In times of national crisis, communications are essential. Whether responding to a terrorist attack or a tragic natural disaster, first responders need a guaranteed method of connecting.
That’s why few initiatives sit more squarely at the intersection of national security and public safety than FirstNet, a dedicated communications network for U.S. first responders and public safety personnel managed by the U.S. government, created in the wake of 9/11. With lives on the line, the network must work all the time.
FirstNet is a public-private partnership with AT&T that began with $7 billion in federal funding. It is designed to provide public safety personnel with the communication infrastructure and technologies they need to fulfill their jobs safely and effectively. First responders are meant to use the network to improve situational awareness, coordinate responses across agencies and jurisdictions, securely share critical information, and leverage apps and devices that provide actionable insights.
PREVENTION IS THE MOST AFFORDABLE DISASTER POLICY
Sadly, we can’t be sure if FirstNet works as intended. Fourteen years after FirstNet was first established, a recent Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General audit found that FirstNet Authority, the federal entity charged with overseeing the FirstNet network, and AT&T, the sole operator of the network, have not ensured services are always available when and where required, relied on incomplete and unreliable data, and lacked effective systems to properly assess the network’s performance.
A subsequent OIG audit found that FNA has not done enough to ensure only eligible public safety users are granted access to the network, and questioned whether the government overpaid AT&T based on subscription counts that were not fully verified.
These aren’t minor compliance gaps but concerns that go directly to the core question of whether first responders can depend on FirstNet during an emergency. The question is particularly relevant as the Senate weighs a 10-year reauthorization of FirstNet after the House approved the measure. It may be time to consider whether the consequences of failure are too severe to risk having one company shoulder this responsibility alone.
Unfortunately, the latest OIG audits aren’t the first sign that FirstNet requires reform. There have been warnings before. Their previous audits, investigations, and communications have documented persistent challenges related to the network’s operations, accountability, and spending. They have uncovered worrying examples of over-inflated costs, documents withheld from auditors, and limited explanation about a nationwide outage in 2024.
Lawmakers from both parties are raising their own concerns. During a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing in January, Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) remarked that although his state was one of the first to adopt it, FirstNet “still has holes,” especially in remote and rural areas. Even more worryingly, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) noted, “[FNA] approved AT&T’s business continuity and disaster recovery plan just two months before the Maui wildfires, and yet that plan failed miserably [during the disaster].”
Industry voices have piled on. In congressional testimony, Cory Davis, vice president of Verizon Frontline, emphasized the need to expand oversight of FirstNet, noting “missed milestones, over pricing, bad investments, network failures and whistleblower retaliation.” Davis also called for increased competition among these types of networks to support resiliency and allow first responders to choose the network that works best for them.
FNA Vice Chairman Sheriff Michael Adkison agreed with Davis, stating, “Yes, I think there should be the ability to take whatever is the best application or service.” Implicit in his answer is the realization that sole-source reliance is a risk. However, since those comments, FNA has yet to broaden its procurement policies.
Meanwhile, both Verizon and T-Mobile have invested heavily in their own public safety-focused capabilities and services, building redundancy, resilience and dedicated solutions without the benefit of the federal framework and support that underpins FirstNet. These investments highlight the possibility of healthy competition: robust public safety can, and should, be driven by measurable performance and continuous improvement.
FirstNet’s path forward requires reform. The simplest first step is transparency: independent third-party validation of network performance should become standard practice. Coverage, reliability and service availability must be measured using verifiable metrics, and those metrics must be published for Congress and the public to see. Likewise, federal oversight, particularly through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, should be strengthened, with consistent public reporting tied to quantifiable outcomes.
In addition, FNA should provide greater transparency regarding efforts underway to support connectivity in rural, remote, and underserved regions where commercial incentives alone are insufficient. This will ensure that all segments of the first responder community have a meaningful voice in how the network is developed. Today, we have no standard to measure success in this area, on a cost or outcome basis.
THE PLANET IS STILL DOING GREAT. IT’S THE CLIMATE CULT THAT’S BROKEN
None of this diminishes what FirstNet has achieved in expanding coverage, driving adoption, and supporting emergency response efforts across the country — all undoubtedly saving lives. But success does not eliminate the need for accountability.
At its core, this is about reliability. First responders depend on these systems in life-or-death situations, and neither they nor the public can afford ambiguity. Rather than blindly pushing FirstNet’s reauthorization through, recent concerns should be treated as a catalyst for change — strengthening oversight, refocusing priorities and ensuring FirstNet remains accountable to its mission.
Paul Rosenzweig served as deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security. He is a professorial lecturer at The George Washington University Law School and senior fellow in the Tech, Law & Security Program at the American University, Washington College of Law. He advises technology companies on cyber and national security issues, including companies that compete with AT&T.