Federal procurement
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.
PUB. L. 115-232 § 889
· NO PRODUCT VERDICTS
· RUNS IN YOUR BROWSER
· VERIFIED 25 AUGUST 2026
· NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Checker · Federal
Which parts of Section 889 reach your organisation, and what you would have to verify. It tells you what the statute says. It will never tell you that a product is compliant — nothing here is a legal opinion.
Nothing you enter leaves your browser. There is no submission, no storage and no analytics on these answers.
Your result will appear here.
Reflects the statute as verified 25 August 2026.
Why the answer is never "yes, it is compliant"
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
Section 889 has two operative prohibitions and organisations consistently plan around the wrong one.
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
Naming them is a citation, never an accusation. The correct statement is that an entity is named in Section 889.
Huawei Technologies Company and ZTE Corporation, including subsidiaries and affiliates. This prohibition is written broadly.
Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company and Dahua Technology Company, including subsidiaries and affiliates.
It is written for public safety, security of government facilities, physical security surveillance of critical infrastructure and other national security purposes.
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.
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.
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
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.
