Last reviewed on May 12, 2026.
What Section 889 is
Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) prohibits federal agencies from procuring or using certain telecommunications equipment and services from specified Chinese entities. The two parts of the prohibition implement different scopes and have different implications for contractors.
The companion FAR implementation is at FAR Subpart 4.21 and the contract clauses at FAR 52.204-24, 52.204-25, and 52.204-26. DFARS includes parallel coverage for DoD-specific applications. Section 889 has become a standard compliance topic in nearly every federal solicitation and SAM.gov registration.
Covered entities
The statute names specific covered entities and their subsidiaries and affiliates:
- Huawei Technologies Company
- ZTE Corporation
- Hytera Communications Corporation
- Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company
- Dahua Technology Company
- Subsidiaries and affiliates of the entities above
- Other entities the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of the People's Republic of China
"Subsidiary or affiliate" is broad. Many product lines and rebadged equipment trace back to these manufacturers; vendors selling equipment must verify supply chains carefully.
Part A and Part B — the two prohibitions
Part A — the agency prohibition
Effective August 2019. Prohibits federal agencies from procuring covered telecommunications equipment or services as a "substantial or essential component of any system" or "critical technology." Implemented through contract clauses requiring vendors to disclose whether the products or services being offered include covered equipment.
Part A is the older, more familiar prohibition. Vendors offering products through SEWP, Schedule, or other vehicles must confirm their offering is Part A compliant.
Part B — the contractor prohibition
Effective August 2020. Prohibits federal agencies from contracting with any entity that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system. This is the broader and more disruptive prohibition.
Part B is not limited to what the contractor sells the government. It reaches the contractor's internal use — meaning a firm with Huawei or Dahua equipment in its own network may not contract with the federal government regardless of what it is selling.
"Substantial or essential component" and what it means
The statute and regulations leave the phrase "substantial or essential component" largely undefined in operational terms. Guidance and practice have developed around a few principles:
- Equipment used in primary network infrastructure (routers, switches, firewalls, telephony systems) is generally treated as substantial or essential.
- Surveillance cameras and physical security systems from Hikvision or Dahua used at the contractor's facility are typically treated as substantial or essential.
- Personal devices not connected to the contractor's network may be evaluated differently than enterprise devices, though prudent compliance avoids covered equipment in either case.
- Bundled equipment where covered components are minor and indirect (e.g., a covered chip in a non-covered third-party product) presents harder analysis questions that should be discussed with counsel.
The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and individual agencies have issued additional guidance interpreting the phrase in their own procurement contexts. Contractors with significant federal business should track this guidance.
The SAM.gov representations
Section 889 representations have been integrated into SAM.gov. Every entity registered in SAM provides annual representations that include the Section 889 questions. The two main representations:
- FAR 52.204-26 representation. The contractor represents whether it does or does not provide covered telecommunications equipment or services as part of its offerings (the Part A representation).
- FAR 52.204-26 representation. The contractor represents whether it does or does not use covered telecommunications equipment or services (the Part B representation).
A "yes" to either representation triggers additional disclosures and may render the contractor ineligible for award absent a waiver. A "no" is a binding representation; submitting "no" while using covered equipment exposes the contractor to False Claims Act risk and contract termination.
See SAM.gov registration for how representations work in the broader registration context.
Waivers
The statute provides for waivers under narrow circumstances:
- Part B waivers. The Director of National Intelligence may waive the Part B prohibition for specific contractors when granting the waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. Waivers must be reported to Congress.
- Phase-out waivers. Limited transitional waivers have been issued to allow contractors time to remove covered equipment from their systems.
In practice, waivers are rare. Most contractors approach Section 889 as a hard prohibition and remove covered equipment from their environments rather than pursue waivers.
Practical compliance steps
- Network and equipment inventory. Document every networking, telephony, video surveillance, and security device by manufacturer. Include managed service provider environments and cloud-hosted equipment used as a substantial component.
- Supply chain due diligence. For vendors offering products to the government, verify the supply chain back to manufacturer. White-labeled and rebadged products are a frequent source of inadvertent non-compliance.
- Subcontractor and vendor flow-down. The prohibition flows to subcontractors at all tiers in many contracts. Verify subs' Section 889 status before contracting with them.
- Remediation plan. Where covered equipment is found, document a remediation plan — replacement timeline, interim risk mitigation, and budget — and execute it.
- SAM representation update. Update the SAM Section 889 representation whenever the answer changes. Do not wait for annual renewal.
- Contractual flow-downs in subcontracts. Subcontracts on federal work should include Section 889 flow-down language matching the prime contract.
- Acquisition due diligence. When acquiring another company, evaluate Section 889 exposure in the target's environment. Acquiring a non-compliant entity inherits the problem.
Common mistakes
- Treating Part A and Part B identically. Part A is about what you sell; Part B is about what you use. A firm that doesn't sell IT products can still violate Part B by using covered equipment internally.
- Missing covered equipment behind a third-party brand. Hikvision and Dahua cameras are frequently sold under other brand names. A "Brand X" surveillance system may incorporate covered equipment.
- Ignoring subcontractor and supplier flow-downs. A sub using covered equipment can create prime-contract compliance issues.
- Inadvertent "yes" representations. Some firms have answered "yes" to Section 889 representations after misreading the question, then been disqualified from awards. Read the representation carefully before responding.
- Treating cloud environments as out of scope. Cloud infrastructure used as a substantial component of contractor systems is in scope; verify with cloud providers.
- Assuming legacy purchases are grandfathered. The prohibition applies to current use, not to historical purchases. Equipment installed before the rule still has to be removed if it is currently in use.