H.R. 9151 (119th)Bill Overview

Advancing American Wi-Fi Against Foreign Adversaries Act

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Jun 4, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, to produce a publicly available plan within 180 days for advancing and advocating global adoption of Wi‑Fi and other unlicensed technologies. It requires interagency coordination, public comment, and a focus on promoting harmonization of the 5925–7125 MHz band, counters efforts by adversaries (explicitly naming the PRC) to undermine unlicensed technologies, and a report after WRC‑27 with an option for a classified annex.

Why people may split

Liberals focus on consumer access and competition safeguards

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well‑constructed reporting mandate: it sets a clear purpose, assigns responsibility, specifies timelines, requires public input, and demands a follow‑up implementation report.

The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, to produce a publicly available plan within 180 days for advancing and advocating global adoption of Wi‑Fi and other unlicensed technologies.

It requires interagency coordination, public comment, and a focus on promoting harmonization of the 5925–7125 MHz band, counters efforts by adversaries (explicitly naming the PRC) to undermine unlicensed technologies, and a report after WRC‑27 with an option for a classified annex.

Passage30/100

Narrow, low‑cost administrative directive with national security framing and bipartisan potential, but procedural floor access and political prioritization are key constraints.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well‑constructed reporting mandate: it sets a clear purpose, assigns responsibility, specifies timelines, requires public input, and demands a follow‑up implementation report. Those elements collectively form a coherent plan‑development and accountability sequence appropriate to a study/reporting vehicle.

Contention30/100

Liberals focus on consumer access and competition safeguards

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
ManufacturersFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitSupports U.S. leadership in Wi‑Fi and unlicensed spectrum policy at international forums.
  • ManufacturersPromotes global harmonization of 5925–7125 MHz, enabling device manufacturers' economies of scale.
  • Potential benefitMay increase U.S. device manufacturing and deployment jobs through expanded global market opportunities.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesCreates new federal planning obligations without authorizing or funding associated implementation costs.
  • Federal agenciesCould duplicate or overlap existing FCC and State Department roles, complicating interagency responsibilities.
  • Potential burdenMay increase diplomatic friction with countries advocating alternative spectrum arrangements, including host nation Chi…
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals focus on consumer access and competition safeguards
Progressive75%

Likely supportive overall because the bill promotes open, unlicensed spectrum which expands access and innovation.

However, progressives may worry the bill prioritizes industry interests over affordability, competition, and civil liberties if not paired with consumer protections.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Generally favorable as a targeted, short statutory directive that coordinates agencies ahead of WRC‑27.

Will seek clarity on costs, timelines, measurable goals, and diplomatic risk management before full endorsement.

Leans supportive
Conservative85%

Likely strongly supportive given national security and competition framing, and the explicit effort to counter PRC influence.

Some conservatives may still ask that the plan avoid ongoing federal spending or mission creep.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood30/100

Narrow, low‑cost administrative directive with national security framing and bipartisan potential, but procedural floor access and political prioritization are key constraints.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether congressional leaders will schedule floor consideration
  • Administration support and prioritization for lead agency action
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberals focus on consumer access and competition safeguards

Narrow, low‑cost administrative directive with national security framing and bipartisan potential, but procedural floor access and politica…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well‑constructed reporting mandate: it sets a clear purpose, assigns responsibility, specifies timelines, requires public input, and demands a follow‑up implemen…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis