2026-05-13 Measuring Critical Risks Inconsistently Jeopardizes National Security

A nation cannot be secure if it measures the same risk in opposite ways.‍ ‍

Recent Trump Administration actions restricting wind energy projects on national security grounds reveal a deep flaw in federal policy. While renewable infrastructure is being curtailed due to perceived vulnerabilities, telecommunications systems—arguably more complex and cyber-exposed—continue to expand under federal policies that often limit local oversight. In itself the FCC’s program is creating a national security risk which BBILAN has urged the FCC to address in our January 2026 filing.‍ ‍

This is not simply a policy contradiction. It is a growing source of systemic risk.

Energy and communications systems are now tightly coupled. The electric grid relies on digital networks; digital networks rely on stable power. Weakness in one domain quickly becomes vulnerability in the other. Treating them under different risk frameworks invites blind spots—and undermines local and national resilience.

The issue is not whether wind farms pose risks, nor whether telecommunications systems should expand. Both propositions can be true. The issue is whether comparable risks are being evaluated with comparable standards.

When governments apply inconsistent criteria, the consequences extend beyond policy. Investors face uncertainty. Communities lose trust. And decision-makers operate without a coherent map of system-wide consequences.

A more effective approach would begin with a simple principle: similar risks should be managed similarly.

First, policymakers should align cybersecurity and resilience standards across energy and communications infrastructure. If risks justify restricting one form of development, they should be addressed with equal rigor in others.

Second, the current pattern of prohibition in one domain and acceleration in another should be replaced with conditional deployment frameworks. Projects should proceed where risks can be transparently managed, rather than being halted or fast-tracked based on inconsistent assumptions.

Third, local communities should be recognized as a source of practical intelligence. Their proximity to infrastructure and lived conditions gives them insight into interdependencies—emergency response constraints, environmental factors, system vulnerabilities—that centralized models often overlook. Integrating this knowledge strengthens national security rather than weakening it.

Finally, infrastructure decisions should be evaluated through two complementary lenses: national security and community resilience. Where these perspectives diverge, the gap should be explicitly addressed before action is taken.

Here are four remedial steps the Trump Administration can take to reconcile these apparent polarities in decisional intelligence.

First, initiate a rapid National Infrastructure Coherence Review—a 10-day cross-agency and state-local working session—to identify and resolve inconsistencies in how cybersecurity and system risk are assessed across energy and communications sectors. The output should be a short, actionable directive aligning standards.

Second, replace blanket restrictions on wind energy with a uniform risk-managed deployment framework. Apply the same cybersecurity and resilience criteria across both renewable energy and telecommunications infrastructure. Where risks are real, manage them consistently—do not selectively prohibit one domain while expanding another with comparable exposure.

Third, formally integrate local and state intelligence into national security decision-making by establishing certified Local Risk Review Panels. These bodies would not obstruct federal action but would provide structured, accountable input based on ground-level realities—strengthening both constitutional balance and practical resilience.

Fourth, adopt a simple but powerful Two-Lens Requirement for all major infrastructure decisions: each must be evaluated through both a national security lens and a community resilience lens, with any divergence explicitly reconciled before action is taken.

This is not a call for more bureaucracy. It is a call for smart decision making.

In an era of increasing complexity, national security depends not only on identifying threats, but on aligning decisions across interconnected systems. Policies that move in opposite directions—however well intentioned—create the very vulnerabilities they seek to prevent.

Our country has the capacity to lead in building resilient integrated systems for the 21st century. A simple proposition: measure risk consistentlyand act accordingly.

— Julian Gresser is Co-Founder and General Counsel of the Broadband International Legal Action Network (BBILAN) and was twice Visiting Mitsubishi Professor at the Harvard Law School (1976-77, 1981). He served as a senior adviser on Japanese industrial policy to the U.S. State Department during the Carter administration.