[Senate Hearing 119-389]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-389
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 17, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-603 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TED BUDD, North Carolina TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOHN CURTIS, Utah BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
TIM SHEEHY, Montana JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 17, 2025................................ 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 1
Letter dated April 11, 2018 to Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission from Senators Maria
Cantwell, Tom Udall, Patty Murray, Elizabeth Warren, Ron
Wyden, Edward J. Markey, Richard Blumenthal, Tina Smith,
Bernard Sanders, Jeffrey A. Merkley, Tammy Baldwin and Cory
A. Booker.................................................. 49
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 3
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 20
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 22
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 25
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 27
Statement of Senator Capito...................................... 29
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 31
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 34
Statement of Senator Baldwin..................................... 36
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 38
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 40
Screen shot of FCC Homepage.................................. 41
Statement of Senator Young....................................... 43
Statement of Senator Kim......................................... 45
Statement of Senator Curtis...................................... 53
Statement of Senator Blunt Rochester............................. 56
Statement of Senator Schmitt..................................... 58
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 60
Statement of Senator Budd........................................ 62
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 64
Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................ 66
Witnesses
Hon. Brendan Carr, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Olivia Trusty, Commissioner, Federal Communciations Commission... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Appendix
Letter dated December 17, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from The Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights. 69
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Brendan Carr by:
Hon. Ted Cruz................................................ 71
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 72
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 73
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 74
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 75
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 75
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 76
Hon. Eric Schmitt............................................ 77
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 77
Hon. Cynthia Lummis.......................................... 79
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 80
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 86
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 86
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 88
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 90
Hon. Tammy Baldwin........................................... 90
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 91
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 91
Hon. John Hickenlooper....................................... 96
Response to written questions submitted to Olivia Trusty by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 97
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 97
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 98
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 98
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 99
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 100
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 101
Hon. Tammy Baldwin........................................... 101
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 102
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 103
Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester.................................... 103
Response to written questions submitted to Anna M. Gomez by:
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 103
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 105
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 107
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 109
Hon. Gary Peters............................................. 111
Hon. Tammy Baldwin........................................... 112
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 113
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 116
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 117
Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester.................................... 118
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room SDG-50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Wicker, Fischer, Moran,
Sullivan, Blackburn, Young, Budd, Schmitt, Curtis, Capito,
Cantwell, Klobuchar, Schatz, Markey, Peters, Baldwin, Rosen,
Lujan, Hickenlooper, Kim, and Blunt Rochester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Good morning.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation will come to order. Welcome to today's hearing,
``Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission.''
The FCC plays a critical role in the lives of everyday
Americans, from TV and radio broadcasting to cellular and
satellite communications and Internet connectivity.
The Commission sits at the center of the services and
technologies that power Americans' daily lives, that project
American leadership and influence across the globe, and that
form the backbone of our national economy. In other words, the
Commission's work is kind of a big deal.
So I am pleased that we are joined today by our witnesses--
Chairman Carr and Commissioners Trusty and Gomez--for this
important hearing, and especially pleased that they agreed to
be here and that this is the first FCC oversight hearing this
committee has held since 2020.
I believe Commissioner Trusty was sitting right here
staffing then Chairman Wicker at that hearing and so,
Commissioner, it is nice to see you have moved 30 feet to the
other side of the dais.
We have a lot of important ground to cover today. The pace
of change in just the last year, let alone since the last FCC
oversight hearing by this committee, has been astounding.
We have seen the deployment of 5G and early groundwork for
6G, major advancements in the satellite industry, particularly
the growth of low Earth orbit, high-speed internet, AI, and
seismic shifts across the media landscape, and we have seen the
enactment of President Trump's Working Families Tax Cut Act
which not only reinstated spectrum auction authority for the
FCC for the next decade but contained the largest single-
spectrum pipeline, 800 megahertz, ever enacted into law.
This will raise billions of dollars for the taxpayer. It
will stimulate billions more in private sector investment as
U.S. companies bring faster and cheaper Internet to more
Americans, and it will lay the foundation for countless
technological innovations.
These benefits will be felt nationwide and, indeed,
worldwide across multiple generations of Americans. On day one
of the new administration the FCC, under Chairman Carr, hit the
ground running and already has an impressive list of
accomplishments to show.
These include the delete, delete, delete docket, which
continues to clear out the regulatory underbrush, ensuring the
integrity of the universal service programs and preventing
fraud by illegal aliens, reforming the FCC's satellite
licensing regime to help bolster America's position as the
global leader in space commerce, streamlining permitting to
speed broadband build out, and moving at lightning speed to
implement the new spectrum pipeline, already teeing up 100
megahertz of valuable C-band spectrum to be auctioned for
commercial use in the near future.
But there is plenty more work to be done. Given the rapid
pace of evolution in technology and telecommunications, it is a
wonder that the legal regime governing these issues and the
Commission's role in regulating them has, largely, not been
updated since 1996, and there are any number of issues, from
the utility of the so-called public interest standard in the
modern era to retransmission consent rules in the streaming era
to the current media ownership caps, where a statutory update
might be worthwhile.
The world of today, with mobile computers in every pocket
and artificial intelligence becoming exponentially more
capable, is markedly different from the time when cell phones
were the size of footballs, when Gordon Gekko walked on the
beach holding a brick to the side of his head, and from the
time when AOL was the leading edge of Internet connectivity.
We live in a different world and it is worth considering
whether Congress should revisit the Communications Act and
update it for the modern age.
On the public interest standard in particular, if my
colleagues across the aisle do what many expect and hammer the
Chairman over their newfound religion on the First Amendment
and free speech, I will be obliged to point out that those
concerns were miraculously absent when the Biden administration
was pressuring Big Tech to silence Americans for wrong think on
COVID and election security.
It will underscore a simple truth, that the public interest
standard and its wretched offspring, like the news distortion
rule, have outlived whatever utility they once had and it is
long past time for Congress to pass reforms.
I am grateful to our witnesses for being here today to talk
about what the FCC is doing and how to address some of these
important issues.
The energy and focus Chairman Carr has brought to this
Commission in just the first year has been productive and
refreshing. I am excited for what the next several years will
bring.
I now turn to Ranking Member Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
convening this important oversight hearing, and I thank our
witnesses for being here.
The FCC's independence is central to protecting free and
diverse press, strengthening our national security, and
bringing down the cost of telecommunications and media
services.
However, what we have seen this year in costs that
Americans are facing, prices are rising. The question is what
is the Chairman of the FCC and the FCC doing to bring down
costs for consumers?
The American people deserve an FCC that protects them from
hidden fees and promotes affordability. The FCC, though, is, in
my mind, doing just the opposite in allowing consolidations
that reduce competition and can help drive up costs.
Americans are paying more than ever for streaming, cable,
wireless services. Streaming costs are up 13 percent this year
alone, basic cable costs have more than doubled in the last 10
years, and Americans are paying more than almost any other
country for wireless.
And what is the FCC doing to help drive down those costs?
Congress passed bipartisan legislation to ensure transparency
in billing, but Chairman Carr has proposed to punch holes in
those rules to implement that.
He is making it easier for big corporations to tack on
hidden fees to your Internet bills. I have even heard
consideration by some groups saying that we should take away
spectrum from broadcast television stations because maybe they
are not getting enough use and maybe we should have even less
competition.
So it is clear to me that the FCC, we need to do everything
to protect consumers including protecting them from the harms
of AI.
So instead I see an FCC that is not focused enough on
affordability. That is why today we are releasing a snapshot
report from the minority here talking about why consolidation
and reduced competition is driving up costs.
So, hopefully, we can ask some questions about that today
and focus on what we need to do to keep local journalism, to
keep broadcasting, and to make sure that we do not have undue
influence.
We now know that this issue, as related to Jimmy Kimmel,
quote, ``the easy way or the hard way'' is just an example, and
I certainly appreciate Chairman Cruz's words saying it was
``dangerous as hell and right out of Goodfellas.''
But I also appreciate Leader Thune and former Majority
Leader McConnell agreeing that this went too far. The question
is how do we now make sure that we continue to have not so much
consolidation?
Because I know, Chairman Carr, you have supported
consolidation that makes it easier to have influence and to
have less competition. Local news and independent voices
matter, and consolidation undermines that independence and
drives up costs.
What happens if a merger does take place and CBS and CNN
are in the same boat? Are they going to continue to be the same
competitive environment or what will we do to make sure that
consumers still have a choice?
Earlier this year, Chairman Carr greenlit the Skydance
acquisition of Paramount, but not before Paramount agreed to
pay $16 million in a lawsuit.
Using the FCC process should not be used in this kind of
extortion process but to focus on what will drive down costs
and help consumers in this process.
People across the political spectrum agree there is too
much control in a few hands. Chris Ruddy, CEO of NewsMax, has
spoken about how corporate consolidation threatens local news.
Chairman Carr, what are we doing to make sure that you are
going to continue to protect local media ownership and grow
this opportunity?
We do not want to see content that is produced nationally
for local broadcast. I am right now suffering from an
unbelievable flood that has gone on for days and days.
Today's latest challenge will be a blizzard. They are wall
to wall with news. For the safety of the citizenry of
Washington, I would hate to see broadcast content interrupted
or a station undermined to the point that they cannot do their
job in covering this unbelievable flood which is affecting
every corner--almost every corner of our state.
But beyond bringing down costs and protecting independent
media, I am also concerned about safety. Chinese intelligence
orchestrated Salt Typhoon attacks, which then Senator Rubio,
Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described as,
quote, ``The most disturbing and widespread incursion into our
telecommunications system in the history of the world,'' end
quote.
That should have led the FCC to strengthen our defenses.
Instead, Chairman Carr, you rolled back the FCC's Salt Typhoon
rules, the only major regulatory response to those attacks, and
the rush to auction off critical spectrum I believe could
undermine military readiness and aviation safety.
Earlier this year, we wrote to Secretaries Duffy and
Hegseth outlining those concerns about safety. So I hope that
today's hearing can have the proper oversight on these
important issues--what are we doing not only to protect
consumers from costs but protect them on their safety and
security.
Mr. Chairman, it is an important time. Not all of these
issues have happened in the last year but, clearly, we need to
do our job in continuing to help the American consumer get
information in a competitive landscape and also drive down
costs.
I thank the Chairman. Look forward to hearing from the
witnesses.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
I will now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is
Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission. He was designated as Chairman on January 20, 2025,
by President Trump and he has served on the Commission since
2017.
Our second witness is Olivia Trusty, Commissioner at the
FCC. She was nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the
Senate this past June.
Our final witness is Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner at the
FCC. She has served on the Commission since September 2023.
Chairman Carr, you are recognized for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDAN CARR, CHAIRMAN,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Carr. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell,
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to testify.
It has been a busy and productive year at the FCC with the
agency focused on delivering great results for the country. So
I welcome the chance to join with my Commission colleagues
today and discuss the agency's important work.
While this is not my first time testifying before the
Committee, it is my first time appearing before you as Chairman
of the FCC.
So I want to thank President Trump for the honor of leading
this exceptional agency. I also want to start by saying how
proud I am of the FCC's dedicated staff and everything they
have accomplished for the American people.
In my view, the FCC's public servants are simply the best
in government. At the outset, I would also like to applaud the
important work that this committee has accomplished this
Congress.
For instance, thanks to Chairman Cruz and many of his
fellow committee members, the FCC's spectrum auction authority
has now been restored through President Trump's Working
Families Tax Cut Act, a historic legislative accomplishment.
In terms of the FCC's work, the agency has been following
President Trump's strong leadership and we have moved quickly
to execute on an ambitious set of reforms.
We are advancing a build America agenda, a concrete plan to
unleash high-speed infrastructure bills, drive down prices for
consumers, and restore U.S. leadership in wireless.
We are reinvigorating the agency's consumer protection work
including new efforts to crack down on illegal robocalls.
We are strengthening America's national security with work
underway that tracks Senator Fischer and Senator Lujan's leads
on the FACT Act and we are empowering broadcasters to meet
their public interest obligations.
I lost my page for a second there. Much of this represents
significant change from the Biden years. Indeed, when I took
over as Chairman the FCC faced several challenges.
For one, the Biden administration allowed the U.S. to fall
behind when it came to one of the most important features of
our economic strength, spectrum.
The FCC's spectrum auction authority had lapsed two years
earlier. The Biden administration had failed to tee up a single
new spectrum ban for auction, and the prior administration's
spectrum strategy committed to freeing up exactly zero
megahertz of spectrum.
On top of this, permitting reform was going nowhere. The
Biden administration was layering on heavy-handed regulations
that only inflated prices and made it harder for broadband
builders to start turning dirt.
We had to turn things around, and fast. Thanks to President
Trump's leadership we are doing exactly that. As I detail in my
testimony, the FCC's ``Build'' agenda focuses on unleashing our
Nation's construction crews by advancing several core goals.
For one, we are modernizing permitting rules and cutting
red tape. For another, we are freeing up the airwaves that are
necessary for America to lead the world again.
Indeed, we now have a massive new spectrum pipeline and are
working on multiple new spectrum auctions. In fact, the FCC
just voted on a proposal to auction up to 180 megahertz in the
upper C-band.
For still another, we are boosting America's space economy
and in all of this we are already seeing results. One carrier
alone just announced that they lit up spectrum. They gained
access to this year to over 23,000 cell sites in record time,
boosting 5G speeds by up to 80 percent.
President Trump and the FCC's ``Build'' agenda are also
delivering for America's workers. Providers are now adopting
faster payment cycles and fairer pricing, they are closing
loopholes that allowed foreign groups to swoop in and undercut
U.S. workers, and they are improving safety.
Finally, the FCC is now pursuing the largest deregulatory
effort in the agency's history. To date, we have teed up for
removal over 1,000 rules or regulations and terminated a record
2,000 inactive proceedings.
Eliminating those costly regulations is part of our
affordability work, too. For instance, we shut down a Biden-era
plan that could have spiked the price of Internet for millions
of Americans living in apartments by up to 50 percent, and in
many ways we are just getting started.
I look forward to continuing to deliver on this important
agenda and, in closing, I want to thank you again for the
opportunity to testify.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brendan Carr, Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify. I am grateful for
the opportunity to join with my Commission colleagues today and provide
an update on the FCC's work over the last year. I look forward to
sharing with you the priorities we have been advancing at the FCC since
January.
While this is not my first time testifying before the Commerce
Committee, it is my first time appearing before you as Chairman, and
there are a number of new members on the Committee since the last FCC
oversight hearing in 2020. So I wanted to begin with a brief
introduction.
I first joined the FCC as a staffer in 2012 over a dozen years ago.
In the time since, I have had the privilege of serving in a number of
different roles at the agency. I started out as an attorney in the
FCC's Office of General Counsel. I then worked as a legal advisor for a
Commissioner. Following that, I served as the General Counsel of the
FCC before President Trump nominated me to serve as a Commissioner in
2017. Having been confirmed by the Senate three times, I am very
grateful to President Trump for his decision to designate me as
Chairman of the FCC earlier this year.
Working alongside my Commission colleagues here today and leading
the talented group of public servants at the agency is the honor of a
lifetime. I am proud of the work the agency's dedicated staff have been
getting done for the American people. And I am especially grateful for
their commitment to public service through the recent government
shutdown. It is great to have everyone back in the building again.
I would also like to take a moment to recognize the important work
that this Committee has accomplished this Congress. Thanks to Chairman
Cruz, and many of his fellow Committee Members, the FCC's spectrum
auction authority has now been restored through President Trump's One
Big Beautiful Bill. When the FCC's auction authority lapsed for the
first time ever back in 2023, it put America's global leadership and
our connectivity goals at serious risk. I am glad we are correcting
course now. I also want to applaud Chairman Cruz and Senator Markey for
their leadership on the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. This
legislation will help keep AM radio--a linchpin of our emergency
response system--in place and ensure that Americans can continue to
access local news, information, and entertainment programming.
Following President Trump's strong leadership, the FCC has moved
quickly to execute on an ambitious set of reforms. We are advancing a
Build America Agenda--a concrete plan to unleash high-speed
infrastructure builds, drive down prices for consumers, and restore
U.S. leadership in wireless. We are reinvigorating the agency's
consumer protection work, including its efforts to crack down on
illegal robocalls. We are empowering broadcasters to meet their public
interest obligations. We are strengthening America's national security
and advancing public safety. We are undertaking the largest
deregulatory effort in the agency's history. And we are eliminating
waste while improving efficiency and modernizing agency operations.
I detailed much of this agenda for the first time on a visit
earlier this year to a tower construction company's training center in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota. While Sioux Falls might not be everyone's
pick for rolling out a policy agenda for a Federal agency headquartered
in Washington, D.C., I could not think of a more appropriate setting.
For one, the communities spread across South Dakota are a great
reminder of the types of places we have to keep in mind as we develop
connectivity policies back here in Washington. For another, I first
visited that facility over seven years earlier--it was the first place
that I ever put on a harness and hardhat in this job and climbed a
tower. So it was a good reminder of the work ahead for America's
broadband builders, and why the FCC's agenda should focus on making
their jobs a little bit easier.
As I detailed in those remarks, the FCC's Build America Agenda
focuses on a number of core priorities. I would like to provide the
Committee with an overview of those goals, and the work the FCC is
undertaking to advance them and some of the agency's other top agenda
items.
Unleashing High-Speed Infrastructure Builds
The FCC is working to unleash high-speed infrastructure builds in
communities across the country. We are modernizing permitting rules and
cutting red tape. This includes making it easier for providers to
retire slow and old copper lines and replace them with the modern,
high-speed ones that consumers want. We are accelerating and
simplifying the process for extending new lines across existing utility
poles. And we are pursuing a range of additional steps that can remove
barriers to deployment and streamline regulatory approaches. These
actions will free up billions of dollars in capital that can go to work
closing the digital divide.
At the same time, we are ending the Biden-era regulatory
overreaches that only made it harder to build high-speed infrastructure
in this country. This year, for instance, the FCC reversed a Biden-era
plan that would have slowed down infrastructure builds by subjecting
tower builds to additional, needless, and onerous regulations. We also
stopped a Biden-era proposal to regulate so-called ``bulk billing''
arrangements, which could have increased the price of Internet service
for Americans living in apartments by as much as 50 percent. And at the
very beginning of this year, a Federal court invalidated the prior
FCC's plan to expand government control of the Internet through heavy-
handed, Title II regulation.
Restoring America's Leadership in Wireless
The FCC has also been working hard to free up airwaves and restore
the country's leadership in wireless. This is key because opening up
spectrum for more intensive use drives down prices for consumers,
brings families across the digital divide, and strengthens competition.
But at the beginning of this year, the FCC had a lot of work to do on
this front. Our spectrum auction authority had lapsed two years
earlier. And there was no pipeline of spectrum for the agency to
auction.
Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we are turning things
around--and fast. At my very first meeting as FCC Chairman, we started
a proceeding to examine ideas for freeing up a large swath of spectrum
in the Upper C-band. The White House then initiated a ten-week
``spectrum sprint'' to study options for lighting up hundreds of
megahertz of spectrum. And President Trump leaned in--making it clear
that advancing America's 5G and 6G leadership would be a top priority
for the Administration.
Chairman Cruz and many members of this Committee then spearheaded
the work to pass the spectrum provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Those provisions restored the FCC's auction authority and established a
real spectrum pipeline--one with hard deadlines, clearing targets, and
candidate bands.
For our part, the One Big Beautiful Bill requires the FCC to
auction at least 100 megahertz of spectrum in the Upper C-band by July
2027 and at least 300 megahertz total by 2034. The FCC has been working
hard to implement those provisions in coordination with other Federal
agencies and stakeholders. Indeed, just last month, the Commission
voted on a proposal to auction up to 180 megahertz of spectrum in the
Upper C-band--exceeding the 100 megahertz minimum set by Congress.
Of course, a lot of work remains ahead on the C-band. Success will
require continued interagency coordination, especially with our Federal
partners at the FAA and NTIA. It also requires extensive cooperation
and information sharing between the wireless and aviation sectors. We
have been working well with all stakeholders, and I am pleased with the
collaboration we've seen to date.
But our work to advance U.S. spectrum leadership is not limited to
the Upper C-band or even spectrum auctions alone. In the secondary
markets, we are now seeing large swaths of spectrum moving into the
hands of competitors that can put it to productive use quickly. On this
score, AT&T recently agreed to purchase 50 megahertz of spectrum. And
SpaceX has agreed to acquire 60 megahertz more. If approved, the latter
transaction could advance America's position as the world-leader in
next-generation, direct-to-cell technology. These secondary market
moves are already showing results. Indeed, just recently, one carrier
announced that they have already built out spectrum they gained access
to this year to over 23,000 cell sites in record time--boosting 5G
speeds by up to 80 percent.
Boosting America's Space Economy
President Trump has been clear that the Administration is ushering
in a new Golden Age for space innovation in America. And President
Trump's leadership could not come at a better time. Our nation is in
the midst of what I refer to as a Space Race 2.0. This time around our
main competitor is the government of China, which has its sights set on
dominating in low-Earth orbit and up and down every orbital location.
To win this second Space Race, the U.S. is going to rely on
American innovators. And I have had the chance to see these great
businesses firsthand on visits outside the Beltway. Earlier this year,
for instance, I visited Midland, Texas, with Chairman Cruz where we saw
some of the Nation's leading innovators building next-gen satellites in
West Texas.
The FCC's efforts on this front are possible thanks to the
Executive Order President Trump signed earlier this year to streamline
regulations and foster a competitive commercial space industry. The FCC
is following the White House's lead. We are looking to add rocket fuel
to our space economy and give the private sector a predictable
regulatory framework by focusing on four main principles: speed,
simplicity, security, and satellite spectrum abundance. We are already
clearing out application backlogs and standardizing procedures in
furtherance of that agenda.
Strengthening America's Telecom Workers
I have had the chance to climb towers, splice fiber, and string
lines with some of the country's most talented and hardworking telecom
crews. So it is important to me that the FCC do its part to strengthen
the Nation's telecom workforce. I am determined to ensure that our
nation's tower and telecom crews are rewarded for their work. And they
are poised to benefit greatly from President Trump's leadership and the
agency's Build America Agenda.
We are already seeing good results. Over the last year, many
communications providers have committed to a range of workforce reforms
that will result in a more sustainable environment for America's tower
and telecom crews. Providers are now adopting faster payment cycles and
fairer pricing metrics. They are minimizing layers of subcontracting,
which will allow for greater oversight of crews and stronger safety
protections. And they are closing loopholes that allowed foreign, fly-
by-night groups to swoop in and undercut U.S. crews. The FCC will
continue to look out for American workers.
Reinvigorating the FCC's Consumer Protection Work
The FCC has been working hard to reinvigorate and modernize our
consumer protection work. Of course, the issue the FCC hears about the
most through consumer complaints is illegal robocalls. And on this
front, the FCC has started a new campaign to tackle illegal robocalls
at every point in the call path. For years, the government's efforts in
this area have been described as a game of whack-a-mole. When we
address one type of scam, or fine a bad actor, another one pops up
using a new workaround.
So we are now looking at every portion of the call lifecycle. We
are focusing on prevention--stopping bad actors from ever originating
calls in the first place. We are pushing carriers to block more illegal
robocalls before they reach consumers. We are giving consumers better
tools to distinguish legitimate calls from scams. We are looking to
curb scam calls that originate outside of the United States by
deterring the use of U.S. area codes for calls originating overseas.
And we are stepping up enforcement to make sure every provider doing
business in the U.S. takes proactive steps to mitigate robocalls.
Indeed, on my watch, the FCC has now removed over 1,200 non-compliant
voice service providers from the Robocall Mitigation Database, which
functionally disconnects them from the U.S. phone network. The FCC will
continue to crack down on shady providers using all of the tools at our
disposal.
Our work on consumer protection matters also includes our efforts
to help Americans access the right resources during a time of crisis.
This year, for instance, we adopted rules requiring wireless providers
to develop the capability to transmit georouting data when someone
sends a text to 988. This means that someone reaching out for help
during a crisis will get the localized help they need.
Empowering Local Broadcasters
The FCC is working to empower local broadcasters to serve the
public interest and meet the needs of their communities. As Congress,
the Supreme Court, and the FCC have all made clear, broadcasters are
different than every other distributor of media. Specifically,
broadcasters are required by both the Communications Act and the terms
of their FCC-issued licenses to operate in the public interest. This
sets them apart from cable channels, podcasts, streaming services,
social media, and countless other types of distributors that have no
public interest obligation. The FCC's broadcast hoax rule, its news
distortion policy, its political equal opportunity regulation, its
prohibition on obscene, indecent, and profane content, its localism
requirements--all of those and more apply uniquely to broadcasters.
Congress has instructed the FCC to enforce public interest requirements
on broadcasters. The FCC should do exactly that.
Television broadcasters have this public interest obligation
because the government has given them the unique privilege of using a
scarce national resource--the public airwaves--and in doing so has
necessarily excluded others that might want to broadcast their own
programming over that same spectrum. That is why they are required to
serve, not just their own narrow interest, but the public interest,
including the needs of their local communities.
To ensure that broadcasters can meet their public interest
obligations, the FCC has taken a number of actions, including seeking
public comment for the first time in more than 15 years on the
relationship between the large, national programmers on the one hand
and the many local broadcast television stations on the other. Comments
in that proceeding suggest that many local broadcasters are concerned
that the national programmers have amassed enormous power and influence
in recent years and have made it more challenging for local
broadcasters to fulfill their public interest obligations.
The FCC is going to continue its efforts to empower local
broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations.
Promoting National Security and Advancing Public Safety
The FCC has significantly ramped up its efforts this year to
promote our country's national security and advance public safety. For
one, at the beginning of my time as Chairman, I stood up a new Council
on National Security within the FCC to leverage all of the agency's
authorities, expertise, and relevant workstreams to counter the threats
posed by foreign adversaries, including the government of China. This
Council is already paying dividends. The FCC cracked down on what we
call ``Bad Labs''--labs that review and approve electronics for use in
the United States, but are owned or controlled by foreign adversary
governments. The Council on National Security also executed Operation
Clean Carts, which worked with e-commerce platforms to take down
millions of listings of devices on the FCC's Covered List or otherwise
prohibited for sale in the United States.
And that's not all. In May, the FCC started the process of
identifying foreign adversaries that hold licenses or authorizations in
the communications sector, in line with the policy of Senator Fischer
and Senator Lujan's FACT Act. In August, the FCC adopted new rules on
undersea cable security, following President Trump's America First
Investment Policy Memorandum. In those rules, we took action to unleash
the build out of undersea cables to ensure the U.S. leads the world on
AI infrastructure, as the President's AI Action Plan calls for, while
mitigating threats to undersea cables from foreign adversaries. In
October, the FCC closed two loopholes that provided no check on old
models of covered equipment--potential spy gear--to be imported or
sold, as well as allowed devices to be approved that contain covered
equipment as module components. And most recently, in the wake of SALT
Typhoon, the FCC has worked directly with carriers to ensure that they
are adapting their cybersecurity practices and hardening their networks
against future attacks, including by working with Federal partners like
the FBI, NSA, and CISA to receive technical assistance on networks,
rapidly share information, and working together to strengthen cyber
defenses.
Beyond threats from foreign adversaries, the FCC also continues to
foster network resilience in the face of natural disasters. My first
trip as Chairman of the FCC was to Western North Carolina where I
visited several of Hurricane Helene's hardest-hit areas and met with
emergency management and public safety officials, telecom crews,
broadcasters, and other government representatives that worked to
rebuild those communities. In July, we hosted a public roundtable
focused on collaboration between communications service providers,
electric utilities, and emergency management officials. Following the
discussion, we published Cross-Sector Best Practices for Hurricane
Season in September focused on disaster recovery, ``blue sky''
coordination efforts, and mutual cross-sector aid and assistance,
building on the work of the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative.
Earlier this year, the FCC also began the process of a ground-up
re-examination of the national alert and warning systems, including the
Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts. The underlying
frameworks of these systems are 31 and 13 years old, respectively, so
it is important to ensure the FCC is leveraging the latest technology
to save lives.
The FCC has also worked to strengthen and modernize our Nation's
public safety systems. In March, the FCC proposed requirements to
improve location precision for 911 callers in multistory buildings. We
also moved forward with a proposal that would make the transition from
legacy 911 to NG911 effective and reliable without creating new
vulnerabilities in critical public safety networks.
Streamlining Regulations and Modernizing Agency Operations
Right now, the FCC is also undertaking the largest deregulatory
initiative in the agency's history. At the beginning of my tenure as
Chairman, I launched an effort titled ``In Re: Delete, Delete,
Delete.'' Since then, the FCC has been reviewing every rule,
regulation, and guidance document for the purpose of eliminating
unnecessary regulatory burdens, and we sought feedback from
stakeholders to get their perspectives as well.
I am now pleased to report that to date the FCC has removed or teed
up for removal 1,108 rules and regulations, 134,928 words, and 312
pages of the Code of Federal Regulations. The FCC has also worked to
close out inactive dockets and has terminated a record 2,048 inactive
proceedings. These initiatives further the Commission's goal of
promoting good governance, increasing efficiency, and modernizing
agency processes.
Improving efficiency at the FCC does not stop with examining the
CFR and open FCC dockets. We are also working to be good stewards of
the taxpayers' funds. In Fiscal Year 2025, we generated millions of
dollars in savings by eliminating or modifying unnecessary contracts.
We also brought agency staff back into the building to foster in-person
collaboration to deliver on the FCC's mission.
As you can tell, the FCC and its hardworking staff have been moving
fast to deliver great results for the American people this year. I
thank them for their dedicated service. And I look forward to the
important work ahead.
* * *
In closing, I want to thank you again Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
Cantwell, and Members of the Committee for holding this hearing and for
the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Commissioner Trusty.
STATEMENT OF OLIVIA TRUSTY, COMMISSIONER,
FEDERAL COMMUNCIATIONS COMMISSION
Ms. Trusty. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
It has been nearly six months since I was sworn in as a
commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. In that
time, I have had the privilege of working on policies to expand
access to high-speed connectivity, enhance the resilience of
the Nation's communications networks, and restore U.S.
leadership in next-generation communications technologies.
Critical to my work has been the opportunity to travel
across the country and around the world to hear directly from
broadband providers, tower engineers, fiber splicers,
consumers, and our international partners and allies.
Whether in Jackson, Mississippi; Eek, Alaska; or Baku,
Azerbaijan; I heard about the state of the communications
marketplace and how access to fixed, mobile, and satellite
connectivity is delivering on the promise of job creation,
technological innovation, and economic prosperity.
In Jackson, Mississippi, I saw how broadband is delivering
quality, life-saving care straight into the homes of
Mississippians across the Magnolia state.
Doctors at the University of Mississippi Medical Center are
treating chronic illnesses, managing high-risk pregnancies, and
delivering mental health care by video to rural communities
that would otherwise go without these essential services.
In Bethel and Eek, Alaska, I saw how access to broadband is
transforming lives. These Alaskan towns are home to some of the
most rugged and hard-to-reach terrain, and broadband is
enabling Alaskan Natives and non-Natives alike to contribute to
and benefit from the global digital economy while maintaining
their treasured culture and way of life.
And this fall I traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan, to represent
the United States at the International Telecommunication
Union's World Telecommunication Development Conference.
There, ministers and regulators from around the globe
highlighted their progress on closing the digital divide within
their nation's borders.
They also used this forum to seek U.S. guidance and
leadership on maximizing spectrum efficiency, building trusted
networks and secure supply chains, and creating a regulatory
environment that invites continued innovation, investment, and
competition while protecting consumers and enhancing public
safety.
These are issues we confront at the FCC in almost every
proceeding. They also inform the three priorities guiding my
work: universal connectivity, network resilience, and U.S.
leadership.
Ensuring that every American has access to communication
services has been the FCC's core mission since its founding.
Following my confirmation, the Supreme Court affirmed the
constitutionality of the Universal Service Fund.
I commend the bipartisan, bicameral, congressional USF
working group for taking the initiative to identify reforms to
ensure the program's sustainability and continued support for
the operation and maintenance of communications networks in
rural and remote areas.
In an era of growing digital hostility, however, achieving
universal connectivity requires increased focus on the
deployment of trusted and resilient network infrastructure.
Our communications networks are the backbone of both our
economy and our defense. From robocall scams to foreign-made
network components to infrastructure vandalism and copper
theft, the threats are evolving rapidly.
Recent Commission actions to remove foreign adversary-owned
labs from our equipment authorization process, to block illegal
robocalls from exploiting American consumers, and to garner
commitments from broadband providers to harden their network
infrastructure will enhance network integrity while allowing us
to maintain agility in responding to new and emerging threats.
U.S. leadership in next-generation technologies--6G, AI,
emerging commercial services in space, and more--hinges on our
ability to deploy high-speed and resilient communications
infrastructure to every corner of the country.
Thanks to President Trump and the leadership of Chairman
Cruz and the members of this committee, the Commission's
general spectrum auction authority has been restored, along
with the creation of a long-term spectrum pipeline.
This positions America to lead in wireless innovation and
beyond. Our continued success in technological advancement will
ultimately be determined by a domestic and international
regulatory environment that emphasizes innovation, competition,
and global cooperation.
Importantly, U.S. leadership is not inevitable. It must be
earned. I look forward to working with members of this
committee and our interagency partners to ensure the United
States is positioned to capture first-mover advantages in the
technologies that will define the future of our economic and
national security.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
testify. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Trusty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Olivia Trusty, Commissioner,
Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
It has been nearly six months since I was sworn in as a
Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. In that time, I
have had the privilege of working on policies to expand access to high-
speed connectivity, enhance the resilience of the Nation's
communications networks, and restore U.S. leadership in next-generation
communications technologies.
Critical to my work has been the opportunity to travel across the
country and around the world to hear directly from broadband providers,
tower engineers, fiber splicers, consumers, and our international
partners and allies. Whether in Jackson, Mississippi, Eek, Alaska, or
Baku, Azerbaijan, I heard about the state of the communications
marketplace and how access to fixed, mobile, and satellite connectivity
is delivering on the promise of job creation, technological innovation,
and economic prosperity.
In Jackson, Mississippi, I saw how broadband is delivering quality,
life-saving care straight into the homes of Mississippians across the
Magnolia State. Doctors at the University of Mississippi Medical Center
are treating chronic illnesses, managing high-risk pregnancies, and
delivering mental health care by video to rural communities that would
otherwise go without these essential services.
In Bethel and Eek, Alaska, I saw how access to broadband is
transforming lives. These Alaskan towns are home to some of the most
rugged and hard-to-reach terrain, and broadband is enabling Alaska
Natives and Non-Natives alike to contribute to, and benefit from, the
global digital economy, while maintaining their treasured culture and
way of life.
And this fall, I traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan, to represent the
United States at the International Telecommunication Union's World
Telecommunication Development Conference. There, ministers and
regulators from around the globe highlighted their progress on closing
the digital divide within their nation's borders. They also used this
forum to seek U.S. guidance and leadership on maximizing spectrum
efficiency, building trusted networks and secure supply chains, and
creating a regulatory environment that invites continued innovation,
investment, and competition, while protecting consumers and enhancing
public safety.
These are issues we confront at the FCC in almost every proceeding.
They also inform the three priorities guiding my work: universal
connectivity, network resilience, and U.S. leadership.
Ensuring that every American has access to communications services
has been the FCC's core mission since its founding. Following my
confirmation, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the
Universal Service Fund. I commend the bipartisan, bicameral
congressional USF Working Group for taking the initiative to identify
reforms to ensure the program's sustainability and continued support
for the operation and maintenance of communications networks in rural
and remote areas.
In an era of growing digital hostility, however, achieving
universal connectivity requires increased focus on the deployment of
trusted and resilient network infrastructure. Our communications
networks are the backbone of both our economy and our defense. From
robocall scams to foreign-made network components, to infrastructure
vandalism and copper theft, the threats are evolving rapidly. Recent
Commission actions to remove foreign adversary-owned labs from our
equipment authorization process, to block illegal robocalls from
exploiting American consumers, and to garner commitments from broadband
providers to harden their network infrastructure, will enhance network
integrity, while allowing us to maintain agility in responding to new
and emerging threats.
U.S. leadership in next-generation technologies--6G, AI, emerging
commercial services in space and more--hinges on our ability to deploy
high-speed and resilient communications infrastructure to every corner
of the country. Thanks to President Trump and the leadership of
Chairman Cruz, and the members of this Committee, the Commission's
general spectrum auction authority has been restored, along with the
creation of a long-term spectrum pipeline. This positions America to
lead in wireless innovation and beyond. Our continued success in
technological advancement will ultimately be determined by a domestic
and international regulatory environment that emphasizes innovation,
competition, and global cooperation. Importantly, U.S. leadership isn't
inevitable, it must be earned. I look forward to working with members
of this committee and our interagency partners to ensure the United
States is positioned to capture first-mover advantages in technologies
that will define the future of our economic and national security.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, again, for this opportunity to testify. I
look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Commissioner Gomez.
STATEMENT OF ANNA M. GOMEZ, COMMISSIONER,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ms. Gomez. Thank you.
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and the
distinguished members of this Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
As Commissioner, my priorities have centered on expanding
reliable and affordable connectivity to every community,
maintaining U.S. leadership through smart spectrum policy,
preserving localism in a vibrant media ecosystem, and ensuring
first responders have the tools they need to reach the public
when it matters most.
These priorities reflect longstanding bipartisan goals and
they are the areas where I had hoped we would be spending our
time and energy with a shared commitment to serving consumers.
Instead, over the past 10 months, the Commission has taken
a markedly different approach, one that has undermined its
reputation as a stable, independent, and expert-driven
regulatory body.
Nowhere is that departure more concerning than in its
actions to intimidate government critics, pressure media
companies, and challenge the boundaries of the First Amendment.
It is precisely because of these concerns that I launched a
First Amendment tour earlier this year, traveling across the
country to hear directly from communities.
My goal was simple--to listen, engage, and to reaffirm that
the FCC's work must remain grounded in constitutional
principles and public trust, and I have found myself aligned
with voices across the ideological spectrum, united by a shared
belief that the First Amendment is fundamental to our democracy
and worth defending, even when doing so is politically
inconvenient.
In that spirit, I want to thank Chairman Cruz for speaking
out in defense of the First Amendment and for his continued
engagement on this critical issue.
One thing I learned during these conversations is that when
the FCC strays from its core mission, consumers pay the price.
That reality results in higher costs, fewer voices and choices,
and missed opportunities to expand access across communications
ecosystems.
One clear example of where Congress and the Commission have
been aligned is spectrum policy. I want to thank Congress for
restoring our spectrum auction authority. This is an important
step toward expanding capacity, promoting competition, and
maintaining U.S. leadership in wireless innovation.
When spectrum policy is done properly, it lowers costs for
consumers and it fuels economic growth. Yet, spectrum is only
part of the story. Millions of households have faced rising
broadband costs following the lapse of the Affordable
Connectivity Program with little action from the Commission
focused on affordability or consumer relief.
These missed opportunities reflect a troubling lack of
focus on the everyday challenges consumers face in accessing
and affording essential communications services. Beyond missed
opportunities, the FCC has taken affirmative actions that have
raised costs and reduced the choice for consumers.
FCC actions contributed to the loss of a potential fourth
competitor on national wireless front, weakening competition
and increasing the risk of higher prices.
At the same time, the Commission reversed the work it had
previously done under congressional mandate to lower the cost
of prison communications and chose to increase the cost of
phone and video calls, leaving some of the most vulnerable
families paying excessive rates to stay connected with loved
ones.
These affordability concerns are especially acute in the
media landscape. The FCC has advanced plans that would allow
billion-dollar media companies to grow even larger at the
expense of local news and community-driven reporting.
This push comes at a time when major media companies are
already consolidating across broadcasting, streaming, and
content production, raising serious questions about market
power, editorial independence, and the future of community-
based journalism.
The national television ownership cap is established by law
and reflects Congress' judgment about the importance of
competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity.
Efforts to sidestep that statutory limit present
significant issues concerning the scope of the FCC's authority
and the consequences for those it regulates and serves.
Whether in broadcasting or streaming, media consolidation
should not erode the independence of the press or diminish the
voices of local communities.
I have always believed that the FCC does its best work when
it honors the needs of the people it serves. When the agency
focuses on lowering costs, expanding opportunity, and
protecting the ability of communities to communicate and to be
heard, it builds public trust and produces real benefits for
consumers.
I look forward to working with this committee to ensure the
FCC returns to that mission and continues to serve the American
people with integrity and independence.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gomez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner,
Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished Members
of the Senate Commerce Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
When I was confirmed as an FCC Commissioner just over two years
ago, I could not have anticipated the pace or the magnitude of the
challenges we now face.
As Commissioner, my priorities have centered on expanding reliable
and affordable high-speed connectivity to every community; maintaining
U.S. leadership in wireless innovation through smart spectrum policy;
preserving localism and a vibrant media ecosystem; and ensuring first
responders have the tools they need to reach the public when it matters
most.
These priorities reflect long-standing, bipartisan goals that
should unite this Committee and the Commission alike. They are the
kinds of issues the FCC has traditionally addressed with seriousness
and a shared commitment to serving consumers. And they are the areas
where I had hoped we would be spending our time and energy.
Instead, over the past ten months, the Commission has taken a
markedly different approach, one that has undermined its reputation as
a stable, independent, and expert-driven regulatory body.
Nowhere is that departure more concerning than in its actions to
intimidate government critics, pressure media companies, and challenge
the boundaries of the First Amendment.
It is precisely because of these concerns that I launched a First
Amendment Tour earlier this year, traveling across the country to hear
directly from communities in Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, Illinois,
Maryland, Washington State, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and
California. My goal was simple: to listen, to engage, and to reaffirm
that the FCC's work must remain grounded in constitutional principles
and public trust.
And, I have found myself aligned with voices across the ideological
spectrum, united by a shared belief that the First Amendment is
fundamental to our democracy and worth defending, even when doing so is
politically inconvenient. In that spirit, I want to thank Chairman Cruz
for speaking out in defense of the First Amendment and for his
continued engagement on this critical issue.
One thing I learned during these conversations is that when the FCC
loses its focus and strays from its core mission, consumers pay the
price. That reality results in higher costs, fewer choices, and missed
opportunities to expand access across the communications ecosystem.
One clear example of where Congress and the Commission has been
aligned is spectrum policy. For years, the FCC was hamstrung by the
lack of auction authority, limiting our ability to innovate and bring
new spectrum to market. I want to thank Congress for restoring our
spectrum auction authority. This is an important step toward expanding
capacity, promoting competition, and maintaining U.S. leadership in
wireless innovation. When spectrum policy is done properly, it lowers
costs for consumers and fuels economic growth. Over the next few
months, continued bipartisan engagement on this issue will be critical
to getting it right.
Yet spectrum is only part of the story. At the same time, millions
of households have faced rising broadband costs following the lapse of
the Affordable Connectivity Program, with little action from the
Commission focused on affordability or consumer relief. Taken together,
these missed opportunities reflect a troubling lack of focus on the
everyday challenges consumers face in accessing and affording essential
communications services.
Beyond missed opportunities, this FCC has taken affirmative actions
that have raised costs and reduced choice for consumers. In the
wireless market, FCC actions contributed to the loss of a potential
fourth national wireless competitor, weakening competition and
increasing the risk of higher prices. At the same time, the Commission
reversed the work it had previously done under congressional mandate to
lower the cost of prison communications and chose to increase the cost
of phone and video calls, leaving some of the most vulnerable families
paying excessive rates to stay connected with loved ones.
These concerns are especially acute in the media landscape. The FCC
has advanced plans that would allow billion-dollar media companies to
grow even larger, likely at the expense of local news and community-
driven reporting. This push comes at a time when major media companies
are already consolidating across broadcasting, streaming, and content
production, raising serious questions about market power, editorial
independence, and the future of community-based journalism.
The national television ownership cap is established by law and
reflects Congress's judgment about the importance of competition,
localism, and viewpoint diversity. Efforts by this FCC to reinterpret
or effectively sidestep that statutory limit present significant issues
concerning the scope of the FCC's authority and the consequences for
those it regulates and serves. Whether in broadcasting or streaming,
media consolidation should not erode the independence of the press or
diminish the voices of local communities. Taken together, these actions
underscore the need for the FCC to refocus on the principles that
matter in the real world and the impacts its decisions have beyond
Washington.
I have always believed that the FCC does its best work when it
honors the needs of the people it serves. When the agency focuses on
lowering costs, expanding opportunity, and protecting the ability of
communities to communicate and be heard, it builds public trust and
produces real benefits for consumers. I look forward to working with
this Committee to ensure the FCC returns to that mission and continues
to serve the American people with integrity and independence.
Thank you again for the opportunity to join you today. I look
forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you to each of you.
Chairman Carr, let us start with free speech. I think you
would agree that the FCC's public interest standard has been
weaponized against conservatives in the past.
In 2018, Senate Democrats tried to pressure the FCC to use
the public interest standard to stop Sinclair Broadcasting
Group from acquiring Tribune Media.
In 2023, leftists sought to stop a routine renewal of a
Fox-owned broadcast station over complaints about 2020 election
coverage.
Do you agree that that was wrong?
Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, I agree, and those are cases, in
fact, where rather than following FCC precedent the agency
broke from it and did so in a weaponized way.
The Chairman. Now, another area of agreement between you
and I is that Jimmy Kimmel is angry, overtly partisan, and
profoundly unfunny. That, sadly, is true for most late-night
comedians today who seem to have been collectively broken by
President Trump's election.
Jimmy's remarks about Charlie Kirk were tasteless, and ABC
and its affiliates would have been fully within their rights to
fire him or simply to no longer air his program. That was their
choice.
