Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Wireless spectrum policy is vital to national security and the economy

Circuit board with 5G label
Funtap/Getty Images

Lopez is president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.

While it may not get the dramatic headlines that other topics garner, few public policy issues will affect the future of our country the way telecommunications infrastructure will, specifically considering the current regulatory path for 5G and wireless spectrum.

How American policymakers handle spectrum will affect national security and American economic international competitiveness now and for decades to come. Economic growth, entrepreneurship, upward mobility, innovation, education and health care are among the areas that are and will be impacted.


That is because spectrum — the radio frequencies that transmit information wirelessly — is the foundation necessary to ensure that American consumers have access to reliable and affordable high-speed internet. And in our increasingly connected world, access to spectrum has a direct bearing on economic activity across vital industries.

American security and international status come into play because our economic competitors understand the crucial role that spectrum plays and are already relying on its use to be a key factor in commerce. Political leaders of all persuasions talk about ensuring that the United States leads the world’s economy — in particular over China, a country that many see becoming progressively adversarial toward us.

There is spectrum to be had, but it needs to be made available. Historically, the Federal Communications Commission, which controls access to and use of the various spectrum bands for non-federal users, had authority to auction licenses. That authority expired over a year ago, and Congress needs to move on reauthorizing it.

The good news is that the spectrum auctions have been a Nobel-worthy approach that has been beneficial to taxpayers, bringing in more than $233 billion to the U.S. treasury, paid by wireless companies via the auctions. All companies can participate, including new entrants in the market. That increased competition among providers yields lower broadband prices for consumers.

Recently introduced legislation in the Senate, the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2024, would in part reestablish the FCC’s auction authority — a necessary first step.

Along with auction reauthorization, the bill acknowledges the role of mid-band spectrum, which works well for 5G applications due to its combination of capacity and range. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration would be directed to identify at least 2,500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum that can be reallocated from federal to non-federal use.

Wireless industry association leaders project that in just three years, China will have nearly quadruple more licensed mid-band spectrum for commercial purposes than the United States. That analysis also shows that the U.S. is lagging behind countries like France, Japan, the United Kingdom and South Korea. In fact, the U.S. is currently ranked 13th in the world for assigned licensed mid-band mobile spectrum according to research from IT and technology consulting firm Accenture.

In addition to the wider issue of global competitiveness, there are the practical, everyday economic benefits for Americans in modernizing our spectrum policy that only increase the significance to moving spectrum policy forward. By now most Americans have an intuitive understanding of how they benefit from internet connectivity.

Those benefits still need to be expanded to parts of the population, however. The gap in access to communication technologies hurts millions of underserved communities. That is known as the digital divide — and wireless access is an essential component to addressing that disparity. For example, data from Pew Research Center shows that 20 percent of the Hispanic population relies solely on smartphones for access to broadband for internet connectivity. Other communities face similar circumstances.

Ensuring that access is an important component for improving prospects for economic opportunity.

The tangible role of the internet to education, a cornerstone for individual success, is evident. Improved internet access allows students to access online educational resources, participate in remote learning and engage in e-learning platforms. This helps level the playing field and ensures that individuals from all socioeconomic backgrounds have equal access to educational opportunities, enabling them to acquire the skills necessary for better career prospects.

The rise in Fixed Wireless Access, which uses wireless broadband for home and business internet, has been a positive development in this regard. FWA can continue to be one way for more people to enjoy broadband for the first time than before. But providers can only offer 5G FWA in areas where there is enough spectrum and network capability.

Policymakers need to understand the magnitude of wireless spectrum policy, and its ramifications for Americans, both as individuals in pursuit of social and economic advancement and for the country’s national security and standing. The costs of not doing so would be a significant, and lasting, setback on all these fronts.


Read More

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less