Prisons get jamming power—but who pays if it breaks your cell service?

What it does

This bill allows state and federal prisons to install and operate cellphone jamming equipment inside their facilities to block wireless signals, overriding the Federal Communications Commission's current authority to prevent such jamming. Prisons would be required to consult with local law enforcement and notify the Bureau of Prisons before deploying jamming systems, and states would bear the full cost of installation and operation.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to remove FCC regulatory barriers and grant correctional facilities explicit authority to deploy cellphone jamming systems. It is a regulatory carve-out for a specific government use case, not a market-facing commercial provision.

What the text implies

• Jamming systems operate on radio frequencies and may interfere with wireless communications outside facility boundaries, potentially affecting 911 services, hospital communications, or civilian cell service in adjacent areas—the bill does not require interference mitigation or liability protections for third parties.
• The bill grants jamming authority without establishing technical standards, power limits, or FCC oversight of deployment, creating risk of uncontrolled signal interference and no clear enforcement mechanism if a facility exceeds safe operating parameters.
• State funding requirement may create disparities: wealthy states can afford robust jamming systems; under-resourced states may deploy inadequate or unsafe equipment, or skip deployment entirely, widening prison security gaps by jurisdiction.
• Notification to Bureau of Prisons is required but no federal approval or technical review is mandated, meaning federal facilities could deploy jamming without independent safety assessment.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill creates a genuine trade-off: prisons gain a tool to prevent contraband phones and reduce inmate-coordinated violence or escape attempts (a public safety benefit), but jamming equipment can interfere with legitimate wireless communications in surrounding areas and may impair emergency services or civilian communications near facilities—a concrete public cost that the bill does not adequately address or mitigate.

Who stands to gain

• jamming equipment manufacturers and installers
• correctional facility contractors and systems integrators

Named in the bill

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Bureau of Prisons, State correctional facilities, Federal correctional facilities, Local law enforcement agencies

Where it stands

23 cosponsors: 22 Republicans, 1 Democrats.

• Mar 26, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Mar 26, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $115,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 4 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

David Kustoff, the sponsor, reported $1,066,250 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Ctia — $100,000 on 2 filings
• Correctional Leaders Association — $15,000 on 3 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.