But what government cannot do is force private entities to
take actions that the government cannot take directly.
Government officials threatening adverse consequences for
disfavored content is an unconstitutional coercion that chills
protected speech.
This is why it was so insidious how the Biden
administration jawboned social media into shutting down
conservatives online over accurate information on COVID or
voter fraud.
My Democrat colleagues were persistently silent over that
scandal, but I welcome them now having discovered the First
Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Democrat or Republican, we
cannot have the government arbitrating truth or opinion.
Mr. Chairman, my question is this. So long as there is a
public interest standard should it not be understood to
encompass robust First Amendment protections to ensure that the
FCC cannot use it to chill speech?
Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, I agree with you there, and I think
the examples you laid out of weaponization during the Biden
years are perfect examples.
The Fox case you mentioned was a renewal for a broadcast TV
license and petitioners sought to have the FCC not renew it
based on content that aired on a separate cable channel.
In a cable context, it is entirely different. There is no
license. There is no public interest standard. So first and
foremost, we have to make sure the FCC is hewing to precedent.
Similarly, we saw Democrats in Congress write letters to
cable companies pressuring them to drop Fox News, OAN, and
Newsmax because they disagreed with the political perspectives
of those cable channels and there, again, it is cable.
No broadcast license, no public interest standard. So the
FCC has to write within the four corners of our precedents to
be consistent with the Communications Act and the First
Amendment concerns as well.
The Chairman. All right. Let us shift to spectrum.
One of the biggest economic and national security wins in
the Working Families Tax Cut Act was restoring the FCC's
auction authority and creating the largest spectrum pipeline--
800 megahertz of spectrum--in U.S. history.
It will not just bring faster and cheaper wireless to
consumers, but it will keep the United States competitive in
the global 6G race against communist China. I am encouraged
that the FCC has already begun the process of freeing up
potentially as much as 180 megahertz of C-band spectrum.
Chairman Carr, is the Commission on track to meet the law's
spectrum deadlines and to fully deliver on the bill's
obligations?
Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, and, again, thank you to you for
restoring the FCC's auction authority. We had fallen into a
deep spectrum malaise during the Biden years. We were losing
our leadership position.
Right now, we are very actively working with our partners
across government, Department of Transportation, FAA, NTIA, and
we are all aligned to deliver on the statutory deadline of July
2027 for that auction.
The Chairman. And what will the benefits to consumers be of
800 megahertz of spectrum being made available for auction for
the private sector?
Mr. Carr. First of all, this will allow us to catch back up
to China. When President Trump left at the end of his Trump 45
administration, we had leapfrogged China and were set up in a
very good position.
But then we did not move forward with any new spectrum
bands and China moved ahead. So this is important for national
security but also for prices for consumers.
The data shows when we free up more spectrum we can allow
providers, for instance, to compete for in-home broadband and
when they do that with fixed wireless we have seen that cable
modem prices drop by 37 percent where they used to have a
monopoly.
So it is good for our economy, for innovation, and for
prices for consumers as well.
The Chairman. Commissioner Trusty, how does the spectrum
auction pipeline and the Working Families Tax Cut help position
the United States for success at the 2027 World Radio
Conference?
Ms. Trusty. Yes, thank you so much for the question,
Senator, and thank you again for your leadership in restoring
the FCC's general spectrum auction authority and creating this
long-term spectrum pipeline.
I think these spectrum provisions are foundational to
developing a unified strategy going into the next World Radio
Communications Conference where we can focus on key U.S.
interests.
We can work with our international allies in advance to
preempt those who are seeking to undermine U.S. interests at
the conference in Shanghai, China.
In 2023, at the last World Radio Communications Conference
we did not have this kind of legislative backing or support. We
did not have auction authority. We did not have a long-term
spectrum pipeline, and so we were sidelined on very important
conversations.
Now that we have this authority, thanks to your leadership,
we can constructively and meaningfully engage in these
conversations that I think position us better to come out of
this conference with wins that are essential for economic and
national security and global leadership in next-generation
communications technologies.
The Chairman. Terrific. Thank you.
Ranking Member Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Carr--Chairman Carr--obviously, Salt Typhoon
was a major attack on the United States infrastructure,
government espionage by them, specifically exploiting the
wiretap system built by law enforcement to track millions of
Americans, their location, real-time phone calls, text
messages, and according to senior officials, breached largely
because the telecom companies did not implement basic
cybersecurity measures like not putting a patch in place or
router vulnerabilities.
At the beginning of the year, the FCC issued a ruling to
hold the FCC companies accountable but the FCC rolled that back
last month. So are these Chinese hackers still in the American
telecom system?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
I agree with you that the Salt Typhoon incident should
never have been allowed to happen. At the beginning of the year
the Biden administration put forward a declaratory ruling, but
no rules themselves were adopted at the time, and the FCC's
decision itself did not go through the agency's normal review
process.
When I spoke with the career intel officials then they were
urging me not to move forward with a rulemaking but instead to
work collaboratively and directly with the carriers to make
sure they were taking real-time actions to address and
remediate.
In fact, that is what we have been doing. We have worked
directly with the carriers----
Senator Cantwell. Do you think there are still hackers in
the system?
Mr. Carr. Well, recently over the summer, the FBI's Cyber
Director--I will refer you to his remarks that are very
specific on this and the Cyber Director for the FBI said that
the hackers behind Salt Typhoon are, quote, ``largely
contained,'' end quote, dormant in the networks, that they are
not actively infiltrating information.
So I would, again, refer you to sort of the FBI which is
the lead spokesperson on this issue. What we have done----
Senator Cantwell. I mean, I know what the FBI and CISA
recommended. They said that you should use Signal, that
everybody in America should get off of these systems and use
other messaging services that had encrypted calling.
So I do not think this issue is solved and I think rolling
back the rules that protect Americans--I think in this
information age you need to have robust, robust security
measures and you need to make sure that the telecom industry is
implementing them. Otherwise, we will continue to have these
kind of hacks on the system.
And so I do not agree with the rolling back of these
issues. I do want to bring up a second issue, which is on cost
and, Ms. Gomez, you articulated this as it related to EchoStar
Dish, I think, but I think it is bigger than that.
We are seeing this massive amount of consolidation in the
marketplace. I think we have a chart back here--if somebody
could just hold it up for a second--about how, you know, we pay
the most in wireless costs, we pay--or second in the world--the
most or second most in broadband costs writ large.
And so the question is what are we going to do to drive
down costs for consumers and how are these consolidations
basically making it more challenging for us to give consumers
real choice in the marketplace without cost?
And while I love spectrum and I want good international
competition, I am more impressive with spectrum that does not
interfere with DOD.
I am more impressed with spectrum that basically helps
expand into rural areas and drives down costs, and more
impressed with a spectrum policy that basically takes that low
end of the market that does not have affordable costs and
basically does something to help them participate in the
market.
Why give more spectrum if the telecom companies float and
decide not to do the rules on security and they just become
basically richer while the American consumer becomes poorer?
And, again, this is just one example of how the United
States is one of the most expensive in the country. But could
you help explain a little more on your thoughts about what we
do to increase competition and lower costs?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Senator.
I am a firm believer that robust competition results in
benefits for consumers including lower costs, and I am
concerned that the level of consolidation in this country is
actually reducing the incentives that lead to lower costs for
consumers.
And since you raised affordability, I am so glad you raised
that because one of the things that I am very concerned about
is the lack of a program to provide affordable access to
connectivity for consumers throughout this country.
We are spending billions of dollars in order to deploy
networks in the hardest to reach areas but we are not going to
make sure that they are sustainable if people cannot afford to
actually purchase that service. So we need----
Senator Cantwell. Is that not what has been wrong with
spectrum policy writ large is we just--we sell the spectrum, we
give it to the telco industry.
They basically expand to the areas that they can have
customers but not to the hard-to-serve areas or figuring out a
price point that will allow them to deliver a service so we can
expand to the whatever it is, 20 million Americans that do not
have broadband.
Ms. Gomez. Yes, that is exactly right. I mean, it is an
incentive, as your economic incentive is where the profits are.
So that is where government steps in.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I do not think that is where the
FCC is stepping in.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our Commissioners for being here today.
Congress codified the Universal Service Mission three
decades ago. It has been a fundamental building block in
providing reliable communications and Internet across this
country and in the hardest-to-reach places.
However, communications in the 1990s looked a lot different
than they do in 2025.
Chairman Carr, given this reality and ongoing legal
challenges to the Fund, would you agree that Congress has a
vital role in modernizing the USF?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for your long-time
leadership on these universal service issues. I have enjoyed
the chance to visit with you in your state and see the
important work that the Universal Service Program has done.
I commend the working group that is ongoing in the Senate
looking at this issue, and I think you are right. I think it is
time for Congress to take a fundamental look at the program to
make sure it is fit for service in the coming years.
Senator Fischer. And Commissioner Trusty and Gomez, do you
have anything you would like to add to that?
Commissioner Trusty.
Ms. Trusty. Thank you for the question, Senator. I agree.
Thank you for your leadership on these issues. You have been a
long-time leader on making sure we can meet connectivity needs
in these areas.
I do agree that reforms for USF are very important. This is
the cornerstone of the FCC's mission in connecting Americans
across the country and USF is a part of that effort.
Senator Fischer. And, Senator Gomez, anything to add? Any
comments about reforms?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, thank you, Senator, and, again, also thank
you for yours and Senator Lujan's leadership on this issue.
I think it is very important for the Senate to help us to
make the Universal Service Fund a sustainable program that
ensures affordable access for all Americans, and I am really
hopeful that what you are able to provide is that sustainable
affordability program as part of your--the reforms that you put
forward.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. As co-chair of the working
group, I sent the Commission a letter with Senator Lujan
earlier today and it requests a briefing to help inform
Congress' efforts in this regard.
Chairman Carr, will you commit to getting a briefing on the
books in January for our staff and the appropriate Commission
personnel?
Mr. Carr. Yes, I look forward to working with you on this
issue.
Senator Fischer. Great. Thank you.
The U.S. role in shaping global communications policy is
vital for countering foreign threats to our networks and all
the assets that they connect, and adding to--an element to this
challenge is the upcoming World Radio Communication Conference
that will take place in China.
Commissioner Trusty, what will be the biggest risks that
this adds to a complex process?
Ms. Trusty. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I think security is the business risk that adds to this
process, and as, you know, we are working at the FCC to ensure
that providers uphold their commitments to patch outdated
equipment, to update their access controls, to make sure they
are improving threat intelligence sharing to further harden our
networks, and I think a part of this process will mean more
public-private partnerships so that we can share information,
educating providers about how they can harden their networks as
well as we travel over to Shanghai to participate in this
conference.
I think there needs to continue to be whole-of-government
conversations about how to protect our assets in this forum.
Senator Fischer. I would imagine that those are many of the
things that you will take into account as the United States
develops its positions at this conference, correct?
Ms. Trusty. That is absolutely right.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell brought up spectrum. I cannot let it go by
without also chiming in.
There are a lot of decisionmaking ahead for the Commission
as it charts out spectrum resources for both licensed and
unlicensed use, and I believe that balance needs to be the key
here.
We know that unlicensed and shared spectrum technologies
carry up to 90 percent of the U.S. communications each and
every day.
Commissioner Trusty, moving forward, how should the
Commission ensure that shared technologies can continue to
flourish and innovate, and how do you preserve value between
the different types of spectrum licensing in striking a
balance?
Ms. Trusty. Thank you for this very important question,
Senator.
I think the FCC has an all-of-the-above approach to looking
at spectrum to accommodate a variety of users, use cases, and
technologies.
So our immediate priority is the upper C-band, which will
result in exclusive license use, but we also need more spectrum
for unlicensed uses, for WiFi 7, WiFi 8, to support the
Internet of Things and other forms of connectivity that is
benefiting all Americans.
We also need spectrum for satellite and space uses so we
have the satellite spectrum abundance proceeding where we are
looking to make upward of 20,000 megahertz available for
satellite and space reasons, and we are looking more
intensively at bands above the 24 gigahertz band for fixed
satellite services.
So the whole thing is we need an all-of-the-above approach
so that we can accommodate a variety of users and use cases and
advance U.S. leadership in these technologies.
Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. I look forward to
having conversations with all of you on this in the future.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I would prefer to be asking
questions about the bipartisan work that needs to be done on
universal service and broadband and spectrum, and I will ask
that in writing, but the events of this year move me to focus
on free speech and our democracy.
Chairman Carr, in 2022 you tweeted, ``Political satire is
one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech. It
challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people
into the discussion. That is why people in influential
positions have always targeted it for censorship.''
Yes or no, do you still agree that political satire should
be protected speech?
Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, and whenever that satire or any
other programming is over the public airways for broadcasters
there is a public interest standard and there is a news
distortion rule, a broadcast hoax rule, a political----
Senator Klobuchar. You answered it. You answered it yes and
I am just----
Mr. Carr.--equal opportunity rule.
Senator Klobuchar. I am going to go on.
Mr. Carr. That particular instance, too, had to do with
speech on social media where Biden administrations were trying
to shut down political speech, again, an area where there is no
license, there is no public interest standard. We want robust
wide-open speech.
Senator Klobuchar. We will get to that in a minute. You
know, I believe, too, that there is no place in chilling
political satire, but after Jimmy Kimmel's monologue you went
on a podcast and suggested that ABC should take Kimmel off the
air saying, ``We can do this the easy way or the hard way.''
Those were your words. Do you think it is appropriate to
use your position to threaten companies that broadcast
political satire?
Mr. Carr. I think any licensee that operates on the public
airways has a responsibility to comply with the public interest
standard and that has been the case for decades.
Senator Klobuchar. I asked if you should--if you think it
is appropriate for you to use your position to threaten
companies, and this incident with Kimmel was not an isolated
event.
You have launched investigations into every major broadcast
network except Fox. Is that correct?
Mr. Carr. I do not know if that is true or not. We do have
investigations going on NPR and PBS. We have a number of
investigations that are ongoing.
I think if you step back, over the years I think the FCC
has walked away from enforcing the public interest standard and
I do not think that is a good thing.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. You brought up social media. So do
you think it is appropriate for after a horrific murder and the
stabbing--the stabbing of Rob Reiner and his wife--do you think
it is appropriate for someone to say that it happened when they
know better, reportedly due to the anger he caused others
through his massive unyielding and incurable affliction with a
mind-crippling disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome?
He was known to have driven people crazy by his raging
obsession of President Donald J. Trump with his obvious
paranoia reaching new heights.
Do you think that is appropriate for the President of the
United States to do that, and if Jimmy Kimmel would have said
that would you have threatened to take him off the air?
Mr. Carr. Senator, look, Democrats on this dais are
accusing me of engaging in censorship and now you are trying to
encourage me to police speech on the internet. I am simply not
going to do it. Broadcast television is----
Senator Klobuchar. Oh, I am just asking what kind of words.
I think they are cruel. I think they hurt President Trump to
say that kind of thing. I think it hurts him with trust in the
American people.
But this is the kind of stuff that is going on right now,
and yet you are going after broadcast stations except for Fox
and making threats.
Mr. Carr. Senator, we are applying the law.
Let us step back. Broadcast TV is fundamentally different
than any other forms of media, whether it is cable or podcast
or a soapbox or a man on the street. There is a public trustee
model that Congress has set up. When you are on a podcast----
Senator Klobuchar. So you think there should be no rules in
place when it comes to tech platforms then?
Mr. Carr. I think there is no public interest obligation.
There is no license. There is no----
Senator Klobuchar. Do you think we should change the laws?
Here is one.
Mr. Carr. There is no news----
Senator Klobuchar. Last week, President Trump came out with
this dangerous and likely illegal AI rule that preempts all the
states from doing anything to try to save people, whether it is
kids that are being exposed to content they should not see or
fentanyl or political videos that are lies.
So, do you think Congress has the authority to preempt
state laws or do you think President Trump and the agencies
like yourself have the authority to preempt state law when it
comes to the Internet and safety with AI?
Mr. Carr. Well, when it comes to AI in particular there is
an executive order. It asks the FCC to initiate a proceeding.
We are going to initiate a proceeding. We are open minded on
where that goes.
But look, if you want to step back and talk about
weaponization, we saw that for 4 years in the Biden
administration. Senate Democrats including Democrats----
Senator Klobuchar. Joe Biden is no longer president. You
are head of the FCC and Donald Trump is President, and I am
trying to deal with this right now.
So I would ask you, Ms. Gomez, what are the risks of the
Commission trying to preempt state laws, particularly when
there are no Federal guardrails? Because our colleagues,
despite some good efforts, refuse to pass any kind of even
minimal rules when it comes to AI.
What are the risks of the Commission or a President then
trying to preempt state laws that can legally put state laws in
place?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Senator.
I believe that the FCC has very dubious authority to
actually preempt state laws in this case, because without a
comprehensive Federal framework there is nothing for the FCC to
preempt.
The Communications Act did not actually talk about
artificial intelligence or provide authority to the FCC to do
this preemption. So I am very dubious of our authority to do
so.
That said, we have sought comment on this.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Moran.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Chairman Cruz, thank you. Thank you and
Senator Cantwell for this hearing. Welcome, Commissioners.
Chairman Carr, I sent you a letter in May urging the FCC to
modernize broadcast ownership rules, quote, ``to enable local
broadcasters to compete with today's media giants,'' and it is
my local broadcasters that are at significant risk from
competition from media giants, traditional and otherwise.
And in that letter I described the impact of applying
legacy media rules to a fundamentally changed media landscape
on local broadcasters versus national players.
I firmly believe--there is no question that follows my
statement this morning but I want to reiterate this to you
today in this hearing.
I firmly believe that local broadcasters are best suited to
deliver local journalism and as a small town print journalism
has succumbed to even stronger headwinds, the importance of
local broadcasters has increased by orders of magnitude.
Across Kansas local broadcasters are hugely important and
provide the news, the weather, the sports, and we need to make
certain that their viability is enhanced by ownership rules
that the Commission has talked about and considering.
I also want to highlight broadband mapping. Seems like deja
vu, a conversation we have had since 2017 when the maps were
first provided to Congress and the country. It was clear that
they were desperately or damagingly flawed.
More than five years ago, Congress passed and the President
signed the Broadband Data Act which required the FCC to update
its approach to broadband data collection, verification, and
reporting.
I appreciate the FCC's work to implement that legislation
including operationalizing the broadband data collection
platform, the broadband serviceable location fabric, and the
national broadband map.
But I notice when I am ever going to--on the occasion I get
a compliment it is usually followed by a word but and that is
what I am doing here.
But everything that I know from Kansas providers is that
while the maps themselves have been improved, providers still
face an arduous and outdated challenging process that makes it
difficult to update the maps with the most recently available
data.
This circumstance is particularly concerning given that
NTIA makes use of the FCC's data in adjusting the eligibility
locations for services under broadband.
So I would encourage you to, again, continue your efforts
to recover from the mapping process that includes improvements
in the ability for those in Kansas and across the country to
make changes in the maps based upon actuality and the reality
of what we actually provide in service to Kansans.
This is true in cellular coverage and telephone service,
and certainly in broadband. The Telecommunications Act of 1996
provided the statutory basis for the Universal Service Fund
that Senator Fischer has talked about.
I serve on that, her task force--her working group to make
certain that we better empower the FCC to deliver on its
universal service mission and I appreciate the answers that you
provided to Senator Fischer about your willingness to work with
us to accomplish that goal.
Earlier this year my colleagues and I sent you a letter
encouraging the Commission to take a balanced approach to
implementation of spectrum requirements.
I described--that protect current uses and certain uses of
spectrum bands, especially unlicensed users in the 6 gigahertz
band.
Again, you have addressed this previously in answers to
questions from my colleagues but I, again, highlight the
importance of that balanced approach and I know in my
conversation with you, Commissioner Trusty, and what you said
this morning, again, that balanced approach involving
unlicensed spectrum remains an important issue for you and I
assume that is true.
Ms. Gomez--Commissioner Gomez--you and I have not had this
conversation but I would be happy to have you confirm that you
agree with me.
Ms. Gomez. Apologies. I am happy to have this discussion
with you.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
Finally, the Federal broadband programs are encumbered by
inconsistent coordination between entities on the myriad of
programs that offer broadband services to America, provide the
support for broadband services to America.
In April, a GAO audit noted that--just that and lamented
that the lack of a national strategy on coordinating
administration of these programs. Major Federal investments in
broadband like BEAD, which is administered by NTIA, will
require a focused coordination to make certain that these
programs are delivering appropriate levels of service.
Chairman Carr, what specific actions is the FCC taking to
coordinate with NTIA in the run up to the broadband deployment
under the BEAD program?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
This is a really important issue. As you indicated, there
was a GAO report not that long ago that said there was over a
hundred different broadband funding programs. They were spread
out over more than a dozen different agencies and they were
entirely uncoordinated.
Right now, we have got a great working relationship across
the FCC, the NTIA, the NEC, and many other agencies that have
broadband funding to make sure that we are addressing some of
this coordination issue that has been a challenge before.
Senator Moran. And when you say making certain we address,
you are addressing them and there will be a different outcome
than what we would expect in the absence of that addressing
those problems, true?
Mr. Carr. Yes, sir. Yes.
Senator Moran. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Capito [presiding]. Senator Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you to all the Commissioners. Thanks
to the Committee for conducting this hearing.
Chairman Carr, you and I have actually known each other for
maybe 10 years now. We have had several meetings in our office
and it is usually--I do not want to say mundane but it is
technocratic, it is technical, it is nonpartisan, and all the
rest of it. And so I am hoping----
Mr. Carr. We can do that again right here. It is fine.
Senator Schatz. I am hoping we can do that again right here
but it is a more sensitive topic. So I am just going to ask you
a couple of ``yes or no'' questions.
I do not mind a quick explanation but, you know, I will
make a promise to you not to hector you for three or four
minutes if you can give me quick yes or nos or at least quick
explanations.
Chairman Cruz said, ``I think it is unbelievably dangerous
for the government to put itself in the position of saying we
are going to decide what speech we like and what we do not, and
we are going to threaten to take you off the air if we do not
like what you are saying.''
Do you see this issue the same way as the Chairman?
Mr. Carr. Well, my position on this is pretty clear. We
have a public interest standard that Congress has put into the
law and there is a number of very specific rules and doctrines
that flow from that--the broadcast hoax rule, the news
distortion rule.
Senator Schatz. OK. So do you----
Mr. Carr. So my position and I think the Trump
administration position is that we should be enforcing those
rules and policies. If Congress wants to change it you are free
to change it.
Senator Schatz. So under the--so you think you have
jurisdiction over political satire under the public interest
standard and the news distortion standard, just to put a fine
point on it?
Mr. Carr. My position is that----
Senator Schatz. Just a--that one is a yes or no. Do you
have jurisdiction or not?
Mr. Carr. We have jurisdiction with respect to the
broadcast airwaves uniquely to ensure that their operations are
in the public interest and there is very specific rules here
for broadcast hoax and news distortion.
