Hudson Opposes Senate FY26 NDAA's Pentagon Veto on Lower 3, 7/8 GHz Bands
House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Richard Hudson, R-N.C., said Thursday that he opposes language in the Senate's FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act version (S-2296) that would give the DOD and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman authority to essentially veto commercial use of the 3.1-3.45 and 7.4-8.4 GHz bands. Hudson said during a Punchbowl News event that his next priority as Communications chair will be to enact legislation aimed at easing broadband permitting rules, despite Democrats’ recent criticism of a mostly GOP-led set of proposals during a Sept. 18 hearing (see 2509180069).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The Senate was on the cusp Thursday afternoon of passing S-2296 with the Armed Services Committee's Section 1564 spectrum veto language intact. Chamber leaders locked in a unanimous consent agreement Thursday afternoon to hold votes on a set of amendments, which doesn't include a proposal from Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to fully remove Section 1564 (see 2509110073). Two top Senate Armed Services GOP members recently told us they opposed altering or removing the spectrum language (see 2510070037).
Senate leaders also omitted a set of amendments from Commerce ranking member Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., to modify spectrum language in the July reconciliation law (see 2507070045), including a proposal to exclude the 3.55-3.7 GHz citizens broadband radio service (CBRS) and 6 GHz bands from potential reallocation.
“I don't think we need that [DOD spectrum] language” in the final FY26 NDAA, Hudson said during the Punchbowl event. “The Pentagon needs to be at the table” with other agencies in reaching a consensus on reallocating federally controlled frequencies, but it shouldn’t have “any kind of veto authority” that would unilaterally preclude auctioning off any band. Republicans’ reconciliation package, previously known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, already exempts the lower 3 and 7/8 GHz bands from being eligible for reallocation as part of an 800 MHz spectrum pipeline.
Hudson emphasized that he’s “going to take into account [the military’s] needs,” because as the lawmaker who “represents Fort Bragg, I want my special forces and other operators to have everything they need to perform their jobs as well as possible and get home safely.” He has already “had multiple conversations with [FCC Chairman] Brendan Carr about [the] careful balance that has to be met” in implementing the reconciliation law’s spectrum pipeline, including avoiding the lower 3 and 7/8 GHz bands. “Carr understands [and has] a really good view of how that balance can be struck,” Hudson said.
CBRS, Permitting Issues
Carr also needs to take “into account what's happened" in the CBRS band, and he's being "very careful” when making decisions to modify its use, given that the reconciliation law didn’t explicitly exclude it from reallocation, Hudson said. The House’s original version of that law's spectrum language proposed excluding CBRS, as well as the 6 GHz band (see 2505140062).
“A lot of folks are … pushing the envelope and coming up with new ways to [reorganize CBRS or] make some of it available for auction,” Hudson said. He was among 16 House Commerce Committee Republicans who urged the FCC in an Aug. 25 letter to “make every effort to avoid disrupting or displacing … commercial services [in the CBRS and 6 GHz bands] as it takes the necessary steps to allocate more commercial spectrum.” Ten Senate Republicans sent a similar letter to Carr in September (see 2509110073).
Hudson said Thursday that advancing legislation to revamp permitting is “my top priority now” after enactment of the spectrum reconciliation language. “Both sides [appear to] understand the need for permitting reform.” He and other House Communications Republicans strongly favored a set of permitting bills during the subpanel’s Sept. 18 legislative hearing, but Democrats largely panned them, saying they weren't sufficiently bipartisan and mostly mirrored measures that the GOP had previously combined into the controversial American Broadband Deployment Act (see 2305240069).
Enacting a permitting package is a necessary step to ensure U.S. “national security [and] continue to outpace China,” Hudson said. “We've got to get broadband access for folks. We've got to build more towers. And to do that, we need permitting reform, because [it] doesn't do any good to throw a whole lot of money at this problem if you're going to still delay years and years just to build a tower. We need a lot more towers. We need a lot more fiber in the ground.” The federal government also needs “to get [NTIA’s $42.5 billion BEAD] program cranking,” he said.
“A lot of folks in my party thought we ought to scrap [BEAD] and start over because it really wasn't working” under the rules NTIA used during the Biden administration, Hudson said. “Not one inch of fiber got laid” during the three years that NTIA implemented BEAD before the second Trump administration took over in January. He blamed that on “the extra regulations [the Biden administration] added that have nothing to do with technology,” which Republicans strongly opposed (see 2411220035). Under new Administrator Arielle Roth and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, NTIA “is moving very quickly to try to get” states’ resubmitted BEAD plans approved in order to implement the agency's June 6 policy restructuring notice (see 2506060052), Hudson said.