It is enormously important that the U.S. regain its lead from China in the global race to adopt 5G, as well as enhance efforts to develop and perfect AI and other emerging technologies. These efforts would have tremendous implications for the U.S. economy, national security, and the defense community at large. We will not achieve these goals without a smart spectrum policy that ensures and facilitates commercial access to licensed, exclusive-use spectrum.
However, some feel that a goal of global technological superiority is not relevant to U.S. national security interests. A recent op-ed written by Jared Whitley--who was once a colleague of mine on the Senate Finance Committee--took issue with this perspective. The piece criticizes legislative efforts by Senator Ted Cruz to have the Defense Department divest a small portion of the spectrum it holds that the FCC would sell via auction to commercial and research interests.
Whitley plays down the economic and technological gains from making new spectrum available; he suggests that moving forward with these auctions would make it more difficult to implement President Trump’s proposed Golden Dome layered missile defense shield.
However, reducing the amount of spectrum for the Defense Department would not preclude a missile defense shield. The opportunity cost of it keeping all of the spectrum it currently holds would be enormous. What’s more, allowing the Defense Department to hoard its spectrum would also have its own negative impact for national security as well.
Matt Pearl and Clete Johnson of CSIS suggest that the lower- and mid-band spectrum that would be auctioned in Senator Cruz’ proposal would not be useful in the development of any ballistic defense system: They reason that any such system would mainly rely on satellites to detect and track incoming missiles, and any spectrum bands that would potentially be useful to such a system would be ones that are not being considered for any future auction.
It also may be possible to use high-band frequencies to help support the creation of the Golden Dome while still enabling access to licensed spectrum for the commercial development of 5G, AI, and other critical technologies. The FCC and DOD should be working vigorously to determine whether this would be feasible.
There is no simple black and white choice between national security interests and commercial interests with regard to our spectrum, which is the perspective Whitley implicitly provides. Widespread access to spectrum will help the U.S. compete with regard to 5G development and the ancillary technologies that will inevitably come to fruition in an environment with greater spectrum accessibility. Given that some entities--most notably the Wall Street Journal--believe we have ceded our superiority in this to the Chinese, there should be some urgency to this effort.
The spectrum arrangement put forth by Senator Cruz and other notable Senate Republicans does not run counter to the Trump Administration’s national security goals or the development of a domestic missile defense system.
The FCC’s previous spectrum auctions--which ended in 2022--raised billions of dollars in revenue for the government while powering the rapid expansion of 5G networks nationwide. The new commercial spectrum helped to strengthen local businesses and economies and spur American innovation.
We need to restore the FCC’s ability to hold these auctions and make more licensed spectrum available for commercial use.
A more robust 5G and--eventually--6G network will improve both our economy and national security. Let’s not present Congress with a false choice by insisting the military cannot spare any spectrum when the evidence suggests there is a way to accomplish both goals.
