Federal procurement
NDAA Section 889 checker
Four questions about your own contracting position, and the tool tells you which parts of the statute reach you and what to put to your manufacturer in writing. It will not tell you a camera is compliant, because no such determination exists to make.
Four questions
Which parts of Section 889 reach you?
Nothing you enter leaves your browser. There is no submission, no storage and no analytics on these answers.
Answer the four questions and the statute's position on your situation appears here. JavaScript is required for this panel; the rest of the page works without it.
What this tool assumes, and what it refuses to do
- It never says a product is compliant. No body certifies a camera as NDAA compliant; the phrase is marketing, not a statutory term. The honest ceiling is telling you what to verify.
- It does not ask for a brand, on purpose. The name on a product does not identify who produced it, and the statute is written about the producer.
- It reflects the statute as verified on 25 August 2026. The list of covered entities can grow by designation under § 889(f)(3)(D).
- It is not legal advice. Procurement eligibility is a question for your contracting officer and your counsel.
Why the answer is never "yes, it is compliant"
The determination you are looking for does not exist
This is the most important thing on the page, and it is the reason the tool is shaped the way it is.
Almost everyone arriving at a tool like this wants a single answer: is this camera allowed. The uncomfortable truth is that no authority issues that answer. "NDAA compliant" is a marketing phrase, not a statutory term. There is no government body that certifies a camera as compliant, no register to check, and no accreditation an integrator can hold. What actually exists is a prohibition binding agencies and contractors, plus written attestation from manufacturers about who produced a piece of equipment.
So any tool, vendor or integrator that hands you a compliant badge is giving you something that does not exist. We are not going to do that, including in a format that looks official enough to forward to a contracting officer. What this tool does instead is tell you which parts of the statute reach your situation, which is genuinely answerable, and then what to ask for in writing.
The distinction that decides everything
Part A governs what the government buys. Part B reaches your own building
Section 889 has two operative prohibitions and organisations consistently plan around the wrong one.
| Part A, § 889(a)(1)(A) | Part B, § 889(a)(1)(B) | |
|---|---|---|
| In effect | 13 August 2019 | 13 August 2020 |
| What it prohibits | Federal executive agencies procuring or obtaining covered telecommunications equipment or services, or contracting with an entity to do so. | Agencies entering into, extending or renewing a contract with any entity that uses covered equipment as a substantial or essential component of any system. |
| Reaches | What the government buys. | Anywhere in that entity's own operations, whether or not the equipment has anything to do with the federal contract. |
| Who it concerns | You, if your only exposure is what you deliver under a contract. The part most suppliers have already addressed. | You, if you hold or expect to renew a federal contract. The broader of the two, and the one organisations miss. |
The worked example is the one that makes it concrete, and it is on our pillar page too. A covered camera on your own loading dock, bought years before you had any federal contract, installed for reasons that have nothing to do with the government, is a Part B problem. Part B is about what you use, not about what you sell. That is why the tool asks where the equipment is, and why "it is in our own buildings" is not the safe answer people assume it is.
A third rule sits alongside these for federally funded awards, at 2 CFR 200.216, which is why the tool asks about grant and loan funding separately.
The five entities
Named in the statute, at § 889(f)(3)
Naming them is a citation, never an accusation. The correct statement is that an entity is named in Section 889.
Subparagraph (A)
Huawei Technologies Company and ZTE Corporation, including subsidiaries and affiliates. This prohibition is written broadly.
Subparagraph (B)
Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company and Dahua Technology Company, including subsidiaries and affiliates.
The (B) prohibition is narrower in purpose
It is written for public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure and other national security purposes.
The list is not permanently fixed at five
Under § 889(f)(3)(D), other entities may be captured where the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence or the FBI Director, reasonably believes the entity is owned or controlled by, or connected to, a covered foreign government.
Which is why every claim carries a date
A status established last year is a status as at last year. This page reflects the statute as verified on 25 August 2026, and says so on every screen.
Never an accusation
Words like "spyware", "dangerous" or "banned brand" are not in the statute and are not ours to add. The tool emits none of them.
The trap
A clean brand check can still leave you holding covered equipment
This is why the tool asks how a status was established, not what the brand is. The name on the bezel does not identify the producer, and Section 889 is written about the producer. Corporate structures put products under names that do not resemble the parent, and relabelled lines are common in this trade.
The consequence is uncomfortable but simple: checking a brand against a list of five names can return a clean answer and still leave covered equipment in your building. Do not infer a product is covered because a forum post says so, and do not infer it is clear because the brand is unfamiliar. Neither inference is available.
The reliable route is written attestation from the manufacturer identifying the actual producer of the equipment. Not a brand list, not a reseller's assurance in a quote, not a datasheet line. That is what the tool tells you to ask for, and it is the same thing our free Section 889 checklist sets out in printable form.
TAA is a separate test and returns a different answer. The Trade Agreements Act turns on where a product was made or substantially transformed, and China is not a designated country. A camera can satisfy Section 889 and still fail TAA. Two questions, two answers, neither substituting for the other — see TAA compliant security cameras.
Citations you can check yourself: Pub. L. 115-232 § 889 · FAR 4.21 · FAR 52.204-24, 52.204-25 and 52.204-26 · 2 CFR 200.216 · FAR 25.003. Limited waiver provisions existed, including a one-time agency waiver for Part B whose availability ran to 13 August 2022; that is not a route to plan around today.
The full treatment is on NDAA compliant security cameras, and the practical consequences for a site under government and defense facility security.
Two boundaries, as on every page here. We work on commercial premises only and not on private residences. And we do not hold a C-10 or a C-16, so we do not work on fire alarm systems; that is coordinated with your own licensed fire alarm contractor.