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.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.