Why the Administration Needs to Deliver on Spectrum

While most Americans are aware that the federal government built the national highway system, few have heard its formal name: the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The name reflects its Cold War purpose: Standardized roads would enable high volumes of troops and supplies to transit across the country in the event of a conventional conflict and rapid evacuation of major cities in the event of a nuclear exchange, and—even more importantly—would facilitate high volumes of long-haul trucking, enabling the U.S. economy to grow faster and fund a superior military. But strong bipartisan consensus did not make this endeavor self-executing. Even after Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (Federal Highway Act), the Executive Branch had to overcome political and bureaucratic resistance from state highway departments and local opponents and work through massive technical challenges, including nationwide standardization of both engineering and construction.

Today’s great power competition is no different. Technological leadership will once again determine which nation attains its economic and national security goals, although the technology and infrastructure look quite different today. The present-day competition between the United States and China will be determined in significant part by AI. The nature of this race, however, is frequently misunderstood: It will be determined not merely by which nation has the most capable frontier models, but by how effectively it deploys AI capabilities across the physical economy, from transportation and agriculture to logistics, manufacturing, and defense. That cross-sectoral diffusion depends, in turn, on spectrum policy as much as it depends on AI policy.

Just as the interstate highway system was the conduit through which goods and people moved, driving fast economic growth, mid-band spectrum will enable advanced wireless networks to carry data and AI-enabled applications to edge devices. Thus, the federal government’s effort to transition additional mid-band spectrum from federal to commercial use is not a parochial telecom issue. It is central to whether the United States can convert its AI innovations into long-term strategic advantage.

The good news is that Congress has already acted, and thus far the White House has been focused on implementation. In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress restored the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to auction spectrum, which had lapsed for more than two years, and required the executive branch to make available at least 800 megahertz of mid-band spectrum for auction, including at least 500 megahertz that is currently devoted to federal use. The relevant parts of the executive branch, including the White House, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the FCC, are all moving forward quickly to implement this ambitious goal. Just as with the Federal Highway Act, however, the executive branch will need to sweep away political opposition and overcome technical challenges to make the goals of this law a reality—and it will need to accomplish this on an ambitious timeline to ensure it bolsters the United States’ position in the AI race.

Unlike during the Cold War, much of the infrastructure in the United States (and, to a lesser but still significant extent, in China) used for these efforts is owned by private companies. These firms have massive research and development budgets and tremendous technical expertise, can efficiently allocate capital, and place the risk of failure on investors rather than taxpayers. Thus, the role of industry in determining which nation outcompetes the other—and the importance of clearing policy obstacles to industry’s innovation—is larger today than it was during the Cold War.

The United States’ market-based system will generate competition among incumbents and new entrants, but government remains an indispensable partner. Its job is to decide among competing national priorities, promptly and effectively resolve conflicts over scarce resources (including and especially mid-band spectrum), and relentlessly remove barriers to innovation.

The biggest barrier will be resistance from the federal agencies that use spectrum. Spectrum is finite: multiple users cannot use operate at the same frequency, time, and place. Federal agencies have specific missions to accomplish, but some of these agencies have begun to see control of specific spectrum bands as an essential part of the mission. It is not. Rather, agencies should focus on the services that run on spectrum that are mission critical. In some instances, there may be more efficient ways to obtain those mission-critical services, such as using fiber instead of spectrum to deliver high-speed data links. Making matters worse, during the last couple of decades, more agencies have centralized and organized their spectrum functions into standalone offices, and staff in those offices are eager to demonstrate their worth by protecting their agency’s spectrum turf.

The White House will need to effectively overcome that opposition and, in doing so, it may want to consider rolling back some of these spectrum offices, though the technical expertise to run their wireless systems should be preserved. Further, the White House should evaluate spectrum offices carefully on a case-by-case basis. The FutureG Office at the Department of Defense (DOD), for instance, is a prime example of a success story: that office was designed to advance the DOD’s ability to more effectively operate its wireless systems, and its approach is to partner with industry rather than fighting it. But it is questionable whether smaller agencies require spectrum offices at all. The White House should look closely at agency organization to ensure that it does not incentivize staff to prove their value to managers by preventing spectrum transitions from happening.

Instead of the fragmented pockets of spectrum expertise in the various agencies, the U.S. government should consider consolidating expertise in the NTIA for federal systems and at the FCC for commercial bands that are heavily used by government agencies, such as aviation and maritime systems. Consolidation would reduce the influence of diverse political interests that often skew technical assessments, ensuring decisions rest with a small group of trusted experts. Fragmentation of spectrum management has permitted industries and government agencies to frame the spectrum debates as unproductive showdowns: aviation safety versus broadband for all, defense radar systems versus critical 911 equities, and so on. Instead of being recognized as expert stewards of spectrum, the FCC is viewed as a representative of commercial telecom interests, and the NTIA’s spectrum expertise is undermined by the competing offices embedded in the agencies. The core mission of a unified spectrum office at the NTIA or the FCC should be to determine the best allocation of spectrum to enable these competing essential services.

The White House should ensure that there is support for the expert decisions of these agencies, regardless of whether the U.S. government reorganizes to centralize expertise in the NTIA and FCC. White House authority should ensure that other agencies provide whatever assistance and information FCC and NTIA staff need in analyzing spectrum transitions and allocations. There should be zero tolerance for foot-dragging, particularly in this era of intense geopolitical competition in advanced technology.

Grace Koh is vice president of government relations at Ciena. Matt Pearl is director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.