ANCHOR Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1223
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

ID: F000480

Follow the money

The bill

ANCHOR Act

HR. 1223, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.

The sponsor

Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$69,300 raised

21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Energy and Related Commissions" section, p. 425-427 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

May 20, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another bill, another exercise in futility. Let's dissect this mess.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The ANCHOR Act (Accelerating Networking, Cyberinfrastructure, and Hardware for Oceanic Research Act) claims to improve the cybersecurity and telecommunications of the U.S. Academic Research Fleet. How noble. In reality, it's just a vehicle for pork-barrel spending and bureaucratic empire-building.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Director (whoever that is) to submit a plan to improve cybersecurity and telecommunications within 18 months. This plan must include an assessment of needs, costs, and implementation timelines. Oh, and it also mandates consideration of "network capabilities" for various purposes, including telemedicine, data uploading, and video communications.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, non-Federal owners of vessels, users of the U.S. Academic Research Fleet, and anyone else who can get their hands on some of that sweet, sweet taxpayer money.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "throwing money at a problem" without actually addressing the underlying issues. It's a Band-Aid solution to a festering wound. The real impact will be:

* Increased spending on cybersecurity and telecommunications infrastructure, which will likely benefit contractors and vendors more than actual researchers. * More bureaucratic red tape and paperwork for researchers to navigate. * A false sense of security among lawmakers, who can now claim they're "doing something" about cybersecurity.

The diagnosis? This bill is suffering from a bad case of "Legislative Attention Deficit Disorder" (LADD). Symptoms include:

* Lack of focus on actual problems * Excessive use of buzzwords and jargon * Overemphasis on bureaucratic process over real-world impact

Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism, followed by a strong prescription of critical thinking. Unfortunately, this bill will likely pass with flying colors, as our esteemed lawmakers are too busy grandstanding to actually read the fine print.

In conclusion, the ANCHOR Act is just another example of legislative malpractice. It's a feel-good measure that accomplishes nothing meaningful while wasting taxpayer dollars on bureaucratic nonsense. But hey, at least it sounds good in a press release.

Related Topics

Telecommunications & Broadband Access
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$69,300
17 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$3,300
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000

No PAC contributions found

1
TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
1 transaction
$3,300

No committee contributions found

1
ROJEWSKI, COLE
2 transactions
$6,600
2
EKEGREN, JONATHAN
2 transactions
$6,600
3
HAYDE, MICHAEL K.
2 transactions
$6,600
4
KHOURI, LAURA A.
2 transactions
$6,600
5
ANDERSON, DARIUS
1 transaction
$3,300
6
LEPRINO, TERRY
1 transaction
$3,300
7
HUNTER, KEN
1 transaction
$3,300
8
BAND MIWOK INDIANS, SHINGLE SPRINGS
1 transaction
$3,300
9
MOJIBI, AMANDA
1 transaction
$3,300
10
MOJIBI, CYRUS
1 transaction
$3,300
11
BECK, PATRICK
1 transaction
$3,300
12
SINGH, MATAB
1 transaction
$3,300
13
LAZZERINI, JR., WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300
14
LAZZERINI, VICTORIA
1 transaction
$3,300
15
PANKEY, MONA
1 transaction
$3,300
16
PANKEY, PETE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]

ID: S001215

Top Contributors

33

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$3,300
Nov 6, 2024
3
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
4
NOTTAWASEPPI HURON BAND OF THE POTAWATOMI
OrganizationFULTON, MI
$3,300
Mar 6, 2024
5
POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationDOWAGIAC, MI
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
6
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationMT PLEASANT, MI
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Jun 5, 2023
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
Apr 29, 2024
9
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$1,500
Oct 24, 2023
10
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,000
Dec 29, 2023

Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-23]

ID: O000019

Top Contributors

34

1
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Nov 11, 2024
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
4
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jun 6, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Jun 20, 2023
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Jun 6, 2023
7
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Apr 14, 2023
8
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
9
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Sep 16, 2024
10
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationPLACERVILLE, CA
$2,000
Oct 24, 2023

Rep. McBride, Sarah [D-DE-At Large]

