes through the United States, or is controlled by a United States person.
Foreign persons described
A foreign person is described if they produce fifth- or future-generation telecommunications technology and conduct business related to that technology in a manner contrary to the United States’ national security interests.
Exceptions and humanitarian carve-outs
Sanctions do not apply to intelligence activities covered by the National Security Act or authorized intelligence activities, and humanitarian transactions (including food, medicine, medical devices, humanitarian aid, and related financial transactions and transport) are exempt.
Waiver
The President may waive sanctions for renewable periods not exceeding 90 days if the waiver is vital to national security, with reporting to Congress.
Implementation and penalties
Implementation relies on IEEPA authorities (sections 203 and 205); violations trigger penalties under section 206 in the same way as other unlawful acts under IEEPA.
Definitions and rule of construction
Key terms include ‘fifth or future generation telecommunications technology,’ ‘foreign person,’ ‘untrusted telecommunications vendor,’ and ‘United States person.’ The rule of construction clarifies that certain activities, such as participation in standards-setting or existing non-next-gen networks, are not within the sanctions.
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. national security and intelligence communities benefit from reduced espionage risk and easier network protection planning.
- Critical U.S. infrastructure operators and telecommunications carriers gain a safer operating environment and clearer risk controls.
- U.S.-based security technology firms and vendors can see growth opportunities as the market shifts toward secure supply chains.
- U.S. allies and partner telecom operators align with U.S. standards for secure networks.
Who Bears the Cost
- Targeted foreign 5G/6G technology producers face market access restrictions and asset freezes.
- U.S. financial institutions and other entities involved in blocked transactions bear compliance and operational costs.
- U.S. telecom carriers and supply chains may incur transition costs to diversify away from restricted foreign vendors.
- U.S. government agencies incur administrative and enforcement burdens in implementing and monitoring the sanctions regime.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is balancing aggressive risk reduction from potentially hostile foreign tech with the risk of throttling legitimate trade and innovation, while ensuring humanitarian needs are met and standards-setting activity is not hampered.
The reconciliation between security aims and practical implementation creates policy tensions: humanitarian exemptions limit the reach of the sanctions in critical humanitarian contexts, while the definition of “untrusted vendor” relies on existing frameworks that may lag behind rapidly evolving technology markets. The law raises questions about the breadth of “significant transactions” and how to assess national security risk in a fast-changing tech landscape, including the potential for overbreadth or circumvention through neutral intermediaries.
Additionally, the interplay with allied procurement, export controls, and international trade rules will need careful coordination as the regime takes shape in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.