Telecom Cybersecurity Transparency Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/2480
Last Updated: April 8, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]

ID: W000779

Follow the money

The bill

Telecom Cybersecurity Transparency Act

S. 2480, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$116,250 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

64% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 891-894 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Held at the desk.

July 28, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's going to "save the world" from the evil clutches of... (dramatic pause) ...cyber insecurity. How quaint.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Telecom Cybersecurity Transparency Act is a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. Its main purpose is to "require" the Secretary of Homeland Security to release an unclassified report on U.S. telecommunications insecurity. Wow, what a bold move. I'm sure the telecom industry is shaking in its boots.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill's sole provision is to mandate the public release of a report that's already been prepared. That's it. No actual policy changes, no meaningful reforms, just a PR stunt designed to make lawmakers look like they're doing something about cybersecurity. It's like prescribing a Band-Aid for a patient with stage IV cancer.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: telecom companies, cybersecurity firms, and the Department of Homeland Security. But let's be real, this bill is just a favor to the telecom industry, which has been lobbying hard to avoid any actual regulation or accountability. It's like giving a patient with a chronic illness a lollipop instead of actual treatment.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** (chuckles) Oh boy, where do I even start? This bill will have all the impact of a feather in a hurricane. It won't change anything, it won't improve cybersecurity, and it won't hold anyone accountable. But hey, it'll make for great campaign ads: "I supported the Telecom Cybersecurity Transparency Act! Vote for me!" Meanwhile, the real issues – like the lack of meaningful regulation, inadequate funding, and systemic vulnerabilities – will continue to fester.

Diagnosis: This bill is a classic case of "Legislative Theateritis," a disease characterized by grandiose language, empty promises, and a complete lack of substance. Symptoms include: meaningless provisions, PR-driven policy decisions, and a healthy dose of cynicism from the public. Treatment: a strong dose of reality, followed by actual policy changes that address the root causes of cybersecurity issues. But don't hold your breath; this patient is terminal.

Related Topics

Cybersecurity & Data PrivacyNational Security & IntelligencePublic Health & Pandemic Response
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$116,250
27 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$9,550
Committees
$0
Individuals
$106,700

No PAC contributions found

1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$3,000
2
SHAKOPEE MDWEKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$2,000
3
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
1 transaction
$1,000
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSIONS INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
5
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
6
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
2 transactions
$1,000
7
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
1 transaction
$550

No committee contributions found

1
WINTER, DAVID
1 transaction
$11,600
2
JAIN, TUSHAR
1 transaction
$6,600
3
ROSENTHAL, JOSHUA
1 transaction
$6,600
4
SAMANI, PYAHM
1 transaction
$6,600
5
SEIFF, KEN
1 transaction
$6,600
6
SMITH, BRIAN
1 transaction
$6,600
7
XETHALIS, GREGORY
1 transaction
$6,600
8
WOODS, ANDREW
1 transaction
$5,000
9
FISE, PETER
1 transaction
$5,000
10
PUTALA, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$5,000
11
VANROEKEL, CAROLINE
1 transaction
$5,000
12
FOGG, ANGELA
1 transaction
$5,000
13
FOGG, PHILLIP JR.
1 transaction
$5,000
14
MAHFOUZ, SAMUEL
1 transaction
$5,000
15
CHASE, DAVID
1 transaction
$4,000
16
YOUNGMAN, ANDREW
1 transaction
$3,300
17
DIXON, CHRIS
1 transaction
$3,300
18
EMERSON, BILL
1 transaction
$3,300
19
ZACHARY, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$3,300
20
TURKISH, JASON
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 73 nodes and 30 connections (78 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $116,250

Top Donors - Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to publicly release the unclassified report 'U.S. Telecommunications Insecurity 2022', which increases transparency and may benefit telecommunications companies by highlighting security issues and potentially driving demand for cybersecurity solutions.

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.85

    Section 2 mandates release of a telecommunications insecurity report prepared for CISA under DHS Science and Technology Directorate, which could increase awareness and demand for cybersecurity services and products.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate63.6%
Pages: 891-894

— 859 — Federal Communications Commission 21. Hal J. Singer and Ted Tatos, Subsidizing Universal Broadband Through a Digital Advertising Services Fee: An Alignment of Incentives, Econ One, September 2021, p. 1 (“[T]he current USF mechanism is unsustainable and will fail to meet the needs of its target consumer base within the next five years.”), https://www.econone.com/ wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Digital-Divide-HSinger-TTatos-2.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 22. FBI Director Christopher Wray, testimony in video of hearing, Worldwide Threats to the Homeland, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, November 15, 2022, at 02:27, https://democrats- homeland.house.gov/activities/hearings/11/04/2022/worldwide-threats-to-the-homeland (accessed January 23, 2023); John D. McKinnon, Arunav Viswanatha, and Stu Woo, “TikTok National-Security Deal Faces More Delays as Worry Grows Over Risks,” The Wall Street Journal, updated December 6, 2022, https://www.wsj. com/articles/tiktok-national-security-deal-faces-more-delays-as-worry-grows-over-risks-11670342800 (accessed January 23, 2023). 23. U.S. Federal Communications Commission, “List of Equipment and Services Covered by Section 2 of the Secure Networks Act,” updated September 20, 2022, https://www.fcc.gov/supplychain/coveredlist (accessed January 23, 2023). 24. H.R. 820, Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency Act, 118th Congress, introduced February 2, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr820/BILLS-118hr820ih.pdf (accessed March 6, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of State, “The Clean Network,” https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-clean-network/index.html (accessed January 23, 2023). 26. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide, GAO-22-104611, May 2022, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104611.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 27. Document No. 144, “Federal Communications Commission: Message from the President of the United States Recommending that Congress Create a New Agency to be Known as the Federal Communications Commission,” U.S. Senate, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., February 26, 1934, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/ DOC-298207A1.pdf (accessed January 23, 2023). 28. 47 U.S.C, Chapter 5, §§ 151 et seq., (accessed March 6, 2023). — 861 — 29 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Hans A. von Spakovsky MISSION/OVERVIEW The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent federal agency that began operations in 1975 to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) passed by Congress in 1971 and amended in 1974.1 FECA governs the raising and spending of funds in all federal campaigns for Congress and the presidency. The FEC has no authority over the administration of federal elections, which is per- formed by state governments. While the FEC has exclusive civil enforcement authority over FECA,2 the U.S. Justice Department has criminal enforcement authority, which is defined as a knowing and willful violation of the law.3 Because the FEC is an independent agency and not a division or office directly within the executive branch, the author- ity of the President over the actions of the FEC is extremely limited. As former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith has said, the FEC’s “[r]egulation of campaign finance deeply implicates First Amendment principles of free speech and association.”4 The FEC regulates in one of the most sensitive areas of the Bill of Rights: political speech and political activity by citizens, candidates, political par- ties, and the voluntary membership organizations that represent Americans who share common views on a huge range of important and vital public policy issues. NEEDED REFORMS Nomination Authority. The President’s most significant power is the appoint- ment of the six commissioners who govern the FEC, subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Commissioners may only serve a single term of six years but

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills