Federal Communications Commission FCC 18-42
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC 
Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89
There is little doubt that several foreign nations present geopolitical problems for the United 
States.  From state sponsored terrorism and military aggression outside their borders to economic 
espionage and market manipulation, we certainly have our fair share of international challenges.  Certain 
nations do everything possible to evade accepted processes for purposes of improving their economic 
position, harming American companies, and/or helping spread their morally bankrupt view of acceptable 
government.  Their deceit does not go unnoticed and their desire to artificially prop-up their “companies” 
should not be allowed to stand.      
In the communications arena, our concerns are many.  It’s why I have called for greater U.S. 
leadership and engagement to prevent harmful outcomes in international organizations, such as the 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the Internet Cooperation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers (ICANN), and the various multi-stakeholder standard setting bodies.  Moreover, we rightly 
should be concerned and act against efforts by foreign governments to capture dominant positions and 
global market share in the communications equipment sector using illegal and underhanded practices.  At 
the same time, we need to be concerned about the infiltration of potentially nefarious equipment within 
our networks.  
That gets us to today’s item.  I appreciate the Chairman bringing it forward for our consideration.  
Substantively, while I firmly believe that there are significant potential threats to our nation’s 
communications networks from foreign suppliers, I do have some concerns regarding the proposed 
solution to cut off USF support under select circumstances.  However, it is my opinion that this NPRM 
process is the correct vehicle for discussing and resolving such debates.  Commenters can highlight what 
exact benefits this decision could bring, whether money is, of course, completely fungible, and whether 
other actions should be taken instead.  The accumulated record should help frame views on any final 
action in this matter.  I realize that this may create uncertainty for USF recipients, but we are discussing 
issues and actions affecting national security, and that must be given due consideration.  
Along those lines, it is critical that the FCC revise our dealings with what is known as “Team 
Telecom.”  The item raises a host of issues in which the Commission will need to work with those in the 
Executive Branch on matters involving what equipment poses national security risks, potential waivers 
and other critical decisions.  That means we are going to need to have a better process than the opaque 
and unnecessarily lengthy one that exists under the current Team Telecom structure.  I am pleased that 
the Chairman agrees with me on this point, and I look forward to moving a related Team Telecom order 
in the very near future.