ID: M001238

Top Contributors

32

1
SOKOLA FOR SENATE
COMNEWARK, DE
$1,000
Dec 15, 2023
2
HPUL PROJECT OPERATIONS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Dec 30, 2023
3
ATLAS RESTAURANT GROUP LLC
OrganizationBALTIMORE, MD
$1,000
Jun 12, 2024
4
EASTERN SUSSEX DEMOCRATS
OrganizationLEWES, DE
$1,000
Jun 23, 2024
5
FRIENDS FOR HANSEN
OrganizationMIDDLETOWN, DE
$600
Oct 6, 2024
6
FRIENDS OF JULIAN CYR
OrganizationTRURO, MA
$500
Nov 4, 2024
7
FRIENDS OF JULIAN CYR
OrganizationTRURO, MA
$500
Apr 30, 2024
8
FRIENDS OF SHARIF STREET
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$500
Jun 5, 2024
9
SC PAC
OrganizationWILMINGTON, DE
$500
Sep 10, 2024
10
SC PAC
OrganizationWILMINGTON, DE
$500
Oct 11, 2024

Rep. Riley, Josh [D-NY-19]

ID: R000622

Top Contributors

25

1
HOPE SPRINGS FARM
OrganizationROXBURY, NY
$3,300
Aug 20, 2024
2
THE PLANTSMEN NURSERY
OrganizationGROTON, NY
$500
Oct 11, 2024
3
FLOWERS BY ORZEL
OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY
$300
May 6, 2024
4
FLOWERS BY ORZEL
OrganizationWHITNEY POINT, NY
$300
Jun 5, 2024
5
HOPE SPRINGS FARM
OrganizationROXBURY, NY
$50
Sep 13, 2024
6
KIRK, CLAY KENAN
SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 23, 2024
7
KIRK, GARRETT JR
SELF-EMPLOYED • INVESTOR
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,600
Sep 23, 2024
8
TRONE, DAVID J.
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$6,600
Jan 21, 2024
9
LANDEGGGER, GEORGE F.
IndividualRYE BROOK, NY
$5,000
Jul 31, 2024
10
FAIVUS, HARRY
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHYSICIAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Begich, Nicholas J. [R-AK-At Large]

ID: B001323

Top Contributors

20

1
LOKEN, TYLER
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Oct 17, 2024
2
ODOM, WILLIAM L
ODOM CORP • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Oct 26, 2024
3
ODOM, WILLIAM L
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Oct 26, 2024
4
FOX, RICHARD
GMS LLC • MANAGER
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$3,435
Sep 4, 2024
5
GERONDALE, CHRISTOPHER
SELF
IndividualJUNEAU, AK
$3,300
Oct 16, 2023
6
GERONDALE, CHRISTOPHER
SELF
IndividualJUNEAU, AK
$3,300
Oct 16, 2023
7
MCNAMARA, MICHAEL
MICHAEL MCNAMARA • PHYSICIAN
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$3,300
Oct 25, 2023
8
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 1, 2023
9
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 1, 2023
10
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 30, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 36 nodes and 43 connections

Total contributions: $43

Top Donors - Rep. Fong, Vince [R-CA-20]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

1 Org16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.95

    Section 2(b)(2) requires assessment of cybersecurity needs per CISA and NIST guidance, Section 2(b)(3)(A) includes software and enterprise hardware as equipment costs, and Section 2(c)(2) references cybersecurity recommendations and training, indicating clear benefit to cybersecurity industry.

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(b)(1) requires assessment of telecommunications and networking needs of the U.S. Academic Research Fleet, and Section 2(b)(3)(A) includes satellite communications equipment as necessary equipment costs, indicating potential market expansion for telecom providers.

  • Section 2(b)(3)(A) includes high-performance computing infrastructure shipboard and shoreside, and Section 2(c)(1)(C) mentions uploading scientific data to cloud-based servers, indicating potential benefit to cloud and AI infrastructure providers.

  • Section 2(d)(1) allows support for upgrades to cyberinfrastructure and cybersecurity, which may involve physical installation and engineering work, suggesting potential benefit to construction and engineering firms involved in such upgrades.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Moderate
Vector: 61%
Pages: 425-427AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ANCHOR Act aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on cybersecurity and protecting taxpayer-funded research, particularly through its focus on securing academic research infrastructure and coordinating with federal agencies like CISA and NIST. However, it does not explicitly address technology transfer to the private sector or natural resource development, which are key components of the cited DOE policy."

Key themes:cybersecurityfederal research infrastructuretechnology protectioninteragency coordinationnational security

— 393 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Ensure that R&D funds are used for projects that protect and advance that edge. l Ensure that successful advances, with a focus on new natural resource development technologies, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and space, are transferred swiftly to American interests in the private sector. New Policies l Focus on benefits to Americans. OTT’s operations should be based on the recognition that the new technologies generated by American taxpayers’ investment in DOE are a significant national security asset rather than some neutral scientific gift to humanity. l Increase oversight and coordination. OTT needs to be vigilant in overseeing and coordinating OTT offices associated with each National Lab. For security and economic espionage reasons, the work funded by the American people needs to be protected, and when commercialized, it needs to go to American businesses. OFFICE OF SCIENCE (SC) Mission/Overview The Office of Science (SC) supports and oversees research facilities and pro- grams that cover basic science through its application to the demonstration and deployment of energy technologies. SC oversees 10 of the 17 DOE National Labs and 28 major federal research user facilities. Its mission is to preserve U.S. leader- ship in science, fund and perform basic research, and provide the scientific facilities that the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide. New initiatives include quantum information sciences and artificial intelligence. SC is led by a Senate-con- firmed Director at the Assistant Secretary level and has eight program offices.82 Needed Reforms The next conservative President should commit the United States to scientific dominance to support national and economic security, especially in light of similar efforts by China. To aid in this effort, the Office of Science should: l Return to its primary mission: nonpartisan and basic science. SC’s mission should be international leadership in basic and early applied science and provision of world-leading facilities for this work. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act mark the major — 394 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reorientation of DOE primarily from defense applications in the NNSA and basic and early applied science across SC and the applied offices to a massive federal research, development, demonstration, and commercialization body.83 Distraction from SC’s basic science mission should be prevented. l Increase the level of accountability. The National Laboratories need to be more directly accountable to the Secretary of Energy and Congress for their work and management. New Policies l Commit to U.S. science dominance. The United States is losing its dominance in scientific discoveries and technological development. China and other adversaries have been stealing American science and technology for years and are now on the verge of dominating science—a development that is fraught with negative strategic and economic implications for the United States. The next Administration must commit itself to ensuring that the U.S. continues to dominate scientific discovery and technological advancement. l Refocus on mission and eliminate duplication and waste. The Administration should work with Congress to rationalize the National Lab network to meet specific national objectives (such as the NNSA laboratories’ role in national defense) and conduct basic research that the private sector would not otherwise conduct. Activities that duplicate those of other government agencies or the private sector should be eliminated. l Properly manage the National Labs’ contributions to the private sector. SC should improve private-sector access to the National Labs, through programs like the GAIN voucher program and consistent with national security considerations, while ensuring that the economic benefits of taxpayer-funded technologies flow back to taxpayers through patent- review sharing or a revolving fund. Budget The Office of Science was appropriated slightly more than $7 billion in FY 2021, and DOE requested slightly less than $7.8 billion for FY 2023.84 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (EM) Mission/Overview The Office of Environmental Management’s mission is to “complete the safe cleanup of [the] environmental legacy resulting from decades of nuclear

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate
Vector: 61%
Pages: 891-894AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the ANCHOR Act and the Project 2025 FCC section focus on improving telecommunications and cybersecurity infrastructure through federal coordination and agency guidance, though the ANCHOR Act targets a specific academic research fleet rather than broad communications policy."

