GoKawiilThe case against buying a TP-Link router in the US isn't based on taking the FCC's claims at face value. On the contrary, Chairman Brendan Carr has treated the agency more like a political weapon than an independent regulator (in line with other federal branches in Donald Trump's second term). Carr has warned broadcasters that they could lose their licenses over coverage that ruffles the president's feathers. He's pressured ABC affiliates to stop airing Jimmy Kimmel Live. And he even brought Disney-owned ABC station licenses up for review years early.
That doesn't mean the FCC is automatically wrong here. But it also hasn't exactly earned the benefit of the doubt.
There are also inconsistencies with the FCC's public case. First, banning sales of new router models does little to address the much larger base of models approved for sale or those already sitting in Americans' homes. If they're as insecure as the agency originally suggested, then why are existing devices apparently A-OK? Plus, router security problems are hardly unique to TP-Link or to any single country's supply chain.
There's another problem: a fully American-made consumer Wi-Fi router doesn't exist. Even brands that seem safer politically still rely on global supply chains for parts, assembly or design.
The FCC even undercut its argument when it later allowed affected companies (including TP-Link) to keep pushing critical security updates through 2029. To be clear, the original March 2027 update cutoff was both consumer hostile and a potential security nightmare, but if these routers posed such an urgent threat, neither that extension nor the carveouts granted to other foreign manufacturers make much sense.