Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Action to Win the 6G Race

A Presidential Memorandum is a written directive from the U.S. president to agencies in the executive branch telling them what to do (for example, to study something, move systems, or set up a program). Like an Executive Order, it can have the force of law when it’s based on existing legal authority, but it is usually:

• Less formal (it doesn’t have to follow all the same procedural steps or numbering rules as an Executive Order).
• Used more for specific tasks, internal management, or implementation details, while Executive Orders are more often used for major, highly visible policy directions. Both are “executive actions” and both direct how the federal government operates; the differences are mainly in formality, how they’re recorded, and how often they’re used for big policy changes versus routine administration.

Publicly available information does not give a neat, short list of named systems for exactly the 7.125–7.4 GHz slice, but federal usage of that band is described in technical and policy reports as part of the broader 7.125–8.4 GHz “7/8 GHz” range. In that range, the following types of systems and agencies are identified as incumbents that would be affected:

• U.S. military and Department of Defense systems: military satellite communications for command‑and‑control, intelligence, early‑warning, and other mission‑critical traffic; tactical links; and test‑range communications.
• Other federal agencies operating fixed point‑to‑point microwave links and radars: these support national and military test ranges, weather tracking and meteorological services, harbor/vessel traffic control, hydroelectric grid and power‑management telemetry, and long‑range aeronautical radionavigation radars used in air‑traffic control. Because of security and sensitivity, detailed, system‑by‑system assignments in 7.125–7.4 GHz are not fully public; available sources therefore describe the uses in these broad categories rather than naming every specific system.

The fact sheet and related public summaries say federal incumbents must submit “relocation plans,” but they do not spell out a detailed checklist. Based on how spectrum reallocations normally work under U.S. law and on descriptions of this memo:

• Content: Plans would be expected to identify the systems they operate in 7.125–7.4 GHz, how and where those systems will move (for example, to 7.4–8.4 GHz or other bands), technical steps and timelines for transition, estimated costs, and how they will maintain national‑security and public‑safety missions during and after the move.
• Review/approval: The memorandum directs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce to lead planning to relocate federal systems in this band. In practice, NTIA coordinates and reviews agencies’ relocation plans and works with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on making the band available for commercial licensing. Any relocation funding and timing would also be overseen within the executive branch and, for some costs, by Congress. Because the full memorandum text has not been published in detail, the exact required headings or format for individual plans are not publicly specified; only the 12‑month deadline and the need to protect national‑security missions are clear.

The 2.69–2.9 GHz and 4.4–4.94 GHz bands are considered important for 6G because they are “mid‑band” spectrum:

• Mid‑band is prized for 5G and 6G because it offers a good balance between coverage (how far signals travel and how well they penetrate buildings) and capacity (how much data per second you can carry). Very high‑frequency “millimeter wave” bands carry lots of data but don’t travel far; low bands travel far but carry less data.
• 2.69–2.9 GHz: Today this range is heavily used for critical radars, such as airport‑surveillance and weather radars. If some portion can be safely shared or cleared, it could become prime nationwide 6G coverage spectrum.
• 4.4–4.94 GHz: This is another mid‑band range now used mainly for federal and military communications. Other countries (for example, China, Japan, South Korea) are already moving to use 4.4–4.8 GHz for advanced mobile broadband. Using it in the U.S. for 6G would help match international “bands” so that equipment and phones work globally. That combination of propagation, capacity, and global interest is why these bands are labeled “critical” candidates for future 6G use.

“Auctioning spectrum” means the government sells licenses to use specific frequency ranges to companies (usually wireless carriers) through competitive bidding. Under current U.S. law and practice:

• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) runs the auctions for non‑federal spectrum. It sets the auction rules, divides the band into geographic licenses, conducts the online bidding, and issues licenses to the winners.
• Statutes like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (and, according to the fact sheet, the Working Families Tax Cuts Act) tell the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) which bands should be made available and by when. NTIA identifies and coordinates the clearing or sharing of federal bands; the FCC then auctions licenses for commercial use.
• Winning bidders pay the U.S. Treasury. Congress can dedicate some of this money to cover the costs of moving federal systems out of the band, with the rest going toward deficit reduction or other uses. So in practical terms, the Act gives the FCC authority and deadlines to run auctions, while NTIA and federal agencies free up the bands that will be auctioned.

The Genesis Mission is a federal initiative launched by Executive Order in November 2025 to use artificial intelligence (AI) to speed up scientific discovery. In practice it:

• Directs the Department of Energy and other agencies to build and share very large AI and computing resources (such as powerful supercomputers and data sets) for researchers.
• Aims to apply AI to hard science problems—like drug discovery, new materials, climate and energy research—by letting scientists run AI‑driven simulations and analyses that would otherwise be too slow or expensive.
• Sets up governance and coordination so that multiple agencies and private‑sector partners (large AI and cloud companies) can collaborate on AI tools and standards for research. The goal is to compress “decades of discovery into years” by making cutting‑edge AI infrastructure widely available to U.S. scientists.

The “Gold Standard Science” Executive Order (Executive Order 14303, May 23, 2025) tells federal agencies to tighten how they fund, use, and communicate science so that it meets higher integrity and quality standards. In practice it requires:

• Scientific integrity and transparency policies: Agencies must update policies to protect research from political interference, disclose methods and data where possible, and document how scientific findings inform decisions.
• Quality and reproducibility standards: Agencies are directed to follow rigorous peer‑review, data‑quality, and reproducibility practices (sometimes summarized as “nine tenets” of Gold Standard Science) when they fund or conduct research.
• OSTP guidance and oversight: The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issues government‑wide guidance and agencies then create implementation plans, tying these standards into their research grants, internal labs, and advisory processes. For federal research funding, this means grant programs and in‑house labs are supposed to place more weight on transparent methods, data access, and robust peer review, and agencies must show how they comply with these Gold Standard criteria when using science to set policy.