Technical corrections only. The v4 version updates the bill's status to reflect its referral to the Senate and includes the name of the House Clerk. No substantive policy changes were made to the text of the bill.
Understanding Cybersecurity of Mobile Networks Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2025
Bottom line
This bill mandates a detailed federal report on the cybersecurity posture and vulnerabilities of existing mobile service networks and devices, aiming to inform future policy and industry practices.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to submit a comprehensive report to Congress within one year. The report will examine the cybersecurity of mobile service networks and their vulnerability to cyberattacks and surveillance by adversaries. It will assess how providers address vulnerabilities, customer cybersecurity considerations, implementation of best practices, prevalence of encryption/authentication, barriers to adopting better security, and the use of surveillance technologies, specifically excluding 5G networks from its scope.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a crucial step to understand and address the significant cybersecurity risks facing mobile networks and devices, protecting consumers, companies, and government agencies from adversarial cyberattacks and surveillance. They emphasize the need for a thorough assessment to inform future policy and industry best practices, especially given the increasing reliance on mobile technology.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that mandating a report is an insufficient response to a pressing issue, potentially delaying concrete action. They might also contend that excluding 5G networks from the scope limits the report's relevance, as 5G is a rapidly evolving and critical infrastructure. Some might also raise concerns about the potential for the report to reveal sensitive information that could itself be exploited, despite provisions for classified annexes and redactions.
The bill is concise and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for stakeholders to understand its directives.
Section 2(a) and 2(b)
Mandate for a Comprehensive Report on Mobile Network Cybersecurity
This section requires the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to submit a report to Congress within one year. The report must detail the cybersecurity of mobile service networks, including vulnerabilities to cyberattacks and surveillance by adversaries. It will assess how mobile service providers address these vulnerabilities, the role of cybersecurity in customer purchasing decisions, the implementation of best practices, and the use of encryption and authentication.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for establishing a baseline understanding of mobile network cybersecurity, identifying gaps, and informing future policy decisions to protect national security and individual privacy in an increasingly mobile-dependent world.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the report's scope, particularly the exclusion of 5G, limits its utility, and that the time frame for completion (one year) might be too long given the rapid evolution of cyber threats. Some might also express concern about the administrative burden on federal agencies and private entities involved in the consultation process.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need for a comprehensive assessment of current mobile network vulnerabilities against the practicalities of conducting such a study, including the time and resources required. It also navigates the tension between providing a broad overview and focusing on specific, exploitable vulnerabilities, while also trying to protect sensitive information.
Excludes consideration of 5G protocols and networks from the report.
Section 2(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is likely a deliberate legislative choice to narrow the scope, possibly due to the complexity or nascent stage of 5G deployment at the time of drafting, or to focus on existing, more widely deployed technologies. It could also be a compromise to get the bill passed.
Case for: Proponents of this exclusion might argue that focusing on existing, more mature mobile network technologies allows for a more immediate and actionable assessment of current vulnerabilities without getting bogged down in the rapidly evolving and often proprietary aspects of 5G, which might warrant a separate, dedicated study.
Case against: Critics might contend that excluding 5G significantly limits the report's forward-looking relevance, as 5G is the future of mobile communication and presents its own unique and critical cybersecurity challenges that should be addressed concurrently.
Estimated impact: The report will provide a detailed snapshot of non-5G mobile network cybersecurity, potentially missing emerging threats and vulnerabilities specific to 5G infrastructure.
Requires the Assistant Secretary to redact potentially exploitable unclassified information from the public report, while providing an unredacted version to the relevant committees.
Section 2(e)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard practice for reports dealing with sensitive national security or cybersecurity information, aimed at preventing the public release of information that could be weaponized by adversaries, while still ensuring full transparency to congressional oversight committees.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is crucial for national security, preventing the report itself from becoming a roadmap for cyberattacks by adversaries. It balances public awareness with the need to protect sensitive vulnerability data.
Case against: Critics might argue that excessive redaction could limit public understanding and debate, potentially hindering broader efforts to improve cybersecurity if key information is withheld from the public and independent researchers.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the public version of the report will be less detailed on specific vulnerabilities, while Congress receives the full picture.