This bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to create and publish a publicly accessible list of entities that hold FCC-issued authorizations, licenses, or other grants of authority and that have specified foreign ownership or control ties to countries listed as ‘‘covered countries.’’ It sets a statutory definition of the covered entity concept and makes room for national security agency determinations of control to trigger inclusion on the list. The provision applies immediately to certain classes of licenses and directs a later rulemaking to capture other authorizations.
For communications counsel, compliance officers, and national-security practitioners, the measure centralizes visibility into who operating under FCC authority has connections to designated foreign adversaries. That visibility creates potential reputational and commercial consequences for listed entities and generates new disclosure and administrative work for the FCC and affected licensees.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the FCC to publish a list of FCC-authorized entities that have ownership or control links to ‘covered countries’ and to adopt rules to identify additional authorizations that should be listed. It exempts the required information collection from the Paperwork Reduction Act and mandates at least annual updates.
Who It Affects
Current and prospective holders of FCC licenses and authorizations (including auctioned spectrum and submarine cable landing licenses), entities organized under laws of covered countries and their subsidiaries, and national security agencies that may make control determinations.
Why It Matters
The measure creates a single authoritative public registry tying FCC authorization to certain foreign ownership or control, increasing transparency for regulators, market participants, and the public and concentrating compliance obligations at the FCC and licensees.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill defines a narrow class of foreign-related actors — ‘‘covered entities’’ — as the government of a covered country, any entity organized under that country’s laws, and any subsidiary of such an entity even if the subsidiary is incorporated elsewhere. Importantly, it ties the definition of ‘‘covered country’’ to the list in 10 U.S.C. 4872(f)(2), so the statute imports an existing defense-oriented list rather than creating a new diplomatic determination.
The bill also references an ‘‘appropriate national security agency’’ definition already in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, making clear that interagency security judgments can determine control for listing purposes.
Substantively the statute takes a two-step approach. First, within a short statutory window the FCC must publish an initial list covering entities that currently hold two specific classes of authorizations: licenses awarded under section 309(j) (spectrum auctions) and licenses issued under the Cable Landing Licensing Act (submarine cable landing licenses and related approvals).
Second, the FCC must conduct a rulemaking to gather information about holders of other FCC authorizations and, after that rulemaking, add those entities to the public list. The bill sets discrete deadlines for the initial publication, rulemaking, and subsequent placement of additional entities on the list.The statute removes one procedural hurdle by exempting the FCC’s information collection to implement the law from the Paperwork Reduction Act — meaning the Commission does not have to complete the typical PRA review before collecting required disclosures.
Finally, the bill requires the FCC to refresh the published list at least once per year, ensuring the registry remains a living resource rather than a one-time inventory.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the FCC to publish an initial list of entities with covered-country ties within 120 days of enactment.
It applies initially to holders of licenses issued under section 309(j) (spectrum auction licenses) and the Cable Landing Licensing Act, but directs an 18-month rulemaking to identify holders of other FCC authorizations.
An ‘‘appropriate national security agency’’ can trigger inclusion by determining that a covered entity exerts control over an FCC-authorized entity even if no equity or voting interest is reported to the FCC.
The FCC’s data collection to implement the law is exempted from the Paperwork Reduction Act, allowing the agency to gather information without following PRA procedures.
After the rulemaking, the Commission must place newly identified entities on the public list within one year and update the list at least annually thereafter.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the act the short title ‘‘Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency Act.’
Key definitions
Defines the statutory terms used to trigger listing. The bill imports two external references rather than creating standalone standards: (1) the meaning of ‘‘appropriate national security agency’’ from the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, and (2) the list of ‘‘covered countries’’ from 10 U.S.C. 4872(f)(2). It also defines ‘‘covered entity’’ to include governments of covered countries, entities organized under their laws, and subsidiaries of those entities — with the subsidiary definition sweeping regardless of where the subsidiary itself is organized. That design intentionally broadens who can be implicated beyond direct parent-country incorporation.
Immediate publication of an initial list
Directs the FCC to publish, on its website, each entity that holds certain enumerated license types and that is connected to a covered entity by reportable ownership or by a national-security agency finding of control. The statute limits the initial list to specific license classes (spectrum auction licenses under 309(j) and cable-landing licenses) rather than every FCC authorization, creating a prioritized, narrowly-scoped first step.
Rulemaking to expand coverage and timeline for placement
Requires the FCC to adopt rules within 18 months to collect information identifying holders of other FCC authorizations that have covered-entity ownership reportable under FCC ownership rules. After completing that rulemaking, the FCC must add each identified entity to the public list within one year. This two-stage approach gives the FCC regulatory discretion to determine how to collect and verify ownership or control data for authorizations not covered in the initial publication.
Paperwork exemption and update requirement
Exempts the FCC’s implementation data collection from the Paperwork Reduction Act, shortening procedural barriers to gathering information. It also obligates the FCC to update the public list at least once annually, creating an ongoing maintenance duty that factors into the agency’s resource planning and operational timeline.
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
- National security agencies — Gain a centralized public reference that formalizes which FCC-authorized entities have ties to covered countries, simplifying interagency monitoring and coordination.
- US carriers and competitors — Obtain better market intelligence about which rivals or partners are publicly identified as having covered-country ties, aiding procurement and risk assessment.
- Congressional oversight and policymakers — Receive an accessible evidence base to inform hearings, legislation, or targeted enforcement actions without repeated FOIA requests or ad hoc data pulls.
Who Bears the Cost
- FCC — Must resource an initial publication, undertake a rulemaking, implement data collections (without PRA procedures), and maintain annual updates, creating administrative and IT costs.
- Licensees and authorization holders with covered-entity ownership — Face new disclosure and reputational risks; they will likely need legal and compliance work to respond to FCC reporting rules and public listing.
- Subsidiaries and complex corporate structures — Entities that are indirect subsidiaries of covered-entity parents will see compliance and legal-review costs because the statute sweeps subsidiaries irrespective of incorporation locale.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between the policy goal of rapid, public transparency about foreign-adjacent ownership in the U.S. communications ecosystem and the competing need to protect commercial confidentiality, ensure due process for entities labeled as controlled by foreign adversaries, and avoid unduly burdensome information collections — a balance the statute accelerates toward transparency at the expense of procedural safeguards and contestability.
The bill trades speed and centralized visibility for procedural and substantive risks. Exempting the FCC’s information collection from the Paperwork Reduction Act accelerates data gathering but removes a statutory check that often forces agencies to justify and streamline burdensome reporting requirements; that increases the risk of overcollection and compliance friction for businesses.
Likewise, importing the covered-country list from 10 U.S.C. 4872(f)(2) ties the communications transparency regime to a list created for defense procurement and supply-chain risk; that linkage simplifies categorization but may misalign with communications-specific threat models.
A second implementation tension concerns the ‘‘control’’ trigger. Allowing an appropriate national security agency to determine control — and thus placement on a public list even without reportable equity or voting interest — grants decisive power to non-FCC actors and creates an opaque administrative path that could be hard for affected entities to contest.
Finally, the bill’s broad subsidiary definition and the requirement for public listing raise commercial confidentiality and diplomatic questions: public naming can harm legitimate commercial arrangements and provoke foreign diplomatic responses, while the published list could be stale between annual updates if ownership changes rapidly.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.