Senate Bill S.4000, the "Securing Infrastructure from Adversaries Act of 2026," prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from procuring, funding, or contracting with entities that use or procure LiDAR technology tied to specified foreign companies or countries. The measure borrows the definitions of “covered foreign country,” “covered LiDAR company,” and related terms from section 164(e) of the FY2025 NDAA and applies a certification requirement to contractors and grant recipients; the Secretary may grant case‑by‑case waivers with 15 days’ advance committee notice.
The bill matters because it converts a defense‑oriented list of risky LiDAR suppliers into an explicit constraint on civilian transportation procurement and grantmaking. That pull-through will affect DOT grants and loans, state and local infrastructure projects that rely on mapping and sensing hardware, integrators, and LiDAR vendors — and it raises practical questions about certification, verification, and the availability of compliant alternatives after the June 30, 2026 effective date.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars the Secretary of Transportation from procuring or funding LiDAR technology produced by, provided by, or otherwise tied to covered foreign companies or countries, and requires contracting entities to certify they will not use such LiDAR in contract performance. It also forbids obligating grant or loan funds for those technologies and creates a narrowly defined waiver process.
Who It Affects
Directly affects DOT procurement officials, federal grant and loan recipients, state and local transportation agencies, vehicle and infrastructure contractors that integrate LiDAR, and LiDAR manufacturers and suppliers. Domestic LiDAR vendors stand to gain market access where covered suppliers are excluded.
Why It Matters
This moves a national‑security sourcing restriction into civilian infrastructure procurement, creating new compliance and vendor‑selection workstreams for transportation projects. It can alter vendor competition, project budgets, and how agencies verify technology provenance across supply chains.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.4000 imports the definitions of covered foreign country, covered LiDAR company, and covered LiDAR technology from the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act (section 164(e)). That cross‑reference fixes the bill’s scope to whatever companies and countries are listed under that statute — the bill does not re‑define or elaborate those terms itself.
Practically, that means the universe of banned suppliers is controlled by the earlier NDAA definitions rather than by new lists created by DOT.
The core operational rule is simple: after the effective date, the Secretary of Transportation may not procure, obtain, or otherwise use LiDAR technology that falls within the covered definitions, nor enter into or renew contracts with entities that will use such technology in contract performance unless those entities certify they will not use it. The bill requires entities seeking DOT contracts to submit that certification as a condition of contracting; it does not provide a detailed verification regime or describe audit rights beyond the certification obligation.For grant and loan agreements, S.4000 requires the Secretary to ensure awarded funds cannot be obligated or expended to procure, obtain, or use covered LiDAR technologies.
That applies at the level of the grant or loan agreement language, which effectively prohibits recipients from using federal funds to buy or deploy the specified LiDAR products. The statute creates no explicit civil penalties beyond withholding funds or refusing to enter into agreements — enforcement will largely be administrative.S.4000 includes a waiver pathway: the Secretary may grant a case‑by‑case waiver if the Secretary submits a written certification to the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee at least 15 days before the activity for which the waiver is sought, stating the activity is in the national interest.
The bill therefore preserves flexibility for exceptional circumstances but ties the waiver to congressional notice and a national‑interest finding.Applicability is time‑bound and narrow: the prohibitions apply to obligations, expenditures, and contracts made on or after June 30, 2026, but the bill excludes actions tied to applications for FMVSS exemptions, waivers of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and activities solely for testing, research, evaluation, analysis, or training related to vehicle safety. Those carve‑outs mitigate interference with safety testing and regulatory processes but leave open how agencies distinguish routine procurement from permitted testing activities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
S.4000 adopts the NDAA (FY2025) definitions in 10 U.S.C. note prec. 4651 (section 164(e)) to identify which foreign countries and LiDAR companies are covered.
Contractors seeking DOT contracts must provide a certification that they will not use covered LiDAR technology in contract performance; absent that certification, the Secretary cannot enter into, extend, or renew the contract.
The Secretary must ensure federal loan or grant funds cannot be obligated or spent to procure, obtain, or use covered LiDAR technologies — the restriction is written into award agreements.
The Secretary can waive the prohibition on a case‑by‑case basis, but only after submitting a written certification to the relevant congressional committees at least 15 days before the activity, stating the waiver is in the national interest.
The statute applies to contracts, obligations, and expenditures on or after June 30, 2026, but explicitly excludes FMVSS exemption applications, CMV safety waiver applications, and activities for safety testing, research, evaluation, analysis, or training.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'Securing Infrastructure from Adversaries Act of 2026'
This brief provision simply names the Act. While stylistic, the short title signals congressional intent to align infrastructure procurement rules with national‑security sourcing concerns — an important contextual cue for agencies drafting implementing guidance and for counsel advising contractors.