Key themes:telecommunicationscybersecurityfederal coordinationinfrastructure upgrades

— 858 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. 47 U.S.C. § 151, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/151 (accessed January 23, 2023). 2. 47 U.S.C. § 154, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/154 (accessed January 23, 2023). 3. Ibid. 4. 47 U.S.C. § 154(c). 5. 47 U.S.C. § 154(b)(5). 6. 47 U.S.C. § 155(a), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/155 (accessed January 23, 2023). 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. There are no limits on the President’s authority to designate a different Chairperson from among the existing Commissioners. Further, though it is an open question, it is generally believed that the judiciary would impose limits on the power of the President to remove a Commissioner during his or her five-year term. The question is not settled because Congress did not include an express “for cause” or similar protection against removal in the Communications Act itself. Scholars assume this is because Congress passed the Communications Act in the years between the Supreme Court’s decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) and Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), when it was not entirely clear that Congress could impose a limit on the President’s removal power. However, the Communications Act was significantly amended in 1996, and Congress did not add “just cause” or other protections from removal at that time. Considering the high-profile contemporary debates about the appointment and removal of independent counsels under the Independent Counsel Act, one could reasonably assume that Congress was aware of removal powers and protections for presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officials. 9. Chart, “FTEs—Historical and Estimated, Fiscal Years 1986–2023,” in U.S. Federal Communications Commission, 2023 Budget Estimates to Congress, March 2022, p. 17, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-381693A1. pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 10. U.S. Federal Communications Commission, 2023 Budget Estimates to Congress, p. 7. 11. Roslyn Layton, “Spectrum Auctions Have Raised $230 Billion; The FCC’s Authority to Conduct Them Will Lapse Soon If Congress Doesn’t Act,” Forbes, April 29, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ roslynlayton/2022/04/29/spectrum-auctions-have-raised-230-billion-the-fccs-authority-to-conduct-them- will-lapse-soon-if-congress-doesnt-act/?sh=4d32066908eb (accessed January 23, 2023). 12. For a full listing of the FCC’s Bureaus and Offices, along with their functions and an organization chart, see U.S. Federal Communications Commission, “Organizational Charts of the FCC,” https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/ organizational-charts-fcc (accessed January 23, 2023). 13. 47 U.S.C. § 230, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (accessed January 23, 2023). 14. Thomas M. Johnson Jr., “The FCC’s Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act,” October 21, 2020, https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2020/10/21/fccs-authority-interpret-section-230- communications-act (accessed January 23, 2023). 15. This chapter does not purport to set forth a comprehensive agenda for the FCC. Rather, it focuses on a selected handful of issue areas that may quickly rise to the attention of a new Administration. Similarly, not every contributor to this chapter agrees with every policy idea included here; this document attempts to reflect a range of views and perspectives. 16. Johnson, “The FCC’s Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act.” 17. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “NTIA Petition for Rulemaking to Clarify Provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Act,” July 27, 2020, https:// ntia.gov/fcc-filing/ntia-petition-rulemaking-clarify-provisions-section-230-communications-act (accessed January 23, 2023). 18. Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software, 592 U.S. ___ (2020) (Thomas, J., statement respecting the denial of certiorari), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 19. See 47 U.S.C. § 230; see also Ray Baum’s Act of 2018, Division P, Title IV, § 401 (codifying the Consolidated Reporting Act), in H.R. 1625, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law No. 115-141, 115th Congress, March 23, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ141/PLAW-115publ141.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 20. NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 49 F.4th 439 (5th Cir. 2022), https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/ gdpzqyobyvw/alisonn%201.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). — 859 — Federal Communications Commission 21. Hal J. Singer and Ted Tatos, Subsidizing Universal Broadband Through a Digital Advertising Services Fee: An Alignment of Incentives, Econ One, September 2021, p. 1 (“[T]he current USF mechanism is unsustainable and will fail to meet the needs of its target consumer base within the next five years.”), https://www.econone.com/ wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Digital-Divide-HSinger-TTatos-2.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 22. FBI Director Christopher Wray, testimony in video of hearing, Worldwide Threats to the Homeland, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, November 15, 2022, at 02:27, https://democrats- homeland.house.gov/activities/hearings/11/04/2022/worldwide-threats-to-the-homeland (accessed January 23, 2023); John D. McKinnon, Arunav Viswanatha, and Stu Woo, “TikTok National-Security Deal Faces More Delays as Worry Grows Over Risks,” The Wall Street Journal, updated December 6, 2022, https://www.wsj. com/articles/tiktok-national-security-deal-faces-more-delays-as-worry-grows-over-risks-11670342800 (accessed January 23, 2023). 23. U.S. Federal Communications Commission, “List of Equipment and Services Covered by Section 2 of the Secure Networks Act,” updated September 20, 2022, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist (accessed January 23, 2023). 24. H.R. 820, Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency Act, 118th Congress, introduced February 2, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr820/BILLS-118hr820ih.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of State, “The Clean Network,” https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-clean-network/index.html (accessed January 23, 2023). 26. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide, GAO-22-104611, May 2022, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104611.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 27. Document No. 144, “Federal Communications Commission: Message from the President of the United States Recommending that Congress Create a New Agency to be Known as the Federal Communications Commission,” U.S. Senate, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., February 26, 1934, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/ DOC-298207A1.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 28. 47 U.S.C, Chapter 5, §§ 151 et seq., (accessed March 6, 2023).

Federal Communications Commission

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The ANCHOR Act focuses on improving cybersecurity and telecommunications for the academic research fleet, while the Project 2025 FCC section emphasizes eliminating overbuilding of broadband networks, creating a national broadband strategy, and reforming FCC regulations to foster competition. Both touch on telecommunications coordination, but their primary objectives and policy levers differ significantly."

Key themes:telecommunicationscoordinationinfrastructure planning

— 856 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Administration gave the green light for recipients to spend those funds to overbuild existing high-speed networks in communities that already have multiple broadband providers. A new Administration should eliminate government-funded overbuilding of existing networks. l Adopt a national coordinating strategy. Hundreds of billions of infrastructure dollars have been appropriated by Congress or budgeted by agencies over the past couple of years that can be used to end the digital divide. Yet, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy”; instead, “[f]ederal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies,” risking overbuilding as well as wasteful duplication.26 Many of these programs remain plagued by inefficiency, further contributing to waste of limited taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the federal government is failing to put appropriate guardrails in place to govern the expenditure of billions in broadband funds. This is the regulatory equivalent of turning the spigot on full blast and then walking away from the hose. There is a worrisome lack of adequate tracking, measurement, and accountability standards governing all of this broadband spending. As a result, we are likely to see headline levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. A new Administration needs to bring fresh oversight to this spending and put a national strategy in place to ensure that the federal government adopts a coordinated approach to its various broadband initiatives. Similarly, the next Administration should ask the FCC to launch a review of its existing broadband programs, including the different components of the USF, with the goal of avoiding duplication, improving efficiency of existing programs, and saving taxpayer money. l Correct the FCC’s regulatory trajectory and encourage competition to improve connectivity. The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that Congress create the FCC in February 1934 for the purposes of establishing “a single Government agency charged with broad authority” over the field of communications.27 Congress subsequently established the FCC through the Communications Act of 1934. Congress has passed a number of additional statutes—some broad, some — 857 — Federal Communications Commission narrow—that pertain to the FCC’s authority, including most significantly the Telecommunications Act of 1996,28 which opened up markets for greater competition and largely deregulated industry segments. Technological change in the connectivity sector is occurring rapidly. We are now seeing an unprecedented level of convergence, innovation, and competition in the market for connectivity. On the one hand, traditional cable providers like Charter are now offering mobile wireless services to consumers in direct competition with traditional wireless companies like Verizon. On the other hand, a new generation of low-earth orbit satellite services like StarLink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper stand to offer high- speed home broadband in competition with legacy providers. Furthermore, broadcasters are offering high-speed downloads directly to consumers over spectrum that previously provided only TV service. These rapidly evolving market conditions counsel in favor of eliminating many of the heavy-handed FCC regulations that were adopted in an era when every technology operated in a silo. These include many of the FCC’s media ownership rules, which can have the effect of restricting investment and competition because those regulations assume a far more limited set of competitors for advertising dollars than exist today, as well as its universal service requirements. Ultimately, FCC reliance on competition and innovation is vital if the agency is to deliver optimal outcomes for the American public. The FCC should engage in a serious top-to-bottom review of its regulations and take steps to rescind any that are overly cumbersome or outdated. The Commission should focus its efforts on creating a market-friendly regulatory environment that fosters innovation and competition from a wide range of actors, including cable-based, broadband-based, and satellite- based Internet providers. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume. While this chapter identifies certain issues on which the contributors did not all agree, the author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills