The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted to prohibit the sale of devices in the United States that contain components from Chinese companies posing national security risks. The ban targets equipment that could threaten the integrity of US communications infrastructure.

The FCC's decision aims to secure the supply chain for telecommunications and technology products. By restricting these components, the agency intends to prevent potential espionage or sabotage through compromised hardware.

The rule specifically addresses components sourced from entities identified as national security threats. Manufacturers must now ensure their products do not include these restricted parts to sell them in the US market.

This move aligns with broader efforts to safeguard critical infrastructure from foreign adversaries. The regulation impacts a wide range of devices, including networking gear and consumer electronics.

Former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Al Sikes and former Commissioner Ervin S. Duggan filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing the agency is evading judicial review by refusing to act on a challenge to a Fox station license renewal. The brief, submitted on July 22, 2026, supports the Media and Democracy Project's (MAD) petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the FCC to act on an Application for Review that has been pending for 17 months. Sikes and Duggan, both appointed by President George H.W. Bush, contend the FCC's inaction reflects a broader pattern of shielding significant agency actions from court scrutiny.

The former officials argue the FCC is no longer operating as Congress intended, relying on staff-level actions and declining to issue final Commission decisions to prevent judicial review of important legal questions. According to the filing, the Commission operates with a bare quorum of three members instead of the five-member multi-partisan body envisioned by Congress. The brief cites a July 1, 2026, statement by Commissioner Gomez criticizing the Media Bureau's summary dismissal of a petition to repeal the News Distortion Policy as inconsistent with precedent and violating the Communications Act and the First Amendment.

Sikes and Duggan assert that while Commission rules allow staff to act on minor or routine matters, MAD's challenge to Fox's license does not fall into those categories. They accuse the current Commission of using staff-level action and agency-level inaction to take significant steps while shielding them from review. The brief warns this approach undermines the agency's processes and public confidence in its ability to address critical issues.

"The Federal Communications Commission was established by Congress to function as a bipartisan, multi-member commission whose decisions are subject to judicial review," said Al Sikes, former FCC Chairman. "When the Commission refuses to act on an Application for Review involving an issue of this magnitude, it undermines both the agency's own processes and the public's confidence that important questions will receive the careful consideration they deserve."

Ervin S. Duggan, former FCC Commissioner, emphasized the importance of the Commission's character requirements. "The Commission's character requirements exist to protect the public interest and preserve confidence in those entrusted with using the public airwaves," Duggan said. "When serious questions are raised about whether a broadcast licensee has met those standards, the Commission cannot simply refuse to decide the matter. The public deserves an answer, and the courts deserve the opportunity to review that decision."

The amicus brief is available for review and outlines the legal arguments for compelling the FCC to act on the long-pending application. The case centers on whether the FCC's refusal to issue a final decision on MAD's challenge constitutes an evasion of its duties and deprives courts of jurisdiction to review the matter.