The Secure Space Act of 2025 amends the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 by adding a new Section 10 that forbids the Federal Communications Commission from granting licenses, authorizations, or petitions for U.S. market access for geostationary (GEO) or non‑geostationary (NGSO) satellite systems, or for individual or blanket earth stations, when the license or authorization would be held or controlled by an entity that produces or provides any "covered communications equipment or service" or an affiliate of such an entity. The bill defines blanket‑licensed and individually licensed earth stations and creates a specific definition for "gateway station."
The provision takes effect for grants on or after enactment and forces the FCC to issue implementing rules within one year. For professionals in satellite operations, spectrum coordination, and compliance, the change extends supply‑chain restrictions into space infrastructure and earth‑station authorizations, creating a statutory exclusion that will shape ownership structures, gateway arrangements, and market‑access strategies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new Section 10 into the 2019 Act that bars the FCC from issuing GEO or NGSO system licenses, U.S. market‑access declaratory rulings, or earth‑station authorizations if the licensee or controller is an entity that produces or provides any covered communications equipment or service or an affiliate of that entity. It also defines blanket‑licensed and individually licensed earth stations and introduces a defined "gateway station."
Who It Affects
Satellite operators seeking U.S. market access, companies applying for individually or blanket earth‑station authorizations, gateway station operators, equipment vendors listed as "covered" under the 2019 Act, and any corporate affiliates of those vendors. The FCC and counsel advising ownership and control structures will also be directly affected.
Why It Matters
This extends the supply‑chain exclusion framework from terrestrial networks into space and earth‑station approvals, potentially blocking market access for systems with ties to disallowed vendors and forcing reorganizations, third‑party hosting, or new compliance processes. The one‑year rulemaking deadline gives the FCC a short window to translate a broad statutory ban into implementable licensing tests and procedures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 by adding a new, standalone Section 10. That section prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from granting several kinds of approvals—licenses for GEO or NGSO satellite systems, petitions for declaratory rulings to access the U.S. market, and authorizations for earth stations—where the license or authorization would be held or controlled by an entity that produces or provides any "covered communications equipment or service" or an affiliate of such an entity.
The reference to "covered communications equipment or service" ties this new prohibition to the substance and scope of the 2019 Act.
The text differentiates between types of earth stations: a "blanket‑licensed earth station" is an earth station licensed with a GEO or NGSO system; an "individually licensed earth station" is an earth station (other than a blanket license) that sends and receives signals to and from GEO or NGSO satellites, and the definition explicitly includes "gateway stations." The bill provides a compact, operational definition of "gateway station": an earth station or group of stations that handles routing and switching for a satellite system, may carry telemetry/track/command traffic, does not originate or terminate customer communications traffic, and is not dedicated to a single customer's exclusive use.Applicability is straightforward: the added Section 10 applies to grants of licenses, petitions, or authorizations made on or after the statute's enactment. The bill also directs the FCC to issue rules to implement this prohibition within one year.
Mechanically, the change operates as a statutory bar that the FCC must enforce during its licensing and market‑access review processes; the statute does not itself lay out penalties beyond denial of the covered approvals, but it forces the agency to develop compliance criteria and procedures through rulemaking.Because the bill uses the phrase "held or controlled by," it reaches not only direct owners but entities exercising control—bringing ownership structures, control rights, affiliate relationships, and corporate governance arrangements squarely into the licensing review. The reliance on the affiliate definition in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 ties the scope of excluded parties to existing statutory affiliate tests, making ownership and affiliation analysis central to whether an applicant is eligible for an FCC authorization.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 10 to the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, prohibiting FCC approval of GEO or NGSO system licenses, U.S. market‑access declaratory rulings, and earth‑station authorizations when the licensee or controller produces or provides any "covered communications equipment or service" or is an affiliate.
It defines "gateway station" as station(s) that perform routing and switching for a satellite system, may handle telemetry/track/command, do not originate or terminate customer traffic, and are not exclusively used by any single customer.
The prohibition covers both blanket‑licensed and individually licensed earth stations; an individually licensed earth station expressly includes gateway stations.
Section 10 applies to any grant of a license, petition, or authorization on or after enactment, and the FCC must issue implementing rules within one year.
The bill references the Communications Act's affiliate definition (47 U.S.C. 153) to determine covered affiliates, making standard ownership and control tests pivotal to eligibility.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This two‑line provision sets the act's name as the "Secure Space Act of 2025." It has no substantive legal effect beyond identifying the statute for citation.
Technical renumbering of existing sections
The amendment shifts existing sections 10 and 11 of the 2019 Act to become sections 11 and 12, respectively. This is a housekeeping change to accommodate the insertion of the new Section 10; it preserves the remainder of the 2019 Act while slotting the new prohibition into the statutory sequence.
Substantive prohibition on approvals held or controlled by covered vendors
The core of the bill: the FCC "may not grant" certain approvals—GEO or NGSO system licenses, petitions for declaratory rulings to access the U.S. market, and earth‑station authorizations—where the resulting license or authorization would be held or controlled by an entity that produces or provides any covered communications equipment or service, or an affiliate of that entity. Practically, this converts a supply‑chain exclusion into an absolute statutory bar for a defined set of space and earth‑station authorizations and requires the FCC to screen applicants for vendor ties and affiliate status during licensure and market‑access reviews.
Definitions for earth‑station categories and gateway stations
The statute defines 'blanket‑licensed earth station' as an earth station licensed with a GEO or NGSO system; 'individually licensed earth station' as any earth station other than a blanket license that transmits to and receives from GEO or NGSO systems and explicitly includes gateway stations; and 'gateway station' as an earth station or group of stations that perform routing/switching, may carry telemetry/track/command, do not originate or terminate customer communications, and are not exclusively used by any customer. Those definitions narrow the scope of affected infrastructure and flag gateway operators as subject to the prohibition when they are held or controlled by covered vendors or affiliates.
Temporal scope of the prohibition
The new Section 10 applies to grants of licenses, petitions, or authorizations issued on or after the statute's enactment date. That means existing, previously granted authorizations are not retroactively nullified by this text; the statute is forward‑looking for FCC actions taken after enactment.
FCC rulemaking deadline
The FCC must issue rules to implement the new Section 10 within one year of enactment. The agency will therefore define how it determines whether a license or authorization would be "held or controlled" by a covered entity, how to apply the affiliate test, what evidence applicants must submit, and any procedures for waivers or mitigation—unless the FCC concludes none are permitted under the statutory text.
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
- FCC and regulatory staff — the statute provides a clear, congressionally mandated standard to block approvals tied to covered vendors, simplifying policy arguments and creating a statutory tool the agency can apply during licensing and market‑access reviews.
- Satellite and earth‑station operators that use non‑covered suppliers — they gain a competitive edge in U.S. licensing and market access because operators tied to covered vendors or affiliates are statutorily ineligible for the same approvals.
- Suppliers and integrators on vetted lists under the 2019 Act — vendors not categorized as "covered" will see reduced competition in certain U.S. market segments as the statute constrains bidders with disallowed supply‑chain links.
- Organizations providing neutral third‑party gateway services that have clean supplier chains — these providers can position themselves as compliant hosts for operators that need to avoid direct ownership or control by covered vendors.
Who Bears the Cost
- Satellite system operators and applicants with ownership or control links to 'covered' equipment or services — they face outright denial of FCC licensing, market‑access rulings, or earth‑station authorizations unless they alter ownership or control structures.
- Affiliates of covered vendors (including complex corporate groups) — the affiliate reference reaches entities beyond direct manufacturers, potentially forcing reorganizations, divestitures, or new contractual arrangements to qualify for approvals.
- Gateway station providers that are owned or controlled by covered vendors — because gateway stations are explicitly included within the definition of individually licensed earth stations, those neutral infrastructure providers risk being excluded from participating in U.S. services.
- The FCC — the agency must conduct a rulemaking and then adjudicate potentially complex ownership and control claims, increasing administrative workload and legal review costs to implement the ban.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting U.S. networks by excluding vendors with risky supply‑chain ties versus preserving open market access and flexible ownership structures for satellite operators and neutral infrastructure providers; a broad statutory ban reduces one risk but can also block legitimate operators and essential gateway services unless the FCC calibrates ownership and control tests carefully.
The statute's operative phrase "held or controlled by" is concise but legally imprecise in mixed‑ownership and contractual control scenarios. Implementation will require the FCC to adapt existing ownership and affiliation tests or craft new ones specific to space systems and gateway arrangements.
Because the bill references the Communications Act affiliate definition, assessing reach into multi‑tiered corporate groups, joint ventures, and management contracts will be central to whether an applicant is barred. The one‑year rulemaking timeline compresses the agency's window to develop clear application requirements, evidence standards, and potential mitigation or waiver processes.
Another implementation challenge is the gateway‑station definition. The bill includes gateway stations within individually licensed earth stations and describes them as not originating or terminating customer traffic.
Many real‑world gateway designs blur that line—gateways may handle control and telemetry yet also be used for customer connectivity under certain contracts. That ambiguity creates a risk that neutral infrastructure will be unintentionally swept up, disincentivizing third‑party gateway deployment or triggering complex contractual rewrites to demonstrate non‑control by covered vendors.
Finally, because the statute ties exclusion to the term "covered communications equipment or service" as defined by the 2019 Act, the list and criteria from that Act will materially determine the scope of exclusions; any gaps or updates in the 2019 Act's covered list directly affect which satellite applicants are barred.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.