This bill directs the Federal Communications Commission to establish a Task Force to study sixth-generation wireless technology. Not later than 120 days after enactment, the FCC must form the 6G Task Force.
The group will include representatives from industry, public-interest groups or academia, and governments at federal, state, local, and tribal levels, with membership subject to the Chair’s determinations of who is “not trusted.” Within one year, the Task Force must publish a detailed report on the status of industry-led standards bodies, potential uses identified by those bodies, limitations (including supply chain and cybersecurity), and how to coordinate across government to leverage 6G, with a draft due in 180 days and a public comment process for the final version.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates the 6G Task Force within the FCC, defines who can sit on it, and requires a comprehensive report on 6G standards, uses, and limitations. It also sets a public-comment process and publication requirements.
Who It Affects
The FCC, participating industry players, public-interest groups, academic institutions, and federal, state, local, and tribal governments that will coordinate around siting, deployment, and adoption of 6G technology.
Why It Matters
It establishes a formal mechanism to shape 6G standards with cross-sector input while embedding national-security checks through the ‘not trusted’ determinations and a transparent standard-setting process.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Future Uses of Technology Upholding Reliable and Enhanced Networks Act requires the FCC to create a 6G Task Force within roughly four months of enactment. This task force will be formed through appointments by the Chair and must include three broad categories of participants: industry representatives in the communications sector (subject to the Chair’s public determinations of who is ‘not trusted’), representatives from public-interest groups or academic institutions (also subject to trust determinations), and representatives from federal, state, local, and Tribal governments, with at least one member from each government level.
The purpose of the Task Force is to study sixth-generation wireless technology—its current standards development, possible uses, and any limitations such as supply chain or cybersecurity concerns—and to determine how to collaborate across government to support deployment and adoption.
A key process requirement is that, within one year, the Task Force must publish a report in the Federal Register and on the FCC website, and submit it to the relevant congressional committees. The report should cover the status of industry-led standards bodies, potential uses identified by those bodies, and any limitations those bodies identify.
It should also describe how to work with federal, state, local, and Tribal governments to leverage 6G technology, including siting, deployment, and adoption. A draft version of the report must be released within 180 days, and public comments on the draft must be considered before finalizing the report.
The bill also defines “not trusted” with criteria drawn from a prior security-focused law, tying determinations to concerns about foreign influence and national security, and it clarifies terminology for the Commission and the Chair.Overall, the act creates a structured, security-conscious pathway for assessing 6G technology through a formal task force that blends industry insight with public-interest, academic, and government perspectives, while maintaining guardrails to limit undesired influence from entities deemed risks to national security.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the FCC to establish the 6G Task Force within 120 days of enactment.
Task Force composition includes industry reps, public-interest or academic reps, and government officials, with entries deemed not trusted excluded by the Chair.
The Task Force must deliver a comprehensive 6G report within 1 year, covering standards, uses, limitations, and cross-government coordination.
A draft of the report is due within 180 days, with a public comment period before finalization.
Definitions of 'not trusted' reference the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 and apply to determine eligible participants.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section provides the act’s official citation as the FUTURE Networks Act (Future Uses of Technology Upholding Reliable and Enhanced Networks Act). It sets the formal name used in all references and documentation.
Establishment of the 6G Task Force
Not later than 120 days after enactment, the FCC must establish the 6G Task Force. This creates a dedicated, time-bound forum within the Commission to analyze and coordinate 6G-related standards, uses, and deployment considerations.
Membership and ‘Not Trusted’ criteria
The Task Force’s membership is appointed by the Chair and should include industry representatives, public-interest or academic representatives, and government officials at federal, state, local, and Tribal levels, with at least one member from each government category. The Chair can determine which entities are not trusted and thus ineligible to participate, ensuring security- and sovereignty-conscious participation.
Reporting requirements
The Task Force must produce a report on sixth-generation wireless technology within one year of establishment, addressing the status of industry-led standards bodies, possible uses identified by those bodies, any limitations including supply chain and cybersecurity concerns, and how to coordinate across federal, state, local, and Tribal governments. A draft report is due within 180 days, and public comments must be considered in the final version.
Definitions
This section defines key terms: Chair (the FCC Chair), Commission (the FCC), Not Trusted (criteria based on foreign influence or other national-security concerns, using criteria from the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019), State (as defined in the Communications Act), and Task Force (the established 6G Task Force).
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
- Trusted industry representatives gain a formal, structured voice in shaping 6G standards and expectations for deployment.
- Public-interest groups and academic institutions gain access to a formal platform to scrutinize and influence 6G standards and their security implications.
- Federal, state, local, and Tribal governments gain a coordinated channel for discussing siting, deployment, and adoption of 6G technology across jurisdictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Entities labeled as not trusted are excluded from participation, potentially losing influence and access to the standards process.
- Industry participants and participating public-interest groups commit time and resources to Task Force meetings, drafting inputs, and responding to public comments.
- The FCC bears administrative costs to establish the Task Force, manage appointments, and oversee the drafting, publication, and public-comment process for the final report.
- State, local, and Tribal governments incur coordination costs to participate in the Task Force activities and provide information as needed.
- Academic institutions and public-interest organizations may experience opportunity costs from dedicating time to Task Force work instead of other activities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing broad, cross-sector input on 6G standards with strict national-security screening—ensuring inclusive governance without diluting security controls.
The bill’s structure relies on a broad but security-conscious approach to 6G governance. While the inclusion of industry, public-interest groups, and government representatives aims to ensure comprehensive input, the explicit authority to deem entities 'not trusted' empowers the Chair to exclude participants.
That gatekeeping could shape who influences 6G standards, raising concerns about representativeness and possible politicization of technical decisions. The draft report and public-comment process help introduce transparency, but the speed of forming the Task Force (within 120 days) and the one-year reporting deadline may pressure the group to balance thorough scrutiny with timely completion.
Unresolved questions include how the Chair will apply the 'not trusted' criteria, what processes will govern trust determinations, and how the Task Force will reconcile potentially divergent interests among industry, public-interest groups, and various levels of government. Additionally, tying the definitions to an existing security act raises questions about how evolving national-security concerns will be addressed in a fast-moving technology landscape, and how siting and deployment considerations will interact with evolving standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.