Brendan Carr’s Baseless Xenophobia Derails New FCC ‘Internet Of Things’ (IOT) Device Security Standards
Summary
The Biden-era FCC had proposed a voluntary IoT security labelling programme — the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark — worked on with UL Solutions to rank smart devices that met basic privacy and security standards. FCC chair Brendan Carr announced a pause while his office “investigated” UL Solutions over its business ties to China, even though UL is a long-established testing firm with global operations. Critics say the move is a thinly veiled attempt at regulatory capture: delaying consumer-protecting standards to favour large U.S. companies that oppose oversight. The result is a stalled programme and greater risk to consumers from insecure IoT devices.
Key Points
- FCC proposed a voluntary IoT security labelling scheme (U.S. Cyber Trust Mark) to signal devices meeting baseline security and privacy standards.
- UL Solutions — a 130-year-old testing firm — was chosen to run testing; Carr paused the programme citing UL’s China operations.
- There is no public evidence UL Solutions acted improperly; the investigation lacks transparency and a clear timeline.
- Delaying the programme increases consumer risk from insecure, often abandoned, IoT devices that can be hijacked or repurposed for attacks.
- Observers view Carr’s actions as politically motivated regulatory rollback and deference to big US companies opposed to oversight.
Content summary
Security experts have long warned that many consumer IoT devices are poorly secured. The FCC’s voluntary label would have helped buyers and organisations choose safer devices, while nudging manufacturers to improve practices. Carr’s announcement that the FCC would investigate UL Solutions — largely because UL has testing facilities in China to serve the massive device market there — has stalled the rollout. The article argues Carr is using China-related rhetoric as cover for favouring industry actors who want minimal regulation, and that the pause jeopardises public safety given the prevalence of insecure IoT gear and past large-scale hacks tied to lax security.
The piece also situates this episode within a broader pattern: the current administration weakening federal cybersecurity programmes, stacked courts shielding big telecoms, and repeated use of national-security language selectively to benefit private interests. The author warns that even if a label were introduced, its voluntary nature and a hostile legal environment mean meaningful enforcement would be unlikely.
Context and relevance
Why this matters: insecure IoT devices are already a practical threat — botnets, hijacked cameras, vulnerable industrial controllers and more. A trusted label could raise the floor for device security and help procurement decisions across homes and businesses. The collapse or delay of the programme matters to anyone who buys smart devices, runs networks that include them, or cares about national cyber resilience.
Industry and policy trends: this story sits at the intersection of tech regulation, national-security rhetoric, and regulatory capture. The episode echoes other instances where geopolitical fear (China) is invoked while oversight is rolled back or delayed for business-aligned reasons. It also highlights the limits of voluntary programmes absent robust enforcement and political will.
Why should I read this?
Look — if you’ve got smart toys, cameras, chargers or any dodgy bit-of-tech in your home or office, this affects you. The article cuts through the noise: the FCC had a fairly modest idea to help make these things safer, and politics has now stalled it. Read it if you care about getting fewer insecure gadgets in the wild without having to become a network engineer overnight.
Author style
Punchy — the piece takes a clear stance and connects the IoT labelling pause to bigger patterns of deregulatory politics and regulatory capture. If you follow tech policy or consumer security, the detail is worth your time: it explains both the immediate practical risk and the broader political manoeuvring behind the delay.