iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A 2019 House Armed Services Committee draft proposed a Pentagon review of foreign telecommunications and video-surveillance equipment in the defense industrial base, with potential implications for contractors and subcontractors. It was a proposal in Chairman Adam Smith’s mark of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), not proof of a ban or of enacted policy.
What did the House defense bill propose?
As reported by CyberScoop on June 11, 2019, Smith’s chairman’s mark would require the Department of Defense (DoD) to conduct a “comprehensive assessment” of its policies on foreign telecommunications and video-surveillance equipment in the defense industrial base. The stated concern was the security of the Pentagon’s technology supply chain, not just the purchase of equipment by the department itself.
The draft said, “Supply chain risk issues have grown in importance as the U.S. defense acquisition supply base has become increasingly global,” according to language quoted by CyberScoop. A review of DoD policies could affect how the department and its suppliers address foreign equipment, including in contractor and subcontractor networks; the proposal was framed as an assessment, not as a specific vendor prohibition.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWould the proposal ban Huawei or ZTE?
The CyberScoop article discussed Huawei and ZTE as context, but reported that neither company was directly named in the provision. It would therefore be inaccurate to describe this House draft as a Huawei or ZTE ban.
#1 Best Overall
The official House bill text describes covered equipment and services in relation to entities based in a foreign country considered an adversary of the United States. That broader framing does not, by itself, establish that every product associated with a particular company would be prohibited. The exact scope depends on the applicable version and wording of the bill.
How did the House proposal relate to the 2019 supply-chain executive order?
The CyberScoop report linked the House proposal to a May 2019 executive order on information and communications technology and services (ICTS). The order stated its rationale this way: “I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that foreign adversaries are increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services, which store and communicate vast amounts of sensitive information, facilitate the digital economy, and support critical infrastructure and vital emergency services, in order to commit malicious cyber-enabled actions, including economic and industrial espionage against the United States and its people.” Read the executive order in the Federal Register.
The two efforts shared a supply-chain security concern, but they were distinct instruments. The executive order set out an administration rationale and approach for ICTS; the House draft called for a DoD policy assessment focused on foreign telecommunications and video-surveillance equipment in the defense industrial base. The connection does not mean their scope or legal effect was identical.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How did the House approach differ from the Senate approach?
CyberScoop’s June 2019 account described a separate Senate approach to building a trusted advanced-microelectronics supply chain for the United States and its allies and partners. It also said that the Senate text had not yet been publicly released at the time. The comparison below reflects only what that contemporaneous reporting established.
| Comparison | House chairman’s mark | Senate approach as reported in June 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| Technology focus | Foreign telecommunications and video-surveillance equipment in the defense industrial base | Advanced microelectronics |
| Proposed approach | Comprehensive assessment of DoD policies, with potential contractor and subcontractor implications | A trusted supply-chain strategy for the United States and allies and partners |
| Named companies | Huawei and ZTE were not directly named in the provision, according to CyberScoop | Not stated in the contemporaneous report |
| Status at the time | Chairman’s mark ahead of the scheduled committee markup | Text not yet publicly released, according to CyberScoop |
The report also cited proposed totals of $733 billion for the House mark and $750 billion for the Senate version. These were contemporaneous figures reported on June 11, 2019—not enacted appropriations or current defense-spending levels—and they do not measure the proposal’s effect on supply-chain risk.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What was the proposal’s legislative status?
The measure described in the story was part of a House Armed Services Committee chairman’s mark for the FY2020 NDAA, before the committee markup. A chairman’s mark is a draft for committee consideration; it is not, by itself, evidence that Congress enacted the language.
The sources available for this account do not establish whether this specific provision survived the House-Senate conference process, became law, or led to later DoD rules or guidance. The proposal should not be treated as a current compliance requirement or an operative ban without checking the final FY2020 NDAA and subsequent implementation materials.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