Definitions — borrows NDAA 2025 definitions for covered terms
Rather than create new definitions, the bill references section 164(e) of the FY2025 NDAA for the meanings of 'covered foreign country,' 'covered LiDAR company,' 'covered LiDAR technology,' and 'LiDAR.' That leverages an existing statutory taxonomy but also means the list of covered entities and the boundaries of the prohibition are controlled externally; agencies and vendors will need to consult the NDAA text or any implementing lists to determine whether a supplier or product falls within scope.
Procurement and contracting prohibitions; certification and waiver process
Subsection (b) bars the Secretary from procuring covered LiDAR technologies and from entering into, extending, or renewing contracts with entities that use or procure such technologies unless the entity provides a certification that no covered LiDAR will be used in performance. Practically, that inserts a new precondition into DOT contracting: contracting officers must obtain and review certifications before award or renewal. The subsection also creates a waiver mechanism limited to case‑by‑case national‑interest findings, requiring a 15‑day advance written certification to two congressional committees. The waiver gives DOT discretion but ties it to congressional notice, which could slow urgent procurements or make waiver use politically sensitive.
Prohibition on using loan or grant funds for covered LiDAR
This subsection requires the Secretary to ensure that any agreement that provides loans or grants forbids obligating federal funds to procure, obtain, or use covered LiDAR. In implementation, DOT will need model grant and loan language and award conditions that flow the prohibition to subrecipients and vendors. The statute does not specify monitoring mechanisms or penalties beyond the funding restriction, so enforcement will rely on typical federal grant oversight tools — audits, conditions on payment, and post‑award compliance reviews.
Applicability and narrow exceptions
The restrictions apply to obligations, expenditures, and contracts on or after June 30, 2026, but the bill carves out three categories: FMVSS exemption applications, waivers or exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and actions that are solely for testing, research, evaluation, analysis, or training relating to vehicle safety. These exceptions preserve regulatory testing and safety processes but create a line‑drawing problem for administrators who must decide whether a procurement is for operational deployment or permitted testing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure 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
- Federal national‑security and intelligence stakeholders — the restriction reduces the presence of LiDAR hardware from adversary‑linked suppliers within federally funded transportation systems, lowering potential data‑exfiltration or exploit risks tied to sensor hardware.
- Domestic LiDAR manufacturers and non‑covered suppliers — exclusion of covered foreign competitors expands opportunities for U.S. and allied vendors to win DOT contracts and grants where covered suppliers would otherwise compete.
- DOT contracting and compliance staff — the bill gives a clear statutory basis to require certifications and to demand vendor provenance information, strengthening procurement leverage when specifying supply‑chain controls.
- Contractors already using compliant supply chains — firms that have sourced non‑covered LiDAR face less competition from barred suppliers and may gain a competitive advantage on future DOT procurements.
Who Bears the Cost
- State, local, and tribal transportation agencies and grant recipients that currently rely on covered LiDAR suppliers — they will need to replace equipment, renegotiate contracts, or reallocate budgets if federal funds cannot be used for the technology.
- Systems integrators and OEMs that incorporate LiDAR components from covered suppliers — these companies must retool designs, qualify new components, and possibly face production delays and increased costs.
- DOT and federal grant program offices — agencies must create certification forms, vet vendor claims, process waiver requests with 15‑day congressional notifications, and design monitoring procedures without explicit funding for those administrative tasks.
- Foreign LiDAR companies and their upstream suppliers based in covered countries — they would lose a segment of the U.S. civilian transportation market if designated as covered under the referenced NDAA definitions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is security versus operational flexibility and cost: the bill reduces the national‑security risk of adversary‑linked LiDAR in U.S. transportation systems, but it imposes procurement, verification, and substitution costs on agencies, grant recipients, and integrators — a trade‑off between minimizing sourcing risk and preserving timely, affordable procurement of sensing technology for infrastructure projects.
The bill borrows its scope from the FY2025 NDAA rather than creating a stand‑alone target list; that linkage simplifies congressional drafting but shifts key implementation decisions outside DOT. Agencies and contractors will need authoritative, up‑to‑date guidance identifying which entities and products are 'covered' under section 164(e) — yet S.4000 does not require DOT to publish implementing lists or verification standards.
That gap creates practical questions about how contracting officers will validate certifications, what documentary evidence suffices, and how to handle complex supply chains where components or firmware originate in multiple countries.
The waiver procedure preserves flexibility but creates timing and oversight frictions: the 15‑day pre‑notification to two congressional committees gives Congress an opportunity to weigh in but may be too slow for time‑sensitive procurements. The bill also excludes safety testing and certain regulatory waiver processes from coverage, which is sensible on its face, but the line between 'testing' and 'operational use' can be porous — agencies will need granular implementation rules to prevent the exceptions from becoming loopholes that defeat the statute’s purpose.
Finally, the statute offers no express penalty regime beyond refusal to award funds, meaning enforcement will depend on standard federal grant and contract remedies; that could leave room for noncompliant use to go undetected absent strengthened auditing and supply‑chain transparency requirements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.