NDAA Compliant List: Section 889 Banned Companies and FCC List

The NDAA compliant list flows from Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which names five Chinese manufacturers whose equipment and services are banned from federal procurement: Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company.1U.S. General Services Administration. Section 889 Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment The ban covers each company’s subsidiaries and affiliates, applies to both equipment and services, and sits alongside a broader FCC Covered List and a separate semiconductor prohibition that begins in December 2027. If your organization sells to, contracts with, or receives grants from the federal government, the five names are the starting point, not the whole picture.

The Five Banned Companies

Section 889 names five entities, and it treats them in two different ways.2Congress.gov. John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019

  • Huawei Technologies Company. All telecommunications equipment, and any telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by or using Huawei equipment.
  • ZTE Corporation. Same scope as Huawei: all telecommunications equipment and related services.
  • Hytera Communications Corporation. Video surveillance and telecommunications equipment used for public safety, government facility security, critical infrastructure surveillance, or other national security purposes.
  • Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company. Same narrower scope as Hytera, tied to security or national security functions.
  • Dahua Technology Company. Same narrower scope as Hytera and Hikvision.

Huawei and ZTE face a blanket ban on their telecommunications equipment. Hytera, Hikvision, and Dahua are restricted only when the equipment serves a security-related function. In practice, most federal buyers treat all five as equally off-limits, because proving a camera will never be used for a security purpose is harder than buying from another manufacturer.

The prohibition extends to every subsidiary and affiliate of the five, including subsidiaries that operate under different brand names.1U.S. General Services Administration. Section 889 Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment The statute also lets the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence or the FBI Director, add other entities believed to be owned by, controlled by, or connected to the government of a covered foreign country.2Congress.gov. John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019

The FCC Covered List Goes Further

The FCC maintains a separate Covered List under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 that overlaps with Section 889 but adds more names. As of 2026, the FCC list includes:3Federal Communications Commission. List of Equipment and Services Covered By Section 2 of The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act

  • Huawei Technologies Company
  • ZTE Corporation
  • Hytera Communications Corporation
  • Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company
  • Dahua Technology Company
  • AO Kaspersky Lab and Kaspersky Lab, Inc., covering information security products, antivirus software, and related services, including equipment with integrated Kaspersky software
  • China Mobile International USA Inc., for international telecommunications services
  • China Telecom (Americas) Corp., for telecommunications services
  • Pacific Networks Corp and ComNet (USA) LLC, for international telecommunications services
  • China Unicom (Americas) Operations Limited, for international telecommunications services

The FCC list matters because it reaches federal contractors, telecommunications carriers seeking federal subsidies, and participants in programs like the Universal Service Fund. An organization that only tracks the five Section 889 names can miss the restrictions covering Kaspersky software and the Chinese telecom service providers.

The Coming Semiconductor Ban

Section 5949 of the FY2023 NDAA adds a second layer of supply chain restrictions, this time on Chinese semiconductor manufacturers. Beginning December 23, 2027, federal agencies cannot procure products or services that include semiconductors designed, produced, or provided by:4Federal Register. Prohibition on Certain Semiconductor Products and Services

  • Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC)
  • ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT)
  • Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp (YMTC)

The prohibition extends to subsidiaries, affiliates, and successors of these companies, and the Secretaries of Defense and Commerce can designate additional semiconductor entities connected to the government of a foreign country of concern (currently China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran).

Two exceptions matter. Agencies are not required to rip out equipment purchased before December 23, 2027, and they can service that equipment with replacement components throughout its lifecycle. New procurements after that date must be free of covered semiconductors. Under the proposed rule, contractors must certify after a reasonable inquiry that their electronic products do not include covered semiconductors, and if they lack visibility into a component, they must require the next-tier supplier to certify and pass the obligation down the chain.

Two Separate Prohibitions: What You Sell, and What You Use

Section 889 created two prohibitions with different effective dates, and the second is where most compliance problems live.5Acquisition.GOV. Section 889 Policies

Part A, effective August 13, 2019, bars federal agencies from procuring, obtaining, or renewing a contract to procure any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. In plain terms: the government will not buy banned products.

Part B, effective August 13, 2020, bars federal agencies from entering into, extending, or renewing a contract with any entity that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system. Part B looks inside your organization. Even if what you deliver to the government is completely clean, you cannot win or keep a federal contract if you use banned equipment anywhere in your own operations, including in corporate offices, employee home networks used for work, or internal software development environments.

Two narrow exceptions apply. A service that connects to the facilities of a third party through backhaul, roaming, or interconnection arrangements is not prohibited, and passive equipment that cannot route or redirect user data traffic and cannot see into user data or packets is exempt.6Acquisition.GOV. 48 CFR 52.204-25 – Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment Most equipment that meaningfully handles data falls outside them.

Look Inside the Box: White-Label Products and Internal Components

The brand on the outside of a device does not settle compliance. White-labeling is common in the technology industry, and a security camera sold by a domestic company can still be non-compliant if it contains an image sensor, system-on-a-chip, or firmware from a banned manufacturer. Those internal parts often handle the device’s core processing and data functions, which makes them substantial or essential components under the statute.5Acquisition.GOV. Section 889 Policies

Manufacturers selling to the federal government need to audit their bills of materials so no silicon, firmware, or embedded software originates with a banned entity. Buyers who rely only on external branding are taking a risk. The safer approach is written confirmation from the manufacturer about the origin of every component that processes or transmits data. Several surveillance manufacturers, including Axis, Hanwha Vision, and Bosch, have positioned product lines around NDAA compliance and can provide detailed component documentation.

Federal Grant Recipients: Different Rules

Section 889 reaches beyond contractors. Organizations that receive federal grants, loans, or cooperative agreements cannot spend those funds on covered telecommunications equipment or services.7eCFR. 2 CFR 200.216 – Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Equipment or Services

One key difference: Part B’s use prohibition does not apply to grant recipients. A university or nonprofit receiving federal grant money can have Hikvision cameras in its lobby, but it cannot use grant funds to buy them. The line is what federal dollars pay for, not what the organization owns. Costs tied to covered equipment are unallowable, cannot be counted toward cost-sharing, and must stay out of indirect cost pools. Accepting the grant is itself a certification of compliance, and each payment request or financial report reaffirms it.7eCFR. 2 CFR 200.216 – Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Equipment or Services

How to Verify a Product Is Compliant

Checking a product against the NDAA compliant list takes more than reading a label. A few tools work best in combination.

Manufacturer Documentation

Request a written Declaration of Conformity or Letter of Compliance from the manufacturer, stating that the specific model and production date does not contain hardware or software from any banned entity. If a manufacturer will not provide this, treat the product as non-compliant. The burden of proof falls on the buyer.

FAR Representations

The federal procurement system uses three interlocking clauses.

A reasonable inquiry does not require a third-party audit. It means reviewing the supplier documentation, spec sheets, and procurement records already in your possession to determine whether your organization uses covered equipment. The standard is reasonable, not none. A contractor who never looks at its supply chain cannot credibly claim its inquiry was reasonable.

GSA Verification Tools

GSA’s 889 Representations Search tool pulls a vendor’s Section 889 representations from its SAM.gov record, so buyers can quickly confirm what a vendor has declared.10GSA SmartPay. 889 Representations Search Defense Department personnel can also use the DoD CAAMP Bot by emailing a vendor’s CAGE code or Unique Entity ID to receive registration and representation details.

Trade Agreements Act as a First Filter

Products that meet the Trade Agreements Act are manufactured or substantially transformed in approved countries, which lowers the odds of prohibited components.11Acquisition.GOV. 48 CFR 52.225-5 – Trade Agreements TAA compliance is not Section 889 compliance (a product can be TAA-compliant and still contain a banned chipset), but products manufactured entirely in China will not meet TAA and deserve extra scrutiny.

What Happens If You Get It Wrong

Selling non-compliant equipment to the federal government, or misrepresenting a product’s compliance, carries serious consequences. Contract termination is the first risk: a contracting officer who finds banned equipment can end the contract and freeze future bidding. The financial exposure runs further.

False representations about Section 889 compliance can trigger the False Claims Act, which imposes penalties of $14,308 to $28,619 per false claim plus treble damages on the government’s actual losses.12Federal Register. Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustments for 2025 A contractor who submits dozens of invoices under a tainted contract sees those per-claim penalties stack fast. The Department of Justice has brought criminal charges, including wire fraud and major fraud against the United States, against individuals who falsely represented that cameras sold to government customers were Section 889 compliant.

Debarment is the ultimate penalty. A company debarred from federal procurement loses access to all government contracts for a set period, which for organizations that rely on federal revenue can be existential. Even a company that unknowingly integrated banned components can be suspended while the government investigates, which freezes contract payments and new awards.