Senator Schatz. So if there is a--so if there is a
determination by the Federal Communications Commission that
satire is not in the public interest you believe you have the
authority to revoke the license of the broadcaster?
Mr. Carr. That is not my position at all.
Senator Schatz. OK. So but the----
Mr. Carr. My position is if the use of the facility is in
the public interest----
Senator Schatz. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just--let me
clarify the question.
Mr. Carr. Satire that is not broadcast hoax, that is not
news distortion policy, is perfectly fine.
Senator Schatz. So----
Mr. Carr. But I also do not understand the conversation
about--what satire are we talking about? Where was there
satire?
Senator Schatz. We are not doing the questions in this
direction.
Mr. Carr. OK.
Senator Schatz. What is the FCC standards for making this
kind of evaluation about whether you--whether news has been
distorted?
My understanding is that this has been used eight times.
The Chairman--and I think he is right--is saying, like, this is
rarely invoked and there is a reason for that because, yes, we
have a statute that governs what the FCC is supposed to do.
But basically the FCC has decided we need to get out of the
business of refereeing what is offensive, and if something is
indecent or obscene, that is one thing, right?
If they are violating the terms of their broadcast license
that is another thing. If they just say an awful thing on the
air it seems to me, Chairman, that is not your jurisdiction.
And I know you are quick and you understand this law
backward and forwards. I understand. I remember you when you
were Counsel for Chairman Pai. So I do not doubt your ability
to race right into how--the architecture of the originating
statute.
But I am asking you, do you think it is appropriate for you
to have an opinion at all in your official capacity about what
a comedian says, as offensive as it may have been?
Mr. Carr. Senator, my job is to implement the law passed by
Congress and Congress has said that broadcast is fundamentally
different, that there is a public interest standard. There is
decades of precedent on this.
Senator Schatz. Do you think there are any--do you think
there are any conservative commentators or conservative
comedians or conservative satirists that ever say anything
offensive that you would consider investigating?
Mr. Carr. I am not looking at things that are offensive or
awful, to use your words. I am looking at things that are
consistent with our public interest rules and regulations. That
is the full scope of what we are looking at.
Senator Schatz. And in what way--so I am a little confused
because it seems to me that in subsequent conversations I
forgot after Ted and John Thune and Dave McCormick and others
said, oh, this seems like a little much for you, Chairman, that
you went out and you said, that was fake news--I did not do
that. This is fake news. I am not doing that. I am not going
after Jimmy Kimmel.
And now you are saying you have a perfect right to go after
Jimmy Kimmel and I am wondering which one it is?
Mr. Carr. No, two different things. Democrats at the time
were saying that we explicitly threatened to pull a license if
Jimmy Kimmel was not fired. That never happened. That was
nothing more than projection and distortion by Democrats.
What I am saying is any broadcaster that uses the airwaves,
whether radio or TV, has to comply with the public interest,
and licenses are not sacred cows. Yes, you can do things to
lose a license.
But if we want to change that that is up to Congress and
one idea, for instance, is why do we not put all the broadcast
TV licenses up for auction and if people want to buy them
without the public interest obligation they can do that.
But look, there was a bargain here.
Senator Schatz. But you are--I mean, you are kind of
tiptoeing through the tulips here, right? Because what you
actually said is they have a license granted by us at the FCC
that comes with an obligation to operate in the public
interest.
We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These
companies can find ways to change conduct and take action,
frankly, on Kimmel--on Kimmel--or there is going to be
additional work for the FCC ahead.
Chairman, my final comment is I have actually enjoyed our
relationship. I have praised you behind your back as a solid--
someone I disagree with but solid, knowledgeable person.
This stuff, at least up until the last year, has been out
of character and it will not age well, and it will not age well
on the conservative side of the aisle and the liberal side of
the aisle.
This is not American FCC behavior and I am hoping we can
recalibrate.
Mr. Carr. Let me try to understand this. Did you have an
issue when Senator Markey told the FCC to investigate Sinclair
for their news activities? Was there any issue raised there?
Senator Schatz. I am going to allow this because I was
tough on you. You did ask me a question. This is the first time
I am ever going to respond to a question from a witness.
I did not sign that letter.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. All right. Thank you.
I am going to continue with the questioning, and I
appreciate all of you all being here and your good hard work at
the FCC.
A lot of my interests are really along the same lines as
Senator Moran, representing a rural state, an underserved state
in terms of connectivity and some of the challenges that we
have had trying to get us to close the digital divide in a
small state like West Virginia.
So, Chairman Carr, he did talk about the mapping issue and
the issues of small providers alleviating the barriers that
they have and then the possible penalties that they might
accrue if some of the maps are inaccurate or if they are unable
to--failing to serve locations that do not actually exist and
are not residential or their business.
Do you have the necessary data from agencies to be able to
have more accurate maps? And, you know, as we get down to the
nitty gritty here where we are actually going to get to the
last house, the last home, this is going to really be
important.
So where are you with the maps and what kind of
formulations for improvements have you considered and you as
all of you?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, for your leadership on this
issue.
I think we have actually been making some real significant
progress on the mapping issue, the fabric itself. The locations
are starting to stabilize. We are seeing less than one percent
change in terms of iterations of the map. We have solved a lot
of issues.
One that is popping up recently and I have heard from you
is the challenge process, and it is difficult because some
could argue that the original provider would have an incentive
to overstate and then others would say that the challenging
provider would have incentives to overstate their challenge and
we have a regulation of that process, but perhaps we need to do
a little bit better job at streamlining that and I am open to
looking at that.
Senator Capito. Right. Commissioner Trusty, did you have
something to say on that issue on the mapping?
Ms. Trusty. Sure. One of the issues that I have heard about
on mapping just this year testability--how do you test whether
or not broadband is available in a particular area--and I know
that FCC staff is working very closely with providers to try to
make this a more efficient process and less costly.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Commissioner Gomez, do you have
anything to add there?
Ms. Gomez. No, I agree with my colleagues. We still hear
complaints, of course, both of where areas are shown as served
that are actually not served----
Senator Capito. Right.
Ms. Gomez.--which is problematic. So the staff continue to
update and update and update the map and I--you know, every
iteration makes it better but it still needs improvement.
Senator Capito. Right, and a lot of these areas are the
smaller providers. Capacity is an issue to be able to help
verify. So anything that can smooth that process would be very
much appreciated.
Commissioner--Chairman Carr, I appreciate the work, and it
is interesting to listen to the debate over the broadcasters in
terms of consolidation and everything.
I mean, I have a view similar to what Senator Moran
expressed in that in the rural areas our local broadcasters are
so essential, whether--and he even mentioned the top three:
weather, sports, local government.
And they are--try to preserve that local news as we have
seen what has happened to our newspapers. Our broadcast is so
very important.
You know, we just had a food drive and our local television
providers, you know, did this and publicized it so that it was
much broader and bigger than it would have been without that
local flavor and that local input and involvement.
So a number of senators wrote to you to ask what you are
doing to ensure that our local broadcasters are able to compete
in this changing landscape and I think he mentioned that as
well and he mentioned the letter.
What is the update on the ownership rule proceedings that
the Commission has started since we sent the letter over?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator. We are, you know, very
open minded as to how to resolve that proceeding. We have not
made a final decision yet.
I think this is actually one area where I heard some strong
alignment between me and Ranking Member Cantwell on this. She
talked about the importance and value of local news,
particularly when there is natural disasters.
One of the things I am trying to do with our media policy
as a general matter is to reempower those local broadcasters to
invest in local news because what has happened over the years
we have had a consolidation of power into what are national
programmers--Comcast, Disney and others--and, effectively, a
lot of local broadcast stations are just mouthpieces for that
national programming made in New York and Hollywood and I am
not sure that is going to be consistent with the public
interest, again, when it comes to a natural disaster like in
Washington State right now.
So one of the lenses that we are looking at this media
ownership proceeding is is that consistent with our goal of
constraining the power of some of those national programmers.
But we have not made a decision there yet.
Senator Capito. Thank you. I will be interested to hear
what happens there.
I will say as a compliment when I first started in this
role and got very active with rural broadband there was a lot
of confusion in a state such as mine as, you know, who is
covering this area, can RDOF go? Can ReConnect go? Can BEAD go?
And you mentioned more programs than I even had concept of
that are still trying to, as I said, connect that last home and
last mile.
We are hearing less about the lack of coordination between
all these different entities and I think that is--particularly
at the Federal level and I think that is extremely important
because, number one, we do not want to overbill but we do not
want to under bill, too, and we do not want to squash
innovation.
So I thank you all for your efforts in that. I think it has
been very helpful and I appreciate that we can keep working on
that because I think that will make the dollars go quicker and
make the connectivity come faster as well.
So with that, I will recognize Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Chairman Carr, you are not reinvigorating the public
interest standard. You are weaponizing the public interest
standard. That is what the Carr FCC is doing every single day.
Behind me are your past tweets declaring your commitment to
the First Amendment. You even defended political satire, saying
in 2022 it challenges those in power and that is why people in
influential positions have always targeted it for censorship.
That is why your threats against ABC and Disney over Jimmy
Kimmel's political monologue was so outrageous, and here is
what you said. In September 2025 as the Chairman of the FCC,
``We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies
can find ways to change conduct or take action, frankly, on
Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC
ahead.''
Now, that statement was roundly condemned across the
political spectrum. Chairman Cruz called it ``dangerous as
hell''.
Chairman Carr, do you regret making that statement, yes or
no?
Mr. Carr. Senator Markey, thank you for the question. My
job is to enforce the law as passed by Congress. That includes
a public interest standard and broadcast TV is fundamentally
different than any other media. We have a news distortion
rule----
Senator Markey. Do you regret making that statement?
Mr. Carr. Senator, my job is to enforce the law.
Senator Markey. So you do not regret making that statement?
Well, that is a refusal----
Mr. Carr. Senator----
Senator Markey.--to take accountability for your language,
for your use--your abuse of power. You will not say that you
made a mistake.
For example, in your response to my oversight letter in
September on the Kimmel incident you repeatedly stated that the
media companies made their own decisions in preempting and
suspending Kimmel.
You seem to think that your words, the most powerful
communications regulator in America, especially your threats,
do not matter.
So just to be clear, your position is that your mafia
threats had nothing to do with Nexstar and Sinclair and
Disney's decisions to preempt and suspend Kimmel.
Is that your position? Is that your point, that you had
nothing to do with the suspension of Kimmel?
Mr. Carr. Senator, if you look at the evidence, the
expressed statements by every single company involved from
Nexstar to Sinclair to Disney as recently as last week is that
they made these business decisions on their own. The record is
clear on this.
Senator Markey. And, again, you are refusing to take
accountability for your own words. You intimidate the
companies, they do what you want, and then you say, well, it
was up to them.
You are the Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission. Actually, you are now the Chairman of the Federal
Censorship Commission, and these broadcasters they feel that
censorship. You have broad authority over the media industry,
especially broadcasters. Your words and actions matter.
Now I am going to give you another chance to take
accountability for your actions. In 2022, you said, quote, ``A
newsroom's decision about what stories to cover and how to
frame them should be beyond the reach of any government
official, not targeted by them,'' by government officials. Do
you stand by that statement?
Mr. Carr. This was a letter written by Senate--I am sorry,
House Democrats to cable companies pressuring them to drop Fox
News, OAN, and Newsmax simply because those Democrats thought
they were right wing.
Senator Markey. So do you stand by your statement? Do you
stand by--do you stand by your statement?
Mr. Carr. Yes, I do. I think it is inappropriate what the
Democrats said there.
Senator Markey. OK. Well, OK. Good. I just want to--I just
want to get your own views out here on the record for people to
hear.
So in February, under your leadership the Federal
Communications Commission opened an investigation into a San
Francisco radio station over its coverage of a Federal
immigration raid.
FCC investigation is a big deal for a local station. In a
worst case scenario, the FCC could shut down the station by
revoking its license. In fact, you have repeatedly suggested
over the past year that the FCC could revoke station licenses.
Yet, this investigation was based solely on the news
content of the radio station's coverage of an immigration raid.
I have the entire news statement that they put out that day.
This happens every day everywhere across the country for
broadcast journalists. This investigation was based solely on
this very brief statement that is in everyday coverage and I
have that transcript, and the anchor was literally reporting on
the information that was released by the mayor, by the local
city council member, and a community group.
So you are telling me that reporting on statements from
public officials and a community group is grounds for an FCC
investigation?
Mr. Carr. Senator, the concern there in the report was that
there may have been interference with lawful ICE operations and
so we were asking questions about what happened.
This was a period of time, remember, when ICE agents were
being attacked, their locations--undercover locations were
being disclosed----
Senator Markey. There is nothing in here that discloses
anything. There is no risk to anyone except the risk----
Mr. Carr. And they can provide that to us.
Senator Markey. No, no. The risk that is posed here is to
you, to the broadcast journalist coverage. That is what really
happened. The news journalists were just covering an important
news story and some conservatives were upset by the coverage.
So you used your power as FCC Chair to hang a sword of
Damocles over a local radio station's head and that is
precisely what you warned about in 2022, the government
targeting a newsroom's editorial decision.
Well, guess what happened? The station demoted the anchor
who first read that news report over the air and pulled back on
his political coverage. You got what you wanted.
One former journalist at the station said ``chilling effect
does not begin to describe the neutering of our political
coverage.'' That is what you wanted, that is what you got, but
it affected stations everywhere.
So just let me say again, the neutering of our political
coverage this is government censorship, plain and simple.
Was it a mistake in retrospect for you to say that, to
instigate an investigation of that San Francisco radio station?
Was that a mistake?
Mr. Carr. Senator, broadcasters understand, perhaps the
first time in years, that they are going to be held accountable
to the public interest, to broadcast hoax rules, to the news
distortion policy, I think that is a good thing.
I do not have a poster board but, listen, in 2018 you
signed this letter right here to the FCC.
Senator Markey. OK. No, you--OK. You are--you are here
right----
Mr. Carr. You signed a letter to the FCC asking us to
investigate Sinclair's news activities.
Senator Markey. You are--you are--OK.
Mr. Carr. You said investigate Sinclair's news activities--
--
Senator Markey. OK. You are here right----
Mr. Carr.--and you know what happened after that?
Senator Markey. You are here right now----
Mr. Carr. Over 227 licenses were up for renewal----
Senator Markey. This is--Madam Chair, please ask the
witness----
Mr. Carr.--or due during the Biden years.
Senator Capito. I am going to ask the witness----
Mr. Carr. Almost none of them were renewed after your
letter. Your letter produced the results that we are seeking.
Senator Capito. Chairman Carr--Chairman Carr----
Senator Markey. Madam Chair----
Senator Capito. Well, you are well over your time here so
in----
Senator Markey. Well, a lot of it is because----
Senator Capito. Well, no, it is not because I looked at the
clock and you were already two minutes over. But----
Senator Markey. All right. So I will just finish, Madam
Chair. He is turning the Federal Communications Commission into
the Federal Censorship Commission.
It is a betrayal of the FCC's mission. You should resign,
Mr. Chairman. You are creating a chilling effect on broadcast--
--
Mr. Carr. Do you regret sending this letter in 2018 asking
the FCC to investigate Sinclair's news activities?
Senator Capito. Senator Markey, please. There are a lot of
people on this committee.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Thank you.
Senator Capito. Chairman Carr--please suspend, Chairman
Carr. We will move to the next question.
Senator Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Chairman
and the other commissioners.
I am going to turn back to the topic that Senator Capito,
the Chair was talking about and that is rural broadband, which
is really important to so many of us. There is rural broadband,
Mr. Chairman, as you know, and then there is Alaska, which is
super rural.
So I want to commend you in particular on your sustained
focus on my state during your tenure first as a commissioner,
now as Chairman.
As you know, you, Commissioner Trusty, Commissioner Gomez--
all the FCC Commissioners--have come up to Alaska and I just
want to give some statistics here, which I think are important.
The Alaska Connect Fund Order from the FCC through 2023
is--according to the fund order that was in front of the
Commission the Alaska plan helped deploy and upgrade broadband
to more than 96,000 previously unserved locations, delivered
new or improved 4G LTE or better wireless services to, roughly,
65,000 Alaskans, and laid the groundwork for the Alaska Connect
fund to carry that success forward with added flexibility.
So I want to thank the FCC's leadership, in particular you,
Mr. Chairman, who has enabled this strong coordination with
other Federal programs and to help what is in the law, which is
to be able to connect all Americans to broadband and Internet
connectivity regardless of if you live in a city, in the lower
48, or a rural native village in Alaska.
So can you speak to how this Alaska-specific approach has
helped drive these outcomes which have been very positive, and
why continuing this model is so important for connecting rural
and remote Alaskans?
And, again, Mr. Chairman, I know you are taking a lot of
incoming here. I want to compliment you on the good work that
you have done as Chairman and as a Commissioner on the issues
of focusing on my state, who are Americans who have very
challenged communications issues because our state is so big
and remote, and I think you have done an exceptional job.
So can you talk to those issues?
Mr. Carr. Yes. Thank you, Senator, and, frankly, I do not
think people understand the change in trajectory that you have
brought to Alaska in terms of connectivity.
I remember the very first time you had me come up to Alaska
which, again, I agree with you, it is the only really way to
understand the challenges that are up there. Frankly, in my
view, I do not think the FCC had been taking the appropriate
lawful approach with respect to Alaska there.
Senator Sullivan. And by the way, this is not some earmark.
It is in the law, right?
Mr. Carr. And we brought that to you as well.
Senator Sullivan. Required for all Americans and my
constituents are Americans.
Mr. Carr. And you brought that to my attention and others.
When I went up there in 2018, I had a chance to visit Unalaska,
Dutch Harbor. It is an island part of the way out the Aleutian
chain.
There had been some talk about maybe bringing an undersea
fiber cable across the Aleutians but the plans were getting
scuttled because of uncertainty caused by the FCC's, in my
view, sort of missed application of the Communications Act.
And you worked with the agency over a period of time with
diligence and corrected that, and that created the stability to
be able to see that investment. In fact, the phase one of that
undersea cable is now complete.
Unalaska is getting connected to next-gen high speed
Internet thanks to that. There is a phase two that is coming.
It is just not there.
On a subsequent visit, you took me to a small village
Napaskiak, which you would only reach by boat, and it was a
place that had been long left behind in terms of the digital
divide, and we had a multi-billion dollar effort to close the
divide. But Napaskiak was not even on the national broadband
map.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Carr. The FCC acted and Commerce Department back then
in the Biden years acted like it did not even exist, and after
you took us there----
Senator Sullivan. From their perspective it did not exist.
It was not on the map. You and I were in there. We did a town
hall, 600 people, and we looked at everybody saying, according
to the maps back in D.C., this town and all of you people from
Alaska do not exist.
So I am glad you mentioned that one.
Mr. Carr. Look, there is obviously a long ways to go still
but the digital divide has been closing in Alaska and, again,
you know, Senator, I do not think we would be in the position
where we are in Alaska right now with connectivity but for the
leadership you have had on this committee.
Senator Sullivan. Well, look, it has been your leadership
and others. I want to thank Commissioner Trusty. I am glad you
were up in Alaska, Commissioner Gomez. It is an issue I think
that unites the FCC, all the commissioners.
Can you very quickly--maybe each one of you very quickly
speak to how the FCC's Alaska specific funding frameworks,
including the Alaska plan and the Alaska Connect fund, will
help ensure that projects like the one you just mentioned, the
Unalaska project.
And, again, if you look at a map, this is the Aleutian
Island chain. It goes way out in the Pacific, actually crosses
the international dateline, which a lot of people do not know.
But these are Americans out there and it is a very strategic
part of our country, very close to China and Russia and Japan
and our allies.
But can I just very quickly, because I am running out of
time here, to just help these specific programs to continue
delivering reliability in terms of connectivity in rural,
remote parts of the state?
Can I just get your commitment to continue to working on
that, all of you?
Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator.
Ms. Trusty. Absolutely.
Senator Sullivan. Commissioner?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, Senator.
Senator Sullivan. OK, great. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Certainly.
Senator Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I need to echo the concerns of my Democratic colleagues.
Chairman Carr, in September you used your position within
the Federal Government to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air in a
clear attempt to chill free speech.
You told ABC, ``We can do this the easy way or the hard
way.'' The FCC is not a political weapon to be used against the
President's critics and, yet, you have also used it to go after
``60 Minutes,'' ``Saturday Night Live,'' and Seth Meyers, all
because the President did not like their criticism or because
they gave airtime to his opponents.
Your Twitter account before 2025 would seem to align with
what I am saying. It is filled to the brim with statements
defending freedom of speech as well as stating that the FCC
does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of
public interest.
Sadly, those principles seem to have evaporated into thin
air. There are many things that Chair Cruz and I do not agree
on but when he said that your actions have been, quote,
``dangerous as hell,'' that I can agree with.
So your attempts to coerce private companies to censor
speech that you and the President did not want to hear is
really a blatant attack on the First Amendment, a foundational
principle of American democracy.
The Trump administration has been attacking free speech
across the government since day one. President Trump and
Secretary Hegseth have expelled all legitimate journalists from
the Pentagon.
President Trump and Secretary McMahon have curtailed
academic freedom in research and stifled lawful protests.
President Trump and Attorney General Bondi have rolled back
protections that allow journalists to protect their sources.
President Trump and Senate Republicans defunded the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR. You have become a
parrot for President Trump and diminished the independence of
the FCC.
So the FCC has an incredibly important role in reviewing
market consolidation in local broadcasting, cable, broadband,
telephone, and wireless industries.
We know that consolidation in any industry often results in
a bad deal for consumers: higher prices, fewer choices, and
reduced incentives for companies to compete.
Chairman Carr, you have repeatedly signaled your desire to
use merger reviews to force companies to enact policies favored
by the Trump administration. This summer the FCC approved the
merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media.
This approval only came after Paramount agreed to pay the
President $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit and
Paramount agreed to change its news editorial policies.
And then just this month, the FCC approved AT&T's purchase
of U.S. Cellular's wireless license, just one day after AT&T
terminated their diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI,
policy.
If the timing of this announcement was not suspicious
enough, Chairman Carr, you took to X to boast about AT&T's
decision.
Commissioner Gomez, you voted against both of these
mergers. Can you share why you opposed them?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for your question, Senator.
I have had strong concerns about the strong-arming by the
FCC of these companies, using its power over these merger
approvals and transactions in order to delve into what is
really private employment matters completely unrelated to the
transactions themselves.
Traditionally, when the FCC has concessions as part of a
merger review it does so to address a harm that is caused by
that particular transaction.
The Paramount transaction had this voluntary concession to
appoint an ombudsperson reporting to the President of Paramount
to police concerns about bias and content. That is completely
unprecedented, and I know what my colleagues would say--there
was an ombudsperson in the Comcast merger.
That ombudsman's job was to make sure that the corporation
did not interfere with news decisions of the news division.
That is completely different than saying you are going to
become a bias monitor.
So I had strong concerns about us using our authority in
order to demand these types of concessions from the companies.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carr, I want to chat with you for a minute about
the new form of payola, or showola, as some of our entertainers
in Tennessee call it, and what has happened is broadcast
stations use events in exchange for airplay and they
particularly like to couple this with threats of reduced
airplay if the band or the artist cannot give them these free
events.
Now, in the opinion of so many of our musicians, that
violates the FCC's payola rules, and I know that you have
looked at this coerced performance issue and wanted to know if
you have any update and if you could speak to that for a
moment?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator, for your leadership on
this.
Historically, there has been a law on the books that
prevents radio stations from accepting or seeking unreported
payment of money or any other compensation to influence
airplay, the time that music is played on the stations.
One concern that you brought to my attention early on
including through a letter earlier this year is that a lot of
radio stations are holding music festivals and the concern that
has been raised is that they are effectively pressuring
musicians--that could be, you know, ones that are well off or
ones that are just getting started--to perform for free under
threat that they may suffer airplay on radio stations if they
do not do that.
I think that is a concern. We issued an enforcement
advisory right after being aware of this from you and we are
going to be, and are, investigating some issues around this.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you very much for that.
Ms. Trusty, thank you so much for your time yesterday. We
talked a little bit about the World Radio Communication
Conference and, Ms. Gomez, I know last year you kind of
struggled. You had two jobs on your plate and it was hard to
prepare for that.
But, Ms. Trusty, I know that it is going to be essential to
prepare for it because it is going to be in China. So give me a
minute about what you are going to do in preparation for that
conference?
Ms. Trusty. Sure. Thank you so much for the question,
Senator. Thank you for your leadership on spectrum policy.
The WRC is a really important forum for the United States
to promote American values, our economic competitiveness, and
our national security, and thanks to the spectrum provisions in
the Working Families Tax Cut Act, we now have the ability to
develop a unified strategy where we are working and focusing on
key U.S. priorities, and we can work with our international
allies in advance to preempt those seeking to undermine U.S.
interests in Shanghai, China.
As I mentioned a little bit earlier, in 2023 at the
previous World Radio Communications Conference we did not have
this kind of legislative support. We did not have auction
authority, which really set us back.
And so I think with the restoration of auction authority
and a long-term spectrum pipeline we are positioned to emerge
from that conference with wins so that we are the leader in the
next generation of communications technologies.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
Staying on spectrum, Mr. Chairman, coming to you, looking
at mid-band spectrum, about 60 percent of our mid-band is held
by government agencies and about 5 percent is licensed
commercial users and, of course, with 5G and 6G we absolutely
cannot afford this.
So I have advocated for years for a full inventory of
government spectrum licenses and Senator Moran and I have had
the Spectrum Inventory Act, and I think it is important for the
record for you to speak about the importance of freeing up the
spectrum, getting it in the hands of commercial users.
And then also talk a little bit about how the FCC and NTIA,
which is responsible for the inventory, can work together and
move this auction forward, that 800 megahertz that the Big
Beautiful Bill allowed for?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator, for your leadership on
this.
I agree that we have to have a balanced spectrum policy and
if you step back, though, particularly over the Biden years, we
sort of walked into a bit of a cul-de-sac where we over
leveraged to some extent with respect to unlicensed spectrum,
with respect to shared spectrum, and to some extent government
spectrum as well because we have a very small sliver of
spectrum that is truly exclusive use, high power, the type of
stuff you want to build 5G and 6G on.
So that is what we are addressing in the near term,
particularly in the C-band, working very well across the
administration. The NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth is doing a
fantastic job. They are going to be identifying some additional
bands for us to move on.
But I also think, to your point, we have to make sure we
have intensity of use of spectrum, not just buildout. One of
the things we push for is to encourage providers to make sure
they are actually loading their spectrum up and, again, I think
that is part of why you see AT&T now, you know, quickly putting
new spectrum on 23,000 cell sites.
And I should say, I mean, in terms of the wireless
services, I was a bit surprised to see some of the remarks
earlier. If you look at the data, the prices for wireless phone
services are actually down 2 percent year over year.
In fact, they are down 5 percent over Biden-era highs. It
is not where, you know, we want to keep driving down by
eliminating inflationary prices but we are heading in the right
direction. We just have to keep at it.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you. Thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lujan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carr, yes or no--and please, yes or no--is the FCC
an independent agency?
Mr. Carr. Senator, thanks for that question. I think----
Senator Lujan. Yes or no is all we need, sir. Yes or no, is
it independent?
Mr. Carr. Well, there is a test for this in the law and the
key portion of that test----
Senator Lujan. Just yes or no, Brendan.
Mr. Carr. The key portion of that test is----
Senator Lujan. OK. I am going to go to Commissioner Trusty.
So just so you know, Brendan, on your website it just
simply says, man, the FCC is independent. This is not a trick
question. Is it yes or no?
Mr. Carr. OK. The FCC is not. Is not.
Senator Lujan. OK.
Mr. Carr. Is not an independent----
Senator Lujan. So is your website wrong? Is your website
lying?
Mr. Carr. Possibly. The FCC is not an independent agency
because----
Senator Lujan. OK. Can I read this to you? The FCC's
mission--on the home page of the FCC, man--an independent U.S.
Government agency overseen by Congress. Is that factual or is
that a lie?
Mr. Carr. The FCC is not formally an independent agency.
Senator Lujan. Is this true or is this a lie?
Mr. Carr. I can--I am happy to answer your question.
OK. The sine qua non of independence would be removable by
the President.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I will get back to you.
Chairman--Chairman, I have a little bit of time. I will get
back to you, sir.
Mr. Carr. The FCC is not an independent agency, formally
speaking.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate you saying that and being honest
with the American people.
Commissioner Trusty.
Ms. Trusty. Senator, thank you for the question.
The President is the Chief Executive vested with all
executive power in our government and FCC commissioners are
not--we do not have for cause removal protections, which means
that we are not independent.
Senator Lujan. So is the--is your website lying?
Ms. Trusty. I cannot speak to the website. I have not seen
that.
Senator Lujan. You all are the Commissioners in charge of
this place, right? So this stuff has to be approved by one of
you. If this is lying then you should just fix it.
Let me just say that. That was not even my gotcha question.
I am surprised that I have burned up 3 minutes talking about
this damn thing.
Commissioner Gomez.
Ms. Gomez. Yes, and we should be.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could just submit the printout of
the homepage of the FCC into the record that says it is an
independent agency.
And if it is not true then change it.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, sir.
Chairman Carr, with that being said, does Congress need to
clarify that the FCC is an independent agency?
Mr. Carr. Well, it is up to Congress to pass any
legislation. The Constitution is clear that all executive power
is vested in the President and Congress cannot change that by
legislation.
Senator Lujan. Yes or no, is it appropriate for the FCC to
revoke broadcast licenses based on the viewpoint of the
licensee?
Mr. Carr. It is appropriate for the FCC to take action
under our public interest standard and hold broadcasters
accountable to things like broadcast hoax, news distortion,
localism. Those are things that we should be taking action on
and enforcing.
Senator Lujan. Commissioner Trusty, same question to you.
Is it appropriate for the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses
based on the viewpoint of the licensee?
Ms. Trusty. Senator, my job is to enforce the law as it
relates to broadcasters. Broadcasters have public interest
obligations and it relies on a case-by-case basis.
As you know, the FCC does have the authority to revoke
licenses and the conditions for which are spelled out in
Section 312 of the Communications Act.
Senator Lujan. Commissioner Gomez?
Ms. Gomez. Absolutely not. The First Amendment applies to
broadcasters regardless of whether they use spectrum or not,
and the Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring
broadcasters.
We should not be revoking licenses based on their
viewpoint. In fact, what we should be doing is ensuring more
viewpoints because if you do not like speech the answer is more
speech.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I think that is something
that this body would agree with.
Chairman Carr, you supported the broadband label that the
FCC adopted back in 2022. Is that correct?
Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator.
Senator Lujan. Even though broadband providers, as you are
aware, they have been displaying these broadband labels for
over a year, you recently proposed changes to making it harder
for consumers to understand what plans they are subscribed to
or what they are paying for at the end of the month.
As you know, it is hard to understand why this action would
have been taken. You also want to eliminate the requirement
that broadband labels be translated in the languages in which
the providers are already marketing their services. Is that
correct?
Mr. Carr. That is not correct, sir.
Senator Lujan. So you will reverse the notion that these
labels will not be done in English and other languages?
Mr. Carr. No. What I am saying is consumers want clear,
concise, accurate information. I think we agree on that. We
have started a proceeding to make sure that they are not
overwhelmed by irrelevant information.
We have not made any decision to eliminate any particular
feature of this. We are open minded. We have sought comment on
different portions of the existing process.
Senator Lujan. So, Chairman, just to be clear, there will
be no action taken by the Commission that prevents these
companies from putting that information--the same languages
used in marketing, those languages can be used in other ways?
Mr. Carr. Yes, we will not take any action to prevent them
from doing that.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that clarity. Do you think
then, consumers benefit from seeing the full price they pay at
the end of the month with no hidden fees?
Mr. Carr. Yes, we want clarity. We want transparency. We
want just like nutrition labels. Again, the concern is did we
strike the right balance or did we add information that
effectively put in wheat and chaff. We want to separate the
wheat from the chaff and make it clear for consumers.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I hope you keep your word
there and that there is more information, not less information,
in these labels and that----
Mr. Carr. We want clarity. We want clarity. I do not know
if it is more or less.
Senator Lujan. Amen, brother. I just hope that it is more,
better information, however you want to talk about it, that
whatever the Commission--the action that you all take that you
just do not make it harder.
Mr. Chairman, I have other questions that I was hoping to
get to but my little back and forth on this web page got me
stuck, sir.
Just so you know, I will be submitting some questions into
the record about caps. I have a question associated with if it
is Congress or if it is the FCC that can change those caps on
consolidation.
I have questions about USF. I was proud back in May 2023
with Leader Thune to introduce the framework around the
bipartisan bicameral working group and I certainly hope that
the word that was given to Senator Fischer to work together
that we just commit to do this one together and that we all
work together to get this done. It is too important not to get
right.
So I appreciate the time today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Young.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Chairman Carr, earlier this month during a
telecommunications subcommittee hearing I raised the growing
challenge of the illegal cutting of subsea cables and the
danger that it poses to our many critical infrastructures.
In response, we were told the best way to ensure our subsea
cable infrastructure is more resilient is by creating more
cables. Makes sense to me, but more redundancy in the system.
That would foster a more diverse ecosystem of cables,
increasing the number of American-owned cables, expanding the
capacity of American ships to fix and repair any damages, which
without deviating too much that is the focus of my SHIPS for
America Act and, last, by sending a message to our adversaries
that such cuttings, again, of our undersea cables will be
treated as an attack on our critical infrastructure.
So in line with this can you speak, Mr. Chairman, to why
accelerating and streamlining subsea cable deployment is
important to U.S. economic and national security and how the
rule that you adopted earlier this year helps move the process
toward clear, timely decisions?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for your work on
all those important legislative efforts that you are working
on.
Undersea cables are sort of the unsung hero of global
communications. They carry, roughly, 99 percent of all Internet
traffic. They can be vulnerable to disruption.
One of things that we have taken as part of our ``Build
America'' agenda is put new policies in place to invest in
additional buildout of undersea cables as we do so, making sure
that they are secure as well including looking at foreign
ownership issues related to undersea cables to make sure we are
not introducing risks.
And, again, if we are going to lead the world in AI and
many other vectors we have to have that infrastructure to carry
it and so I think we are heading in a good direction now.
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
Commissioner Trusty, do you have any thoughts on this?
Ms. Trusty. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you for your
leadership on undersea cables.
I do think that streamlining permitting processes can help
with redundancy, resiliency, and efficiency, and I think that
goes to support economic growth, our technological leadership,
and secure communication.
So I think we are all headed in the right direction on this
regard.
Senator Young. Thank you. I wish Congress could learn from
the leadership of the Commission in streamlining the permitting
process of critical infrastructure. Perhaps we will in coming
months.
Commissioner Trusty, in that same rule the FCC established
requirements for applicants and licensees to create a
cybersecurity and physical security risk management plan.
How can that create a more resilient subsea cable network
and what else should we as Congress be doing to secure this
infrastructure?
Ms. Trusty. Senator, thank you for the question.
I think with respect to these risk management plans we can
identify threats, we can help reduce vulnerabilities, and to
the extent there is sabotage or some kind of compromise we will
have ready-made response plans in place to address these types
of issues.
In terms of what more Congress can do, I think Congress can
promote more U.S.-led cable projects. I think that will be
helpful to get foreign adversaries out of these types of
networks.
I also think we should look to diversify traffic patterns
so we do not have a single point of failure in the event there
is compromise or sabotage, and I think we can strengthen
emergency response plans and disaster recovery initiatives so
that we can have more secure critical infrastructure.
Senator Young. Thank you. Good answer.
Chairman Carr, the media marketplace has evolved
drastically since its early days in the 20th century and, as a
result, we have seen legislative and regulatory reforms advance
to keep pace with the market.
Over the past year, I have heard from many different
stakeholders, including small and local broadcasters in
Indiana, regarding potential action by the FCC to modify the
current broadcast ownership cap.
Can you explain to the Committee what the impact to local
broadcasters will be should the broadcast ownership cap be
expanded?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator.
We are looking at these issues and have not made a decision
but, you know, there is a couple of potential guide stars here.
One, if you look at local newspapers, they have been
shutting by the thousands all across the country, and so if we
care as a public interest matter about local news and local
reporting, I think we have to start to look at policies that
can create more incentives for investment there.
And so one of the concerns that I have in media policy as a
general matter is you have got the national programmers--
Comcast, Disney, and others--that are increasingly dominating
with respect to those local broadcasters.
So we want to make sure that they do have the ability to
invest in local news gathering because it is also more trusted.
Local news is more trusted than the national media that is out
there, and so we are balancing a couple of different policies
there and, you know, we will see where we land.
Senator Young. I completely agree with you. It is not just
a matter of trust, however. It is also a matter of content. I
think you would--most everyone would agree.
When seemingly every issue gets nationalized, when national
issues get far more play than local issues, and when we have an
electorate--a citizenry--who have absolutely no idea what is
happening in the local council meetings and in school boards
and all the rest because the information is not being
circulated for whatever reason, you have to question whether
some of the fundamental predicates for, like, having a
democracy--a functioning democracy--and voting for local
officials are being laid.
I could not tell you in little Bargersville, Indiana, where
I live--and I am probably more active than most in terms of my
citizenry and my attentiveness to the news--but I could not
tell you what is happening at the local school board and all
the rest.
Yet, I still show up to vote for these local offices. My
own approach is to skip those that I know nothing about but it
is, I think, an indictment on our news ecosystem and it may
take some intentionality to fix it.
Mr. Carr. Senator, this is one issue we are looking at,
too. As you look--turn of the TV, you know, in the evening
hours, again, a huge percentage of that time now is programmed
by the national program, again, out of New York and Hollywood.
And so one idea that we are looking at is how we empower
those local TV stations to reclaim more of that nightly news
time for actual local news and programming, and we are looking
at ideas for that.
Senator Young. Count me interested. Thank you, Chairman,
for indulging me well over my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young, and I will say I am
glad the Senate does not follow your philosophy on voting. If
senators did not vote on things we know nothing about there
might be a number of votes without a single yea or nay cast.
Senator Kim.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Kim. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to the three of
you for coming out here.
Chairman Carr, I guess I just wanted to start with you. I
was confused after hearing your response to one of my
colleagues about the status of the FCC. I want to read you a
quote here and see if you agree with it.
Congress long ago determined that the FCC is an independent
expert agency. Is that correct or not?
Mr. Carr. Senator, there has been sort of a sea change in
sort of the law and the approach since I think I wrote that
sentence, I am assuming, because you gave it to me.
Senator Kim. Yes, you did. You said it in front of
Congress.
Mr. Carr. Right. The view has been that the Communications
Act was passed in 1934, one year before Humphrey's Executor,
and so Congress did not include in the Communications Act ``for
cause removal of FCC commissioners, so I can be fired by the
President for no reason or any reason at all''.
The theory had been that courts would read for cause
removal into the statute and that was the basis for that
viewpoint. I think now it is clear that that is not the case
and so, formally speaking, the FCC is not independent because
we do not have that key piece, which is for cause removal
protection.
Senator Kim. So when you are talking about all power vested
in the President, I mean, I just want to read this a little
more because you are saying not just that it is an independent
agency but you are saying that Congress did not want these
technical decisions to be made in a haphazard manner or based
on misinformation or short-term political interests.
You specifically said it placed the authority outside of
the Executive Branch for a reason. So you were not just stating
what was the law at the time; you were stating the benefit that
comes with the independence.
So I guess I am just trying to get a sense from you, if you
do not think that the FCC is independent then is President
Trump your boss?
Mr. Carr. President Trump has designated me as Chairman of
the FCC. I think it comes as no surprise that I am aligned with
President Trump on policy. I think that is why he designated me
as Chairman. But ultimately----
Senator Kim. Do you consider him your boss?
Mr. Carr. Ultimately, the President designated me as
Chairman. I can be fired by the President. The President is the
head of the Executive Branch. The decisions of the Commission--
--
Senator Kim. So he is your boss?
Mr. Carr. Look, the decisions of the Commission are going
to be based on a vote of the three of us right here. So there
are some things that are different about that, and our
decisions are based on the facts and the law in the record.
Senator Kim. You swore an oath when you came into your job,
right? Does the oath have the word president in it?
Mr. Carr. Senator, again, I am not tracking this line. What
I am saying is every decision----
Senator Kim. Do you remember the oath that you took?
Mr. Carr. Yes. Every----
Senator Kim. You swore an oath to protect what?
Mr. Carr. Sir, every single decision I made----
Senator Kim. What is it that you are protecting?
Mr. Carr.--in this job was based on the facts, the law, and
the record consistent with the Constitution.
Senator Kim. The Constitution of the United States. I am
just--look, this is not a test here. I am just trying to get a
sense of how you are trying to operate here. So I guess I would
just like to be a little bit more direct here.
Have you ever had a conversation with the President or
senior administration officials about using the FCC to go after
critics?
Mr. Carr. Well, first of all, Senator, I do not get into
the specifics of conversations that I have with the President.
Senator Kim. OK. Well, let me reframe it then. Would it be
appropriate for the President or senior administration
officials to give you direction to pressure media companies?
Mr. Carr. Look, Senator, I am not going to get into
hypotheticals. What I can tell you is, again, the decisions by
the Commission----
Senator Kim. Well, look, the easy answer is no.
Mr. Carr. The decision of the----
Senator Kim. It is not a hypothetical. It is literally just
trying to determine whether or not you are understanding your
job being--belonging to the American people. Trump is not your
boss. The American people are your boss.
Mr. Carr. The basis for the Commission----
Senator Kim. And here is just one example I want to give on
this. This is one----
Mr. Carr. The basis for the Commission decisions are going
to be based on a vote of the three of us.
Senator Kim. Let me finish--let me finish my comment here,
OK?
The reason I raise this is because whether or not you had
that conversation in the Oval Office or on a phone call, what
we do is we see it all out in front.
On August 24, Trump wrote, ``ABC and NBC fake news. They
are simply an arm of the Democratic Party and should,
accordingly to many, have their licenses revoked by the FCC. I
would be totally in favor of that because they are so biased
and untruthful and an actual threat to our democracy.''
So this is not hypothetical, like you said. He did
intentionally try to pressure you and direct you to be able to
use your power in the FCC against media companies that he
thought were biased against him.
So that is why I just want to say this is not hypothetical.
This is not theoretical. This is real, and I was trying to get
a sense of whether or not you thought this behavior was
appropriate or not, and your failure to be able to directly
dictate a line and show that there is integrity in this process
concerns me because these--before the FCC comes all of these
decisions. All of these decisions.
And when you cannot tell me directly that Trump is not your
boss, that the American people are your boss, I do not trust
you that you can make these decisions with the independent mind
that is needed and directed by Congress.
And with that, I will yield back, Chairman.
Mr. Carr. When we take--when we make decisions at the
Commission it is a vote among the three of us. It is a product
of the three of our votes, and we all can suggest edits and
change items and you can see for yourself the basis in
reasoning for it----
Senator Kim. So would it be appropriate then for the
President to try and remove and replace any Commissioner
because he disagrees with the decisions made by that
Commission?
Mr. Carr. The President can remove any member of the
Commission for any reason or no reason at all.
Senator Kim. I know that but do you think that is
appropriate?
Mr. Carr. It is up to the President to decide.
Senator Kim. OK. Well, then we got your answer. With that,
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would note Senator Kim asked
multiple questions about whether it is appropriate for
politicians to try to pressure the FCC to silence their
critics.
My answer to that is unequivocally no, but that happens to
be my answer whether those politicians are Republicans or
Democrats, and I would like to now enter into the record a
letter dated April 11, 2018, and it was directed to the then-
Chairman of the FCC Ajit Pai and it says, ``We write to express
our grave concerns regarding Sinclair Broadcasting Group's
conduct. This conduct affects its fitness to hold its existing
broadcast licenses and its fitness to acquire even more
broadcast licenses through the proposed merger with Tribune
Media Company.''
And what the signatories of this letter was concerned about
is that Sinclair had their local anchors warn the populace of
the dangers of, quote, ``one-sided news stories plaguing our
country.''
In other words, Sinclair spoke out against bias in
journalism. Apparently, our Democrat colleagues did not like
that and in writing they urged the FCC to strip the licenses
and block the merger, and this letter is signed by Maria
Cantwell, by Patty Murray, by Ron Wyden, by Richard Blumenthal,
by Bernie Sanders, by Tammy Baldwin, by Tom Udall, by Elizabeth
Warren, by Ed Markey, by Tina Smith, by Jeff Merkley, and by
Cory Booker.
And so I am going to enter this letter into the record.
Without objection, it is so entered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. And I would point out the principles ought to
apply to both sides evenly.
Senator Kim. I appreciate your comments. Can I say a quick
rebuttal here?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Kim. I just want to say this is another attempt to
muddy the waters. Chairman Carr's threats to companies he
directly regulates are not the same thing as a letter from
Congress requesting an agency examine a matter of public
concern.
Members on both sides of the aisle frequently write similar
letters. That is the proper oversight role of Congress.
As one example now, Secretary of State Rubio and other
Republican senators wrote to the FCC in 2022 urging the agency
to thoroughly scrutinize a proposed sale of Spanish-language
radio stations concerned it would, quote, ``silence political
viewpoints.''
So I hope my colleagues, we stop trying to distract from
the clear and present attacks right now upon our First
Amendment. Chairman Carr has targeted threats against the
licensees he directly regulates and we can hear from Chairman
Carr without further delay.
The Chairman. So, Senator Kim is factually incorrect. This
letter is calling for the FCC to block the licenses, to block
the merger, because the Democrats who signed this disagreed
with the content on that station.
And the difference--I was on that committee then. When this
happened I spoke out against it at the time and you know what?
Not a single Democrat on this committee had a word to say about
it.
I was also on this committee at the time that Democrats
tried to go after Fox and deny a routine license renewal,
again, because Democrats did not like what Fox News says.
You know what? I do not like what MSNBC says but I am not
urging the Commission to take away MSNBC's license. And so
suddenly when the current administration and FCC makes comments
about Jimmy Kimmel, comments that, as you know, I disagreed
with and spoke out against--suddenly Democrats have discovered
the First Amendment and my request would be maybe remember it
when Democrats are in power, that the First Amendment is not
simply a one-way license for one team to abuse the power and
the other not. Instead, we should respect the free speech of
all Americans regardless of party.
Senator Kim. I agree with that statement you made, a lot of
what you just said. I was not on the Committee at that time and
I hope, going forward, as I am on this committee with you that
we can work together to show that we do this regardless of who
is violating, that we try to show that integrity to the
process.
The Chairman. That would be a wonderful development. I hope
so as well.
Senator Curtis, I believe.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CURTIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure
everybody will be disappointed. I am actually going to change
subjects.
Chairman, you were good enough to come to my office a few
days ago and we talked about Section 230, and in that meeting I
tried to bifurcate. I know a lot of people when you hear 230
think of censorship, and for a minute just set that aside. I am
not going to try to solve that. That is a very complex issue.
But you and I talked about algorithms, and for those who
were not there, the analogy that kind of comes to mind is the
digital billboard. Originally, social media companies were to
provide the venue for a digital billboard.
Somewhere along the line that model changed. We compared it
to the Post Office. If the Post Office is delivering a letter
from you to me we, obviously, do not hold them responsible for
that content.
But if the Post Office opened that letter, read it, and
then said, ``We are actually going to send this to a hundred
million people,'' that is a different conversation.
So my question for you is, from your perspective are we
underestimating the dangers of algorithm-driven content?
Mr. Carr. Senator, thank you for the question. I have gone
back since our meeting and taken a look at your legislation
again and I am happy to continue to meet and discuss with you
on that.
I do think I have expressed concerns over the years about
how courts have sort of misinterpreted and given expansive new
readings to Section 230 that are not in the statutory text, and
I think there are some of those issues in your legislation as
well that are worth looking at.
Senator Curtis. Thank you. And to kind of, here again,
bring everybody else up to speed that has not had the chance to
do that, the question is should Section 230 protections apply
to social media companies that employ harmful recommendations
or cause harm by their recommendations, going beyond just the
digital billboard but actually taking those now and sending
them out to hundreds of millions of people?
Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, there is a debate to some extent in
the courts as well about part of Section 230 that talks about
platforms being liable if they have contributed even in part to
the development and it is sort of a live issue--how does
algorithms play into the contributed in part portion of that
analysis.
Senator Curtis. Yes, and as everybody here knows, Section
230 goes decades and decades back and I do not think--I think
it is clear to say we did not really see the world that we are
in today, and so I just introduce that to you and to others as
something that we need to start thinking about.
Also, when you were in my office we talked about permitting
reform and would love to ask you--you have had a chance to
think about this--what is the role of Congress in assisting you
in your permitting reform goals and what can we be doing on our
side to make sure that we can actually complete these projects
in a responsible way that are so important to you to complete?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator.
Look, I think it is--there is no question that it costs too
much and it takes too long to build out not just broadband
infrastructure but almost any infrastructure in this country
and I think that is probably one of the most significant
economic development efforts that this Congress can do is to
continue to codify and streamline permitting regulations.
We have a proceeding underway at the FCC. We are looking at
NEPA, the environmental regulations, and how perhaps they have
been misapplied in onerous ways over the years.
We are looking at state and local requirements where
potentially their fees and permitting structure might not align
with the cost-based approach that we have used before. But we
have to get back to turning dirt--and this is going to be an
important work stream for us.
Senator Curtis. Commissioner Trusty, how do you see
permitting reform and how important is it that we figure this
out?
Ms. Trusty. It is essential. It is essential to meeting our
universal connectivity goals. You know, as the Chairman
mentioned, we have been working on simplifying rules, reducing
regulatory burdens on businesses, and streamlining licensing
and permitting processes to better advance broadband providers'
buildout efforts.
So we are looking at pole attachments, making those
processes more cost effective and transparent. He mentioned
environmental and historic reviews, making sure that those
reviews are more predictable and efficient.
And we are also looking at opening up access to rights of
way, another barrier to employing broadband, deploying
broadband and connecting homes and businesses across the
country.
Senator Curtis. Commissioner Gomez, do you agree with your
colleagues?
Ms. Gomez. Senator, I think getting access to affordable
broadband as quickly as possible is very important.
Senator Curtis. I am pleased that on our side this seems to
be a bipartisan issue. There are still some hurdles, moving
forward, but figuring out here again how to do it responsibly.
Nobody is suggesting we should be irresponsible.
Chairman Carr, in the few seconds I have left can you maybe
educate us on what happens if we do not figure out permitting
reform?
Mr. Carr. Well, communities that have been stuck on the
wrong side of the digital divide are going to remain there. The
cost of building is going to be higher.
That could raise prices, and it will slow down the buildout
of these BEAD infrastructure projects that I think are going to
be really important to the country. So we have got to get
going.
Senator Curtis. I would agree. I think we all agree. I
would also point out this is not just in your world. In the
energy sector, we have the same problem and we are really
struggling as a country figuring out how to be able to allow
things to move forward in a responsible way and I hope that
here in the Senate we can figure out a path forward for
everybody that needs this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
Senator Budd [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Blunt Rochester.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the witnesses.
I come from the state of Delaware. We are--like many of my
colleagues we are urban, we are suburban, we are rural, and we
are also coastal.
For me and a lot of members here, we have been working on
the digital divide for a very long time and that is everything
from investing in connectivity to looking at modernizing our
maps.
We have places in Delaware where you will drive and your
call will drop. You know exactly where that spot is going to
be.
But the bottom line is if you have access but you cannot
afford the services then you really do not have it, and so we
are in the midst of an affordability crisis. Everything from
rent to groceries to broadband Internet has gone up and it is
clear that we have to be laser focused on affordability.
So my first question is for you, Commissioner Gomez.
Commissioner Gomez, Democratic leadership at the FCC in the
past has emphasized affordability, competition, transparency,
and closing the digital divide.
Commissioner, from your perspective how do affordability
policies under the previous Democratic-led FCC compare to the
current administration's affordability policies and how
specifically it relates to consumer outcomes?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
This administration has really lost its focus on consumer
issues and particularly on affordability. We have not seen any
action to address affordability.
When we lost the Affordable Connectivity program millions
of consumers lost their service--lost their support for their
service. We are spending billions of dollars to deploy
networks, but we are not going to have sustainable networks if
people cannot afford to actually subscribe to the service.
We need seniors to have access so that they can get health
care services. We need students to have access to broadband so
that they can prepare themselves for this AI economy that is
coming. We need people to be able to access the Internet for
jobs.
I was just listening this morning to the head of the
National Economic Council who said we are not going to have a
problem with finding jobs because they can be found on the
internet.
And my thought at the moment was if you have access to the
Internet schools and libraries need to have access to the
internet.
Instead, this Commission took back the ability to provide
hotspots through libraries so that people could have Internet
at home and so that students could have hotspots through their
schools.
Same thing with WiFi on school buses. We are not ensuring
that people who cannot afford to be connected can get access to
the internet.
Senator Blunt Rochester. So not only will people not be
able to afford the services and the tools that they need, but
more people will be left behind?
Ms. Gomez. Correct.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Commissioner, as connectivity
expands through the Internet of Things, AI, the future 6G
networks, cybersecurity risks to consumers grow significantly.
Do you believe the FCC has taken the appropriate steps to
future proof the cybersecurity of everyday Americans in an
increasingly complex telecommunications ecosystem and why?
And, Commissioner Trusty, I am going to ask you a similar
question.
Ms. Gomez. So this Commission has had a lot of focus on
security, but at the same time it also has taken away the
regulatory backstop to ensure that the companies actually have
cybersecurity policies.
This just happened with regard to the response to Salt
Typhoon. This administration has been very concerned about
Chinese equipment and it has looked for every opportunity in
order to make sure that we do not have Chinese equipment and
insecure equipment in our network.
But when China actually hacks our networks this
administration took away the rulemaking that would have
actually required carriers to make cybersecurity front of mind.
I am also concerned that we have put a pause on the cyber
trust mark which is a way--a market-driven mechanism which I
would think my Republican colleagues would actually really
appreciate, a market-driven mechanism in order for consumers to
have information about whether the devices they are using come
from businesses that use good cyber hygiene.
So I am hopeful that we will be able to get that going
again because that is a really important public-private
partnership in order to ensure security.
Senator Blunt Rochester. I have very limited time.
Commissioner Trusty, I am going to ask you this question
for the record, which is you spoke about the need for the U.S.
to keep pace with international telecommunications trends
including cybersecurity and I was going to ask if you agree
with Commissioner Gomez on her assessment and what else you
would like to add? So I will follow up with you on that.
But I do, in the interest of time, want to spend a moment
because I am very, very concerned about, Chairman Carr, your
focus on ending the----
Was that you, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Budd. It was.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Mr. Chairman, if you will give me
a point of personal privilege because every single member
before me went over time--like, every single member.
Senator Budd. Briefly, please, and then you will submit
that for the record.
Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And so I want to make
sure that I say this on the record because I think when
Commissioner Gomez talked about private companies doing
employment matters, these are employment matters and your focus
on diversity, equity, inclusion, and celebrating the real
withdrawal of that I think has had an impact on women,
veterans, people with disabilities, religious minorities.
And I will ask of the record for Commissioner Gomez to
explain how conditioning FCC approvals on the elimination of
DEI programs undermines job opportunities, weakens our economy,
and our competitiveness.
With that, I will yield back.
Senator Budd. Thank you.
Senator Schmitt.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say, every so often in this place it almost feels
like you are having an out-of-body experience where you are,
like, watching something happen and you cannot believe it is
happening.
So the idea that my Democrat colleagues are so offended
that the First Amendment may be or may not be violated by some
comment you made I think is just extraordinary given the last
four years that we lived through.
I happen to know something about it. I filed the Missouri
versus Biden lawsuit that a Federal judge--a Federal judge--
ruled was the most massive attack against free speech in U.S.
history where entire agencies--and we sat through the
depositions--were weaponized against the American people on the
instruction of the Federal Government, and not just one agency
but a leviathan of agencies that had words and phrases that you
shall not utter in the United States of America or you were
censored.
So you do not get to censor speech. You do not get to
outsource that censorship to universities or social media
companies, which is exactly what was happening, and go so far
as to actually create--and I would challenge anybody in this
committee if they raise the objection to this--literally a
disinformation governance board in the United States of
America.
You remember the Mary Poppins character who was singing?
That is what I am--in the United States of America, not like in
1898, not in 1799, like, three years ago.
And so to sit here and listen to all this stuff about, you
know, wearing the white hat on free speech is laughable.
Laughable.
So anyway, that is not--I just--I cannot help myself
sometimes. I just--I wanted to get to these questions first but
just listening to this is incredible.
So anyway, Mr. Carr, I do want to ask you about something
that is--I do not think has been asked about. Currently, there
is a draft piece of legislation currently being considered by
the European Commission, the European Union Space Act, which as
currently drafted would impose a regulatory framework that
would apply not just to EU firms but also U.S. satellite
operators providing services to European customers.
It appears specifically targeted at U.S. companies due
solely to their size and their success that they have had. From
the FCC's perspective, what concrete impacts would these
proposed requirements have on U.S. licensed systems operating
globally, particularly where the EU rules may duplicate or
conflict with current U.S. requirements?
Mr. Carr. Senator, thanks for the question.
You know, we all know that for years Europe has been
engaged in protectionist conduct. They have been going after
U.S. technology companies simply for being successful U.S.
technology companies. What we are now seeing is the specific
application of that same approach into the satellite sector.
European regulators are using the rubric of European
satellite sovereignty to suggest that you effectively have to
be a European satellite company to do business in Europe.
Unlike the technology space, there actually are national
champion satellite providers in Europe that do business in
America, and so if Europe continues to go down this
protectionist path we are going to have to make sure that there
is reciprocal and fair treatment.
But it ultimately is holding back Europe itself and it is
harmful to these U.S. businesses that are trying to have global
operations. So there is significant pushback right now on this
sovereignty effort taking place in Europe.
Senator Schmitt. Well, and it is I think part and parcel of
something much broader that is happening in Europe right now,
which is under the NATO flag the United States is supposed to
have sort of unconditional support no matter what.
We are partners and this is an alliance. But when the EU
flag goes up all of a sudden it is a very, very different
story.
And I hope you do sort of push back on this idea. Very I
think ill-timed and likely illegal but we have levers in the
toolbox, too. It should not be the case. But if they are going
to go down this road, hopefully you all will make it clear to
our European friends that this is not appreciated.
I do want to briefly in the time I have left, Mr. Carr, the
U.S. already has a--before that licensing framework that we
currently have in the U.S. what is the status of securing a
kind of equivalence decision if equivalency is not granted?
Staying on the European track here, how would overlapping
EU requirements affect FCC licensed systems operating globally?
Mr. Carr. Well, for one, we are always going to look out
for the interests of America and our consumers. So, for
instance, we are looking at power level issues where perhaps
Europe is in a different position than America.
Europe may hold back on power levels in Europe but we can
authorize them here in America so that our consumers at least
continue to get better, faster satellite services including
high-speed internet.
We are also working inside the building to go much faster
on processing satellite applications. When I took over as
Chairman we had a massive backlog.
We have already cut through about half of that backlog and
we are changing our approach inside the building to be much
more assembly line, like, clear, bright line rules.
If you hit those you are going to get a green light from
the FCC pretty quickly and, again, I think that is going to set
us up to lead the world in these next-generation satellite
technologies.
Senator Schmitt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Budd. Thank you.
Senator Peters, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our
witnesses today, thank you, all three of you, for being here
today.
Chair Carr, in 2019 you tweeted--I am just going to quote
your words directly from the tweet. You said, quote, ``Should
the government censor speech it does not like? Of course not.
The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the
name of the public interest,'' end of quote.
That was your tweet in 2019, and I will say I agree with
that. I think that was a good tweet in 2019. I think government
censorship is absolutely dangerous to our democracy.
In fact, according to a book which you may have read, ``How
Democracies Die,'' written by two eminent political scientists,
historically, one of the key markers of a slide toward
authoritarianism is attacks on freedom of the press. Part of
the playbook.
We have seen it over and over again, and that is why I was
concerned about your actions this year. This fall alone you
have suggested that the FCC go after broadcasters that do not
punish comedians--we have heard that here in the hearing--do
not punish comedians who make comments that the President does
not like.
In one case, you specifically mentioned the broadcaster's
public interest obligation. You said, quote--in this instance,
quote, ``We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard
way,'' unquote.
That may have been a line I saw in ``The Godfather.'' I am
not sure, but that is--it is pretty similar to that when you
threatened to use the FCC to do the very thing you said in 2019
that the FCC should not ever do via a roving censor.
So I hate to say this but ensuring broadcasters are
operating, quote, ``in the public interest'' I do not believe
that means ensuring that no one on TV is ever mean to the
President or says something the President may not like.
To act otherwise is to basically take a leaf out of the
authoritarian playbooks that we have seen around the world.
Vladimir Putin comes to mind as someone who openly intimidates
and threatens folks in a similar matter, and this cannot
happen, not in our democracy.
So I am just going to ask you just a simple yes or no
question. Will you commit here today that you will not move to
revoke any media license for broadcasters or retaliate in any
way against broadcast companies merely for choosing to host
content that is critical of the President or says something
that he may not like? Yes or no, very simple.
Mr. Carr. Senator, any broadcaster that complies with the
public interest standard is not in any risk at all. If a
broadcaster is engaging in broadcast hoax or violation of news
distortion policy or political equal opportunity there is going
to work for the FCC potentially there.
Senator Peters. So this should be a pretty easy question.
Do you think the FCC should protect free speech?
Mr. Carr. Yes.
Senator Peters. OK. So you will not revoke licenses? So we
can go back that you will do it? You will not revoke licenses
or retaliate if they are simply engaging in free speech?
Mr. Carr. Senator, first of all, the Supreme Court has
expressly said there is no First Amendment right to an FCC
license and the Supreme Court has said that the FCC enforcing
the public interest standard on licensees is not a violation of
the First Amendment or censorship.
Senator Peters. And you get to determine what is the public
interest. So if the President is offended you think, wow, that
is the public interest. No one should ever offend a president.
That seems to be counter to our whole history in this
country. People are always critical. I do not care who the
president is--a Democrat or a Republican, we should be able to
make fun of them.
That is what a healthy democracy is, you can make fun of
your leaders--and speak truth to power so I do not understand
that. This should be fairly easy, sir.
Mr. Carr. When you say make fun of the President are you
talking about the Kimmel issue? Make fun of----
Senator Peters. I am talking about any president. If you
have somebody as a comedian--you can use his example.
Mr. Carr. Kimmel was not making fun of the President. What
Kimmel said is we hit some new lows over the weekend with the
MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie
Kirk as anything other than one of them.
It appeared to be an effort to mischaracterize the
motivations of one of the most significant political
assassinations, it is not.
Senator Peters. We also know that the President does not
like that kind of--and I do not want to make just the issue of
the comedian because it is broader than that.
Mr. Carr. That had nothing to do with the President.
Senator Peters. The public interest is a lot broader than
that and it should not be you that determines that. That is
called the--in a democracy people are free to----
Mr. Carr. But, Senator, Congress----
Senator Peters. They are free to say things that you may
not like, I may not like----
Mr. Carr. But, Senator, Congress----
Senator Peters.--but that is why we always defend that. I
am running out of time.
Commissioner Gomez--I am running out of time. Commissioner
Gomez, it is in----
Mr. Carr. Congress passed a law--Congress passed a law
charging with the FCC with the enforcing of the public interest
standard. If they want something different then they need to
change the law.
Senator Peters. Mr. Carr, I have got limited time here.
Senator Budd. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Peters. Commissioner Gomez--could I have a few
moments, Chair, given the filibuster here?
Commissioner Gomez, it is true that the FCC has not
actually followed through on threats to revoke broadcasters'
licenses over content that the Trump administration disagrees
with despite the Chairman's threats to do so.
Could you discuss how public comments and actions taken so
far by the FCC related to major broadcaster editorial choices
have been received by the media and do you think the FCC
actually needs to revoke licenses in order to have a chilling
effect?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question, Senator.
This administration has been on a campaign to censor
content and to control the media and others, any critics of
this administration, and it is weaponizing whatever levers it
has in order to control that media.
That includes using the FCC to threaten licensees and
broadcasters are being chilled. We are hearing from
broadcasters that they are afraid to air programming that is
critical of this administration because they are afraid of
being dragged before the FCC in an investigation. It will be
costly.
It is still unconstitutional to revoke licenses based
solely on content that the FCC does not like. And let us be
clear, we need to define what we mean by operating in the
public interest if we are just going to use it as a means to go
after any content we do not like.
Broadcast hoaxes, that rule was put in place because of
Orson Welles and the ``War of the Worlds,'' and our news
distortion policy does not mean any content we do not like. It
requires a very specific circumstance in order to be used,
which is why it is really never used.
The First Amendment governs what we do as does the
Communications Act prohibition on censorship and this
Commission is abusing that.
Senator Budd. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Carr. Senator, look, if broadcasters are hesitating
today before running broadcast hoaxes or news distortions or
the news I think that is a good thing.
Senator Rosen. It is my time.
Senator Peters. I did not address a question to you.
Senator Budd. Thank you. I am going to recognize myself.
Thank you.
Senator Rosen. Wait.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED BUDD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Budd. Thank you. Let us talk about robocalls. I do
not think you have talked about that today.
You know, your testimony mentioned the work that you and
the FCC are doing to protect the integrity of the robocall
mitigation database, Chairman, and at nearly every telephone
town hall that I do and including one last week the folks
always bring up robocalls.
They feel overwhelmed by them. They feel that they
perpetrate real harm. They give examples. As I am around the
state people talk about robocalls, huge concerns, especially as
we have things like AI-generated personalized voices and the
scams become more and more sophisticated and easier to carry
out.
So, Chairman, again, thank you all for being here.
Chairman, what can the FCC do to proactively protect folks and
how can you stay ahead of the curve with these changing
criminal tactics?
Mr. Carr. This is the number-one consumer complaint we get
at the FCC. Historically, it felt like a game of whack-a-mole.
We would put a technology solution in place. We would go after
a single bad actor. But this would just pop up in another way.
What we are doing right now is we are taking an approach
where we are tackling illegal robocalls at every single portion
of the call lifecycle. We are making it harder to get access to
telephone numbers.
We are making it more difficult for foreign robocalls to
enter the U.S. We are looking at potential loopholes, including
ones for non-IP networks, and one issue we have recently teed
up is taking a look at any robocall, legal or otherwise, that
originates from a call center overseas.
Right now, when that comes up to your phone it can show up
with a U.S. area code to fool you into thinking the call center
or the call is here in America. And so we are looking at
changing that so it would accurately display that it is a
foreign call center.
If United or any other business wants to put a call center
abroad then they should be able to disclose that to the
consumer, and if this helps with onshoring then that might be a
good thing as well.
But we are taking a real new approach including kicking out
over 1,200 providers from our robocall mitigation database,
which effectively cuts them off from the systems. We are trying
to really tackle this at every portion of the call.
Senator Budd. Thank you for that. I think you are talking
about the SIM farms that we have seen recently. A lot of that
is foreign originated. But is there any specific limitations
that prevent your agency from doing more in this area?
Mr. Carr. As of right now, we have a fair amount of legal
authority in this area. It is simply about, you know, tracking
down every single loophole that folks are exploring.
We are working increasingly with state AGs on this. We are
deepening our partnership and collaboration with FTC, the
Nation's premier consumer protection agency, and we are going
to keep at this issue.
Senator Budd. Thank you.
Shift gears a little bit, Chairman. You know, one of your
first stops when you were confirmed was to western North
Carolina after the devastating Hurricane Helene about 14 months
ago and it devastated communications infrastructure.
So one of the most difficult aspects of the immediate
response was that folks they could not get a signal out to
reach loved ones. They could not reach emergency services when
they need.
Can you highlight some of the work that you and the FCC are
doing to enhance communication resiliency during and after
natural disasters, please?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator.
As you noted, my first trip as Chairman was to western
North Carolina which was still hit hard and engaged in
recovery. Went to Chimney Rock and that portion where it was
total devastation.
We are doing a couple of things. One, we have put into
place before a new mechanism where carriers can more easily
roam on each other's networks so if one provider does have
service more people can connect that way.
We are also looking at recovery efforts. What you see is
oftentimes the telecom networks will survive the initial storm
but as power and road crews come in to clear the way they can
cut lines.
And so we have been working to make sure that those
different portions of recovery crews are collaborating better
and communicating so they do not step on each other as much.
There is a range of additional actions we are taking, too, to
harden the networks.
Senator Budd. Commissioner Trusty, how will the FCC's
``Build America'' agenda increase network resiliency? I think
we talked about that in the office a little bit. If you would
like to elaborate, please.
Ms. Trusty. Sure. Thank you for the question, Senator.
We are doing a lot through the ``Build America'' agenda to
enhance network resiliency. We are embracing new technologies
like satellite connectivity.
So we are doing a lot to overhaul our earth and space
station licensing framework to expand access to satellite
connectivity, which can help enhance redundancy and resiliency.
We are also pushing forward the IP transition. So we are
streamlining copper retirement processes and legacy service
discontinuance requirements to make room for IP-based networks
that are more reliable and more resilient.
We are also doing a top to bottom review of our emergency
alert systems to make sure we can get Americans the information
they need that is potentially life-saving in emergencies and
disasters.
I think all of that is covered under the ``Build America''
agenda.
Senator Budd. Great work. Is there any way that Congress
can be a better partner in that mission that you are working on
so diligently right now?
Ms. Trusty. Sure. I think it all goes back to permitting
reform.
You know, when networks are destroyed or when they are
compromised, not having to work through permitting delays and
other bureaucratic issues is really helpful when trying to
restore these communication services for Americans.
Senator Budd. Thank you, all.
Senator Rosen, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to remind the witnesses here today that the
Constitution stands. The Constitution overrides regulatory
bodies. The First Amendment is what we base our communications
on. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights stands above all.
I am going to build a little bit upon what Senator Peters
talked about and others did, too, because I am worried about a
threatening environment for our media and so I will say
following Jimmy Kimmel's monologue on September 16, Chairman
Carr, you publicly said this, ``We can do it the easy way or
the hard way.''
Now, maybe you like movies. Maybe you do not. Maybe you
have never seen ``The Godfather'' but we all have. So I am
going to just ask an additional question and I want you to
clarify yes or no, please, because my time is limited here.
Was this an implicit threat to ABC and its affiliates to
take Jimmy Kimmel off the air or ABC and its affiliates face
consequences such as losing broadcasting license or having
proposed mergers blocked? Is this how government works now, the
threat of losing your license? Yes or no, please, because I
have more questions.
Mr. Carr. Senator, thank you for the question. I was very
clear there was no threat in there to revoke a license.
Senator Rosen. Yes or no, please. Was it a threat to revoke
the license? Was it an implied threat to invoke?
Mr. Carr. There was no threat to revoke a license there.
What I have been talking about was the FCC's news distortion
policy.
Senator Rosen. I will take that as a no, please. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. I am going to move on
to another question about edited interviews.
Earlier this year, you reinstated a closed FCC inquiry into
CBS News for alleged edits of an interview with Kamala Harris
that Donald Trump claimed was done to help her. Many interviews
are edited to fit in a time-frame of the news program.
This is nothing new. CBS News ended up paying Donald Trump
millions in the settlement over his dispute. Earlier this year,
it came to light that Fox News also edited an interview that
Donald Trump did last year in the middle of a Presidential
campaign in which he was asked if he would release the Epstein
files. The edited interview ends after Trump says, ``Yes, I
would.''
But the unedited version shows Trump hedging his support
for releasing the files.
So Chairman Carr, yes or no, please, given that this edit
by Fox News was clearly meant to make Donald Trump look good
right in the middle of a Presidential campaign. Will you commit
to opening an investigation into Fox News for its deceptive
editing of this clip?
Again, yes or no, please, because I have questions for the
other witnesses.
Mr. Carr. No.
Senator Rosen. No. So you are an elected bureaucrat. You
are deciding that some investigations should go on and others
should not, and are you basing this solely on the target or are
you basing this--what are you basing this on?
Can you answer that question? This was clearly edited. Why
is one edit fine and one edit not in the middle of a
Presidential campaign?
Mr. Carr. Senator, it is based on the law. The Fox News
interview was on cable. There is no public interest standard.
There is no broadcast hoax rule. There is no news distortion.
There is no role for the FCC there.
Senator Rosen. Well, I think there is a rule for fairness
and the American public understand what is fair and just and
the same rules apply.
Mr. Carr. Do you think there is a broad fairness rule that
we should apply at the FCC to cable companies?
Senator Rosen. So I am going to go on to mergers. I am
going to go on to merger threats then, Chairman Carr.
Is there a law that directs the FCC to consider editorial
conduct when reviewing mergers? Yes or no because I have a
follow-up question there?
Mr. Carr. The FCC's job under the Communications Act for
reviewing mergers is to make sure that they are in the public
interest and that is the standard that we apply.
Senator Rosen. And so can you clarify for us the lens
through which you review public interest? Is there a set of
principles? Is there a set of something that is applied the
same equally and to every single merger that you look at?
Are you using the same template? Because if you are not,
then I have concerns with that. So can you share with us how
you consider editorial conduct when you are looking to approve
the mergers that--well, maybe they will get them, maybe they
will not based on what? Your personal opinion?
Mr. Carr. Well, again, the standard is the public interest
standard and the FCC's decisional document approving mergers
walks through all of the standards.
It applies them and it is right there in black and white
for everyone to do when we apply normal precedent.
So, for instance, we have accepted commitments on----
Senator Rosen. Well, I want to ask Commissioner Gomez,
though, if Congress passed a law--so if we passed a law based
on this directing the FCC to consider editorial conduct in a
merger review, would that law violate the First Amendment and
be considered unconstitutional?
Ms. Gomez. In all likelihood, yes, the law would violate
the First Amendment because the First Amendment protects
against government interference with editorial decisions.
Senator Rosen. Do you think that Nexstar made decisions
regarding its editorial comment because it was concerned that
the FCC might not approve its merger with Tegna--excuse me, if
it aired content that the Trump administration opposed?
Ms. Gomez. I think that the--that it was trying to curry
favor with the administration by preempting Jimmy Kimmel when
it did.
Senator Rosen. Do you think the FCC used merger approval?
They used merger approval as a lever to exert pressure on media
corporations to threaten free speech in our democracy?
Ms. Gomez. Without a doubt the FCC is leveraging its
authority over mergers and enforcement proceedings in order to
influence content.
Senator Rosen. Thank you.
Mr. Carr. If I could just add real quick to that answer.
Senator Rosen. You are our witness here, sir. We ask the
questions. Thank you.
My time is up. I think it is on to Senator Hickenlooper.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all
for your time and your service.
The United States is remaining a global leader in
innovation including AI. I think that is a goal that is broadly
bipartisan.
As a former Governor in Colorado, I recognize that states
are, rightfully, the laboratories of democracy. The President's
recent executive order on AI directs the FCC to consider
withholding funds to states that have AI laws that could be in
conflict with stated goals.
Obviously, I think the FCC does have a role in how AI is
involved in managing communication networks or blocking
robocalls. I think it is questionable at best whether the FCC
can regulate how AI models are used or developed.
So let me start with Commissioner Gomez. Does the FCC have
explicit jurisdiction under the Communications Act to preempt
state AI laws? Why or why not?
Ms. Gomez. The Communications Act does not grant explicit
authority to the FCC to preempt AI laws. I am dubious of our
authority simply that to be able to preempt AI laws simply
because telecommunications carriers use AI in their networks.
I think that what we would need in order for the FCC to
have preemption authority is for there to be a comprehensive
Federal framework of AI regulation that grants that authority
to the FCC.
Senator Hickenlooper. Exactly.
Chairman Carr, do you state or perceive AI laws that have
been enacted in states like Texas or Utah do these raise
concerns for you?
Mr. Carr. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I agree with you that I think we want the United States to
continue to be the global leader when it comes to AI.
In terms of the FCC, there is an executive order that asks
us to initiate a proceeding to determine whether or not to
adopt Federal reporting in disclosure standards for AI models
and whether that would preempt conflicting, and we will start
that proceeding and we will take comment on all sides of the
issue.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would that mean that the FCC could
withhold Universal Service Fund funds from states that are--
these are the funds that are meant to help low-income consumers
and rural hospitals, schools, with their connectivity. Could
those funds be interrupted as a consequence of this?
Mr. Carr. Well, the issue I have heard raised there is with
BEAD funds, which are going to be administered by Commerce. I
have not heard that with respect to FCC USF funds at this
point.
Senator Hickenlooper. OK. This year we have seen a wave of
tariffs on various imports in the United States and while trade
negotiations may continue to reduce tariffs, that does not
necessarily mean that the economic uncertainty that they create
does not continue to impact manufacturers including those who
manufacture electronics and communications equipment.
So, Chairman Carr, is the FCC in the process or have they
evaluated whether escalating tariffs on information and
communications technology hardware has either lengthened time
lines to build modern communication networks or raised
operating costs for providers or consumers in rural areas?
Mr. Carr. I think, Senator, in terms of hardwares, BLS CPI
data shows that prices for smart phones themselves are down 7
percent. I am sorry--are down over 7 percent year over year.
And so we are not seeing a negative impact in that sector
at this point.
Senator Hickenlooper. So I was thinking more of building
out the networks, the towers and the other communications
equipment.
Mr. Carr. I think if we see it there we potentially would
have seen it in all forms of equipment. That is the data set
that I have seen. But, look, generally, we are trying to find
ways to drive down the prices for these services.
Senator Hickenlooper. Good. I am glad to hear that.
And then the last question for you, Chairman Carr. In 2021,
the Marshall fire really devastated Boulder, Colorado, and
forced countless number of families to evacuate their homes.
The Marshall fire and numerous other disasters across the
country has really shown a bright light on the key role that
the Federal Government and first responders play in
distributing key information during these types of emergencies.
Oftentimes, that information saves lives. A lot of this
includes or should include, has included, the National Weather
Service and the FCC.
The Marshall fire spurred action at the FCC, which we
appreciate, to improve the location accuracy for how wireless
emergency alerts--WEAs--are delivered to Americans and I think
that action is welcomed. More work needs to be done.
But just to make sure our communities receive timely
information during disasters, what message would you share,
Chairman Carr, with Americans on the FCC's work to improve
these wireless emergency alerts?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator.
This is important and we are pushing hard to always
increase location accuracy, and one related issue to this
actually has to do with GPS and this is an issue where, you
know, Chairman Cruz has been leading for a long time.
A lot of the location data some of it is cell site but some
of it is GPS. And it is a great system but it is vulnerable and
so we have been taking actions at the FCC to look up standing
up either complementary or alternatives or secondary ways of
getting that precision navigation and timing information that
today is displayed by GPS.
And so we are going to look at potentially next steps in
trying to invigorate that work.
Senator Hickenlooper. I appreciate that. Thanks to all
three of you again for your service. I yield back to the Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you to all the Commissioners for your testimony here
today. Senators will have until the close of business on
December 19 to submit questions for the record. The witnesses
will have until the close of business on January 7 to respond
to those questions.
This concludes today's hearing. The Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Washington, DC, December 17, 2025
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chair,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell,
On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a
coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 240 national
organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the
United States, and the undersigned organizations, we express our deep
concern with the operations of the Federal Communications Commission
and urge the Committee to conduct vigorous oversight.
We also ask for this letter to be entered into the record of the
December 17, 2025, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation hearing conducting oversight of the Federal
Communications Commission.
Federal Communications Commissioner (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr has
weaponized the Commission to fight a culture war for the administration
instead of carrying out the Commission's true mission: to serve the
people of the United States. As a chief author of the anti-democratic
Project 2025, Chair Carr is committed to a vision of a nation that
serves the interests of the powerful few. As civil rights advocates, we
are deeply alarmed by his attacks on our values and our communities and
urge this committee to take seriously its charge to conduct oversight
of the FCC.
Censoring the Press and Dissenting Voices: FCC Chair Brendan Carr's
pressured American Broadcasting Company (ABC) affiliates to not carry
Jimmy Kimmel Live. The FCC has significant influence over the
broadcasting licenses of the affiliates, influence that should not be
abused to silence dissenting voices for political gain.\1\ First
amendment experts pointed to Carr's rhetoric and the subsequent
(temporary) removal of Kimmel's show as a textbook example of an undue
and violative form of pressure,\2\ and highlighted the many ways in
which the FCC has attempted to police speech (both in the issuance of
broadcast licenses and the approval of mergers).\3\ Carr did not learn
his lesson to avoid pressuring broadcasters, and shared President
Trump's post asking for Seth Myers to be fired on his own X account.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Press Release, ACLU, ACLU Responds to Trump Administration Move
Censoring Jimmy Kimmel (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/press-
releases/aclu-responds-to-trump-administration-move-censoring-jimmy-
kimmel.
\2\ Anna Branigin, ``How Cancel Culture Came for Everyone,''
Washington Post (Oct. 1, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/
power/2025/10/01/cancel-culture-kimmel/.
\3\ Ted Johnson, ``Brendan Carr's Threats On Networks May Be
``Jawboning,'' And Courts Don't Like It, Legal Experts Say'' Deadline
(Sept. 19, 2025), https://deadline.com/2025/09/fcc-brendan-carr-
jawboning-jimmy-kimmel-1236549243/; Tom Wheeler, ``Trump's CBS Lawsuit
Ties Media Freedom to FCC's Regulatory Power,'' Brookings (Feb. 19,
2025), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trumps-cbs-lawsuit-ties-media
-freedom-to-fccs-regulatory-power/.
\4\ Brendan Morrow, Trump calls for NBC to fire Seth Meyers, FCC
Chair Brendan Carr weighs in. USA TODAY (Nov. 17, 2025), https://
www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/11/17/trump-seth-meyers-
fcc-chair-brendan-carr/87315926007/#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gutting Media Diversity Rules: The FCC's media ownership rules play
an important role in preventing individual companies from dominating
national or local markets and fulfilling the FCC's obligation to
promote media diversity. Eliminating the media ownership rules
abdicates the FCC's statutory obligation, continuing to exclude people
of color from broadcast ownership.\5\ Further, relaxing media ownership
limits will exacerbate already-low competition, localism, and viewpoint
diversity while also harming workers. Several pending mergers,
including Nexstar's $6.2 billion deal to take over TEGNA would blast
through existing ownership rules.\6\ We urge the Committee to ensure
that the Commission will follow regular process and consider this
transaction, and the media ownership rules, with a vote of the FCC
Commissioners, a request consistent with prior positions of Chairman
Cruz.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ George Winslow, ``Unions, Civil Rights Groups Argue Localism
Will Be Hurt, Not Helped by Eliminating Ownership Caps,'' TV Tech (Aug.
28, 2025), https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/unions-civil-rights-
groups-argue-localism-will-be-hurt-not-helped-by-eliminating-ownership-
caps.
\6\ Keith Collins and Raj Saha, ``How a TV Merger Raised the
Pressure on ABC to Suspend Kimmel,'' New York Times (Sept. 19, 2025),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/19/business/media/abc-
nexstar-kimmel.html.
\7\ Press Release, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, At Nominations Hearing, Sen. Cruz Blasts FCC Actions on
Standard-General-TEGNA Deal, Calls Out Fraud-Risk in Affordable
Connectivity Program (June 22, 23), https://www.commerce.senate.gov
/2023/6/at-nominations-hearing-sen-cruz-blasts-fcc-actions-on-
standard-general-tegna-deal-calls-out-fraud-risk-in-affordable-
connectivity-program (``It is incumbent on this committee to only
confirm nominees who will stand for procedural fairness, respect
taxpayer dollars, and exercise regulatory humility'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coercing Companies to Pull Back on Diversity and Equity: We also
have serious concerns about the ways in which FCC leadership has
weaponized the Commission's merger authority to pressure media and
telecommunications companies into abandoning their diversity, equity,
and inclusion (DEI) programs.\8\ Earlier this year, Chair Carr publicly
stated he does not see ``a path forward'' to approve transactions for
companies that maintain DEI programs, encouraging businesses seeking
FCC merger approval to ``get busy ending'' their diversity
initiatives.\9\ FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez has condemned this as
government overreach that stifles free expression, noting that ``there
is a freedom of speech component to diversity, equity, and inclusion''
and stating that this approach represents ``control of a private
company's employment practices'' that ``has nothing to do with what we
do at the FCC.'' \10\ Despite plain civil rights mandates and an abject
failure to meet them, the FCC has threatened or coerced many companies
to eliminate their programs that aimed to ensure fair treatment of and
equal opportunity for women, people of color, people with disabilities,
and the LGBTQ community in order for their mergers to be approved.\11\
The Leadership Conference made clear earlier this year that our
Nation's civil rights laws remain in place and the Chairman's efforts
to circumvent them is an affront to the Nation's commitment to
fairness.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Commissioner Anna Gomez, Remarks at U.S. Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce Summit, (March 25, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/document/
commissioner-gomezs-remarks-us-hispanic-chamber-commerce-summit.
\9\ Cameron Coats, Carr: Broadcasters With DEI Programs Could Get
Deals Blocked, Radio Ink, (March 24, 2025), https://radioink.com/2025/
03/24/carr-broadcasters-with-dei-programs-could-get-deals-blocked/.
\10\ Cameron Coats, Gomez: DEI Attacks Part of `Censorship and
Control' Under Trump, Radio Ink (April 8, 2025), https://radioink.com/
2025/04/08/gomez-dei-attacks-part-of-censorship-and-control-under-
trump/.
\11\ Inside Radio, Commissioner Urges Private Companies to Fight
FCC Efforts to End DEI, (March 26, 2025), https://www.insideradio.com/
free/commissioner-urges-private-companies-to-fight-fcc-efforts-to-end-
dei/article_4be2f10e-9b92-46b7-9b0f-e70f019c54ed.html.
\12\ Open Letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights to Leaders in Business, Philanthropy, Education, Law, Non-
Profits, and Health Care (May 16, 2025), https://civilrights.org/
resource/your-civil-rights-obligations-remain-in-force/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing costs and endangering communities by increasing phone
and video prices: The Commission recently adopted higher prices for
consumers which will likely lead to increased recidivism for
incarcerated people. The Senate unanimously adopted the Martha Wright
Reed Act in 2022 to lower rates and the Commission implemented that law
in 2024. When the FCC proposed the changes in October, members of this
committee denounced Chair Carr's rolling back the implementation of the
Martha Wright Act.\13\ The law passed out of Congress on a bipartisan
basis, and the FCC's 2024 Final Rule (2024 Rule) was adopted on a 5-0
vote. Recent analysis of the FCC's changes found that they would lead
to a 66 percent drop in call minutes, and the rates people would pay
will increase by as much as 83 percent--costing consumers hundreds of
millions of dollars annually.\14\ We urge Chair Carr to roll back the
changes made and enforce the 2024 Rule as originally adopted by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Press Release, Senator Tammy Duckworth, Duckworth Leads
Colleagues in Denouncing FCC Chair Brendan Carr's Unlawful Plan to
Increase Costs for Law Abiding Americans with Incarcerated Loved Ones
(Oct. 28, 2025), https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/news/press-releases/
duckworth-leads-colleagues-in-denouncing-fcc-chair-brendan-carrs-
unlawful-plan-to-increase-costs-for-law-abiding-americans-with-
incarcerated-loved-ones.
\14\ Press Release, Worth Rises, Worth Rises Releases Impact
Analysis of the FCC's Proposed Revisions to Its 2024 Regulations on
Incarcerated People's Communications Services and Rebukes the Revisions
as Overly Broad and Misguided (Oct. 15, 2025), https://worthrises.org/
pressreleases/2025/10/15/worth-rises-releases-impact-analysis-of-the-
fccs-proposed-revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aiding Ban on State and Local AI Laws: Chair Carr previously stated
that he would be taking a look at how ``the FCC may be able to play a
role in helping'' block state laws regulating artificial
intelligence,\15\ and the FCC has followed up the Chair's comments by
issuing two notices seeking to ban enforcement of state laws regulating
AI.\16\ While the Chair may be eager to assist the White House in these
efforts, the Communications Act does not grant the FCC authority over
artificial intelligence, and it does not have the power to preempt
state AI law.\17\ Further, public polling has made clear that the
public wants more regulation of AI, not less.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Chris Teale, ``FCC Chair Floats Preempting State AI Laws,''
Route Fifty (Sept 30, 2025), https://www.route-fifty.com/artificial-
intelligence/2025/09/fcc-chair-floats-preempting-state-ai-laws/408472/.
\16\ Austin Bonner and Alex Tate, ``FCC Kicks Off AI Action Plan
Efforts,'' HWG (Oct. 1, 2025), https://hwglaw.com/2025/10/01/fcc-kicks-
off-ai-action-plan/.
\17\ Harold Feld, ``Can the FCC Preempt State Laws on AI? No--
Especially Not With Broadband As Title I,'' Public Knowledge (Sept. 19,
2025), https://publicknowledge.org/can-the-fcc-preempt-state-laws-on-
ai-no/.
\18\ Benedict Vigers and Justin Lall, ``Americans Prioritize AI
Safety and Data Security,'' Gallup (Sept. 16, 2025), https://
news.gallup.com/poll/694685/americans-prioritize-safety-data-
security.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We stand ready to work with Congress on policies that will protect
civil rights, prevent unlawful discrimination, and advance equal
opportunity. Should you require further information or have any
questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact Jonathan
Walter, senior policy counsel, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
UnidosUS
United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry
Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC
Common Cause
Communications Workers of America
Hispanic Federation
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
National Action Network
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET-CWA)
National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients
National Hispanic Media Coalition
National Urban League
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. Last month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
rescinded Chairwoman Rosenworcel's January 2025 Salt Typhoon
Declaratory Ruling, which relied on a 1994 wiretap law to impose cyber
requirements. That legal authority was, at best, creative, and the
rules were issued outside the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
process and after my pencils-down letter. The FCC is not a
cybersecurity agency--it lacks real-time threat intelligence. It does
not directly respond to network intrusions, as agencies like
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National
Security Agency (NSA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
do.
a. Given these limitations, along with the growing cyber threats
from nation-state actors and criminal groups, do you agree that the FCC
should not take the lead in developing cybersecurity regulations when
it lacks both the operational expertise and statutory authority to do
so? If you agree, please feel free to elaborate.
Answer. Yes, I agree. National security agencies tasked with
cybersecurity should take the lead in establishing cybersecurity
standards. Instead of creating another set of standards that would
potentially undermine and contradict the efforts of national security
agencies, the FCC should work closely with carriers to ensure they can
respond collaboratively and in real time when attacks occur.
b. What risks could emerge from granting the FCC--an agency that
wields broad regulatory powers over communications carriers--with new
powers in cybersecurity?
Answer. Instead of providing full transparency to Federal partners,
carriers may try to obfuscate real problems to avoid adverse regulatory
actions.
c. What would be necessary for the FCC to instantly gain the
technical threat intelligence necessary to provide effective guidance
to telecom carriers?
Answer. The FCC should be encouraging carrier to continue and
deepen their collaboration with expert cybersecurity agencies.
Question 2. The last few years have seen incredible growth in space
commerce and satellite business cases. It is vital that the United
States be the world leader in space commerce and innovation. The FCC
regulates commercial satellite systems, and these systems frequently
have to coordinate their spectrum use with government entities through
an interagency process when applying for FCC authorizations.
a. How would you assess the current state of coordination between
FCC and other Federal agencies on spectrum usage, and how are you
working to improve interagency coordination?
Answer. The FCC works closely and collaboratively with NTIA and
other Federal agencies to provide the maximum regulatory certainty in
the most efficient manner. But there is room for improvement. Too much
interagency review can lead to unnecessary delays. The FCC will
continue to work with our Federal partners to streamline the
interagency coordination process.
b. How would you assess current efforts to improve the review and
processing of space station license applications?
Answer. When I became Chairman there was a major backlog of
satellite applications, but we have since cut that backlog in half. We
are reducing the time from filing to approval--the FCC recently
approved a SpaceX application for a Next-Gen satellite constellation in
less than half the time it took for the FCC to push through SpaceX's
previous authorization for their Gen2 system. We recently launched a
proceeding to look at ways to modernize the Commission's space and
earth station licensing rules to meet the needs of the space economy
for today and tomorrow.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. The Universal Service Fund's high cost program is the
lifeblood for many of South Dakota's telecom providers. What steps is
the FCC taking to strengthen the high cost program and ensure that
local telecom providers who are investing in their home states have the
certainty they need from the program to connect unserved areas in rural
America?
Answer. The FCC's Universal Service Fund plays a key role in
bridging the digital divide. Over the next couple of years, several of
the FCC's legacy high cost programs will expire. So the FCC should be
thinking about a future for the programs so that the agency continues
to deliver on its statutory responsibilities to rural America.
Question 2. Will you commit to working with Congress on legislative
reforms to the Universal Service fund and ensure this critical program
continues?
Answer. Yes. The FCC is looking forward to briefing the bipartisan,
bicameral USF working group at the end of January.
Question 3. What steps have the FCC already taken or can take to
address waste, fraud, and abuse and improve efficiency across Universal
Service Fund programs?
Answer. Over the last year, the FCC has been aggressively pursuing
bad actors that are defrauding the FCC's USF programs. Furthermore, we
have been undertaking a review of the programs to determine ways to
address waste and abuse. First, we recently revoked California's
ability to opt-out of the National Lifeline Accountability Database
(NLAD) for the Federal Lifeline program. California passed a state law
that prohibits the state from requiring the collection of social
security numbers, which could be used to ensure that program recipients
are legal residents, and from sharing relevant information with Federal
agencies. Revoking California's opt-out status ensures that Federal
dollars aren't paying for the state to abuse the Federal Lifeline
Program. We are also teeing up a comprehensive review of the Lifeline
Program to ensure that Lifeline dollars go to eligible Americans.
Question 4. As Chairman, will you commit to opening Notice of
Public and Comment Rulemaking proceedings to explore the efficiency and
future needs of each of the four programs, including Lifeline, E-Rate,
High Cost, and Rural Health Care.
Answer. The FCC commits to conducting a comprehensive review of its
USF programs to explore how each can be made more efficient. And some
of these reviews are already underway. Separately, I am aware of the
Congressional Working Group that is looking to put the four programs on
sustainable footing from both the distribution and contribution
perspective. I know they are receiving input from industry, and I trust
they will find ways to make the four programs efficient and address the
future needs of the program.
Question 5. In July 2025, you unveiled your ``Build America
Agenda'' in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Can you further detail the steps
you have taken as Chairman to reduce regulatory burdens and strengthen
the workforce for telecom infrastructure companies?
Answer. With respect to reducing regulatory burdens, we have:
Streamlined the process for retiring decades-old copper
networks so that providers can transition consumers to new,
high-speed networks on a faster timeline.
Proposed a systematic overhaul of the FCC's outdated
environmental and historic permitting rules that slow down
wireless and space infrastructure builds.
Updated pole attachment rules to make broadband deployment
faster and more efficient. The new rules promote collaboration
between broadband providers and utility pole owners, reduce
delays, and help accelerate high-speed Internet access
nationwide.
With respect to strengthening the workforce, we have:
Worked with communications providers, and America's tower
and telecom crews on facilitating workforce reforms that will
result in a more sustainable environment.
Through merger approval process, secured valuable
commitments by three major U.S. wireless carriers, Verizon, T-
Mobile, and AT&T, to America's tower and telecom crews,
including faster payment cycles and fairer pricing metrics.
Secured new provider commitments to minimize layers of
subcontracting, which will allow for greater oversight of
crews, stronger safety protections, and closing loopholes that
allowed foreign, fly-by-night groups to swoop in and undercut
U.S. crews.
Question 6. The historic Working Families Tax Cuts Act mandated the
auction of 800 megahertz of spectrum. What steps has the Federal
Communications Commission taken to meet this mandate? Additionally,
please outline the benefits of bringing this spectrum into commercial
use, particularly how those living in rural areas may benefit.
Answer. The Working Families Tax Cuts Act specifically directed the
Commission to grant licenses through systems of competitive bidding,
before the expiration of the general auction authority for not less
than 300 megahertz, including by completing a system of competitive
bidding not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act
for not less than 100 megahertz in the band between 3.98 gigahertz and
4.2 gigahertz, which is known as the Upper C-Band. In light of this
directive, the FCC has moved fast to execute, and in November we
adopted the Upper C-Band NPRM to begin the auction.
This auction will bring prices down, boost speeds, and bring
expanded access to advanced wireless services, including 5G and,
eventually 6G, to the American people, particularly those in rural
areas.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Continuity of the Global Positioning System (GPS) depends on
protecting its spectrum from interference. GPS interference may result
from radio emissions in adjacent bands, intentional or unintentional
jamming, or naturally occurring space weather. In 2020, President Trump
issued an Executive Order directing Federal agencies to pursue
complementary positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) capabilities to
improve resilience in the event of GPS disruptions. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has recognized the significance of this
issue, including in a March 2025 Notice of Inquiry.
Chairman Carr, you have noted that the Commission is seeking to
improve GPS and location data that support first responders, and you
have acknowledged the GPS system's vulnerability to jamming, spoofing,
and other disruptions. I believe this effort is important and will
require a cross-agency approach. Can you provide details on how the FCC
plans to move forward to address these issues while avoiding unintended
consequences? Additionally, how would you engage industry, public
safety, and civil stakeholders in this process?
Answer. As you referenced, the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry in
March 2025 to start building the record to understand what alternatives
are out there and weigh the various pros and cons, as well as
anticipate any of the consequences. Each of the various GPS
alternatives will require different levels of coordination with unique
groups of stakeholders. The NOI has given potentially impacted parties
the opportunity to weigh in on how to work together to mitigate
unintended consequences.
The FCC is conducting its required four-year review of broadcast
ownership rules under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Federal law limits
a single entity from owning stations nationwide that reach more than 39
percent of U.S. television households. This limit is known as the
national audience reach cap. The NPRM does not propose any conclusions;
rather, it examines whether the rules governing local television, local
radio, and network ownership should be retained, modified, or repealed.
Chairman Carr, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L.
108-199) set the national ownership cap at 39 percent. Do you believe
the FCC has the authority to change the cap? If so, could you detail
the statutory or FCC rulemaking basis that grants the Commission this
authority?
Answer. The FCC has a number of proceedings underway where we have
sought public feedback on both the FCC's legal authority and the
relevant policy considerations.
One of the primary functions of the FCC is to manage spectrum
assignments and protect spectrum rights in the United States. This
includes monitoring the unlawful use of, and interference with,
exclusive-use spectrum.
Chairman Carr, is the FCC working to resolve any Notices of
Violation regarding carriers unlawfully using a third party's
exclusive-use spectrum? Do you agree that if a company continues to
ignore such violations, it could negatively impact the value of
exclusive-use spectrum and revenues from future spectrum auctions?
Answer. Exclusive-use spectrum is important because it provides
licensees with the certainty to build and invest in networks that won't
encounter interference from others. The FCC is periodically made aware
of allegations regarding RF interference or unlawful use of spectrum.
The FCC's Enforcement Bureau investigates those allegations in the
normal course.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. In January 2025, the Commission withdrew its Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that considered a possible ban on bulk billing
agreements for broadband services in multi-dwelling housing. Would you
please explain how the Commission arrived at this decision, including
any evidence found in support of bulk billing models?
Answer. In March 2024, prior FCC leadership circulated a bulk
billing NPRM that would have banned bulk billing agreements. The FCC
has previously determined that these bulk billing arrangements benefit
families living in apartments, condos, public housing, and other multi-
tenant buildings because they allow them to take advantage of lower
cost broadband services by enabling building owners to leverage their
purchasing power. If these agreements had been banned, at least one
study showed, Americans living in apartments could have seen their
bills go up by as much as 50 percent.
Question 2. Many NTIA BEAD subgrantees providing fixed wireless
Internet services will rely on the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
(CBRS) spectrum band, particularly the General Authorized Access tier,
as part of their long-term network plans. Is the Commission examining
any changes to the existing CBRS framework that could interfere with
these plans and impact the ability of BEAD subgrantees to meet their
buildout requirements?
Answer. Back in 2024, the FCC sought comment on potential changes
in the CBRS band that would allow for higher power operations. Any
issues raised in that proceeding remain pending at the agency.
Question 3. I appreciate the Commission's work to ensure the U.S.
leads in satellite communications innovation globally. Within this
effort, preserving the robustness of satellite operations for systems
essential to our military and national security remains a crucial
responsibility. What assessments so far has the Commission made to
understand and recognize impacts on the mission readiness of the U.S.
government users that depend on commercial satellite resources--
including any changes to equivalent power flux density limits?
Answer. The FCC has an active rulemaking proceeding to consider how
complimentary technologies can be leveraged to improve operational
resilience. In April 2025, the FCC sought comment on whether to modify
the EPFD limits for NGSOs in light of the tremendous technical advances
since the current rules were established in the 1990s.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. On November 20, the Commission adopted a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking proposing to make as much as 180 megahertz of the
Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz) available for terrestrial wireless flexible
use via auction toward compliance with provisions of PL 119--21
requiring the FCC to auction 800 MHz of spectrum. In that NPRM, the
Commission notes the time constraints imposed by PL 119--21 will
require ``broad-based and proactive engagement from relevant industry
stakeholders as well as our Federal partners.'' As the NPRM goes on to
communicate, those stakeholders include Upper C-band incumbents and
adjacent band equities, particularly in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band, which is
used by aviation stakeholders for operating radio altimeters. Please
describe the Commission's engagement with industry and Federal aviation
stakeholders, including the Federal Aviation Administration, to support
continuity of operations for radio altimeters that currently use the
4.2-4.4 GHz band.
Answer. Completing an auction of the upper C-band on schedule
requires seamless interagency coordination. The FCC is coordinating
directly with stakeholders like the FAA. The FCC is also addressing
other Federal equities through NTIA. President Trump has made it clear
that getting results on these issues is a top priority. The FCC will
continue to focus on efficiency and execution, including accommodating
relevant incumbent users within a reasonable budget and completing a
generational upgrade of radio altimeters through new standards that are
fully resilient to 5G services for years to come.
Question 2. Earlier this year, the Commission withdrew a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that proposed banning bulk billing agreements,
which are arrangements between Internet service providers and rental
housing providers to enable bulk purchasing of Internet services for
residents of multiple dwelling units (MDUs). How did the Commission
arrive at this decision, and what are the Commission's plans with
respect to bulk billing going forward?
Answer. In March 2024, prior FCC leadership circulated a bulk
billing NPRM that would have banned bulk billing agreements. The FCC
has previously determined that these bulk billing arrangements benefit
families living in apartments, condos, public housing, and other multi-
tenant buildings because they allow them to take advantage of lower
cost broadband services by enabling building owners to leverage their
purchasing power. If these agreements had been banned, at least one
study showed, Americans living in apartments could have seen their
bills go up by as much as 50 percent.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. Maintaining our country's leadership in the race to 5G
and then 6G is critical for both our economic and national security.
That is why this committee pursued such a robust spectrum agenda in the
One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The spectrum mandates are purposely bold,
and we need to ensure that they are implemented swiftly. One portion of
the legislation provided funds for NTIA to study the 200 megahertz
between 2.7 and 2.9 GHz. I understand that good progress is already
being made in determining how and when to convert that band. Based on
the work already being done, I'm hopeful that NTIA and the FCC can move
even more quickly on that band than the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
requires. The faster that this spectrum is made available, the quicker
industry can begin using it to continue the United States' path to 6G
leadership. If NTIA and the FCC act quickly on analyzing this band,
will the FCC be ready to auction the 2.7--2.9 band, even if you are
conducting auctions of other spectrum during that time period?
Answer. If NTIA determines that Federal incumbents are able to
relocate out of the 2.7-2.9 band, the FCC will move quickly to take the
necessary steps to auction that spectrum.
Question 2. The Upper C-Band proceeding involves a wide range of
stakeholders and important technical considerations, including aviation
safety. Can you describe how the FCC is coordinating with the FAA and
other agencies to ensure those considerations are fully addressed as
the proceeding moves forward? In addition, the Commission has received
requests from some stakeholders regarding the current comment
deadlines. How is the FCC evaluating whether the existing timeline
provides sufficient opportunity for a complete and well-informed
record, given the goal of finalizing the auction by July 2027?
Answer. The FCC is coordinating directly with stakeholders like the
FAA, as well as the aviation industry. The FCC is also addressing other
Federal equities through NTIA. President Trump has made it clear that
getting results on these issues is a top priority. The FCC will
continue to focus on efficiency and execution to meet the statutory
deadline of July 2027.
Question 3. In the past you've talked about the changed media
marketplace and the inequities that exist right now for local
broadcasters in that larger ecosystem. It's incredibly important for my
constituents across Alaska that our local, community-based broadcasters
are able to thrive. You've critiqued prior FCC leadership for not
upholding Congress' deregulatory mandate when it comes to media
ownership. How is the FCC evaluating whether existing national and
local broadcast ownership rules are keeping pace with changes in the
media marketplace, while still protecting localism, competition, and
diverse viewpoints--particularly in rural and remote states like
Alaska?
Answer. We have pending proceedings to evaluate these rules. My
guiding principle when it comes to media policy is promoting localism
and empowering local broadcasters.
Question 4. What is the FCC doing to make sure that non-trusted
PRC-made devices that could pose cybersecurity or data transfer risks
are vetted before they receive equipment authorization?
Answer. We've taken a series of actions to ensure non-trusted PRC-
made devices do not receive equipment authorizations. First, the FCC
has cracked down on ``Bad Labs,'' which are labs that review and
approve electronics for use in the United States, but are owned or
controlled by foreign adversary governments. The FCC also maintains the
Covered List of communications equipment that is prohibited from
receiving equipment authorization, because they threaten national
security. The FCC rigorously enforces this prohibition.
Additionally, late last year, the FCC took steps to close loopholes
in the Covered List by prohibiting authorization of devices containing
certain ``covered'' components and allowing the FCC to prohibit the
import or sale or already-authorized devices.
Beyond that, the FCC has also taken action to crack down on devices
that try to enter the U.S. without equipment authorization. We also
executed `Operation Clean Carts', in which the FCC worked with
ecommerce platforms to take down millions of listings of devices on the
FCC's Covered List or otherwise prohibited for sale in the United
States.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. Chairman Carr, I have heard about the growing incidents
of, and attempts, at GPS spoofing and jamming. In the past, the
Department of Transportation published a request for information
seeking ``technology capable of providing critical infrastructure users
and operators positioning and/or timing information that is derived
independently from Global Navigation Satellite Systems.'' Has the FCC
contemplated alternatives to GPS, and if so, has the FCC conducted any
work to examine the feasibility of the technology?
Answer. The FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry in March 2025 to start
building the record to understand what alternatives are out there and
weigh the various pros and cons, as well as anticipate any of the
consequences. Each of the various GPS alternatives will require
different levels of coordination with unique groups of stakeholders.
The NOI gives impacted parties the opportunity to weigh in on how to
work together to mitigate unintended consequences.
Question 2. Chairman Carr, In Indiana, Fort Wayne station WODP-LD
recently completed a year of experimental 5G Broadcast operations,
demonstrating that 5G Broadcast can coexist with existing TV stations
while delivering services to Hoosiers. As the FCC moves forward with
implementing the spectrum auction authorities provided under the One
Big Beautiful Bill Act, can you explain how local broadcasters can
currently use existing spectrum allocations for their 5G broadcast
operations like WODP-LD has done with their Low Power TV broadcasts and
has the FCC contemplated any actions with respect to 5G LPTV
broadcasts?
Answer. I'm interested in examining the benefits of new
technologies and giving licensees the ability to deploy their spectrum
in innovative ways. In July, we sought comment on a petition from HC2
Broadcasting Holdings Inc. to allow low-power television stations on a
voluntary basis to use the 5G Broadcast transmission standard as an
alternative to the currently authorized ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0
transmission standards. We are considering the record in that
proceeding.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Eric Schmitt to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. Mr. Carr, as you know, I led an effort of 24 Members of
the Senate and House to file a brief in the Sixth Circuit supporting
parties seeking to overturn the Biden-era FCC's data breach rules. I
was pleased to learn that your administration has committed to review
and repeal those rules. Can you elaborate on your position regarding
whether the breach reporting rules violate the Congressional Review Act
(CRA), confirm that the FCC plans to roll back these rules that flout
congressional intent, and provide a sense of when the FCC will address
this important issue?
Answer. I dissented on the Biden-era data breach rules because they
violated both the CRA and the APA. The Biden FCC made no real attempt
to explain how the data breach rule it adopted was not the same or
substantially similar to the one nullified by the House, the Senate,
and President Trump in the 2017 CRA. On October 7, 2025, the Sixth
Circuit agreed to hold a case challenging the data breach rules in
abeyance while the FCC considers how best to revise its rules.
Question 2. Mr. Carr, thank you for your continued leadership in
protecting American consumers from harmful foreign actors. Some threats
are easy to identify--Huawei and ZTE, for example--but we are
increasingly seeing foreign Communications Platform as a Service
(CPaaS) providers and (Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) acquire
U.S. entities in ways that let them present themselves as domestic
companies. These acquisitions carry real risks: they can raise costs
for legitimate U.S. businesses, and some of these foreign-owned
entities appear to be contributing to the very problems you've been a
national leader in combating--illegal robocalls and robotexts. Mr.
Chairman, will you commit to examining whether certain foreign
companies, operating under the guise of U.S. ownership, are exploiting
the U.S. market, and whether their continued authorization to operate
remains in the public interest?
Answer. Yes, the FCC will continue to examine foreign-owned actors
operating in U.S. communications networks. In fact, just this month the
FCC will vote to adopt rules on Foreign Adversary Control, requiring
all FCC licensees to certify whether they are owned by, controlled by,
or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary--
allowing the Commission to expose actors with opaque ties to foreign
adversaries.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. Having the most accurate understanding of where there
is and is not broadband service in is imperative, especially in West
Virginia. This is particularly true for mobile service, where measuring
mobile service can be complicated by terrain and topography. Incorrect
data affects everything from Federal funding for future deployments to
real-time emergency services capabilities. Will you commit to requiring
and using established mobile data for Federal programs that support
mobile deployment? And how are you ensuring that coverage areas are
accurate and not overexaggerated by providers, particularly by use of
stationary data which currently qualifies under mobile metrics?
Answer. Consistent with the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act
(see 47 U.S.C. Sec. 642(c)(2)(B)), the FCC will rely upon mobile data
submitted in the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) when making decisions
for funding programs that support mobile broadband deployment.
To ensure the mobile availability data providers are reporting in
the BDC are accurate the FCC has relied on the mobile challenge,
verification, and audit processes that Congress instructed the
Commission to develop. Since the National Broadband Map launched in
2023, consumers and other entities have successfully created over 400
cognizable challenges against providers' reported coverage, which
require the challenged provider to either submit on-the-ground evidence
to rebut the challenge or to concede the challenge and remove its
claimed coverage from the map. In addition to challenges submitted by
consumers and other stakeholders, the Commission can also initiate a
verification where there is a credible basis to believe the reported
coverage may be in accurate. Recently, challenge speed test data
collected by an entity in Alaska provided staff with a credible basis
to initiate a verification against a provider in Alaska, which remains
ongoing. Crowdsourced speed test data, even those not submitted for
purposes of challenging coverage, have also resulted in FCC-initiated
verifications.
FCC staff also proactively review provider-reported mobile coverage
from each filing round to identify significant changes in coverage and
other potential anomalies in the data. In one case where staff
identified large increases in a nationwide provider's 5G coverage, we
initiated multiple verification requests to validate the accuracy of
the newly claimed coverage. The provider collected and submitted
substantial on-the-ground speed test data in accordance with our
sampling instructions and successfully verified its new 5G coverage.
Additionally, we have used the mobile audit process to randomly
audit mobile coverage in counties across the United States. To ensure
that coverage is not overstated, during an audit FCC staff and
contractors review provider infrastructure data and conduct an
engineering analysis of the providers' mobile coverage maps.
Question 2. We spoke a little bit on the issues related to the
challenge process, and I appreciate the willingness of the Commission
to look at this issue. To get a better understanding of the current
state of mapping, I had a few questions as it relates to the current
status of challenges. Does the FCC still accept visual evidence of
location fabric challenges?
Answer. The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Commission ensure
the BDC challenge processes are ``user-friendly'' and designed to
mitigate ``the administrative burdens placed'' on challengers, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 642(b)(5)(A), (b)(5)(B)(i)(III). In accordance with these
statutory requirements, FCC staff periodically the efficacy of the
challenge processes and the associated burdens imposed on challengers.
Since the launch of the Fabric, or location, challenge process,
every request to add or remove a location has undergone a visual
verification that involves images of the location in question being
shown to multiple reviewers to determine if the location is a broadband
serviceable location. Visual verification remains part of the FCC's
challenge review process.
To reduce the burden on bulk Fabric challenge process participants,
the FCC decided in December 2024 to stop accepting evidence file
submissions from bulk challengers. This change is not limited to visual
evidence. Concurrent with this change, the FCC also began working
closely with the FCC's Fabric vendor to identify internal process
improvement opportunities, such as building in capacity for heightened
staff review of challenge outcomes.
We continue to review and refine our processes with the goal of
balancing the burden and ensuring that Fabric challenge results are
accurate.
Question 3. Are you able to detail the total number of location
challenges, as well as percentage of successful challenges, that have
been made by reporting cycle and by state?
Answer. Please refer to the attached ``Fabric Challenge Counts''
(attached) spreadsheet for the requested metrics. We also make the data
on particular location challenge outcomes publicly available each month
on the data downloads page of the Broadband Map (https://
broadbandmap.fcc.gov/data-download/challenge-data).
Question 4. How does the FCC and any relevant contractor provide
feedback to challenges to the National Broadband Maps, and how are you
ensuring that providers receive the proper feedback they need to fix
their challenges moving forward?
Answer. When resolving location challenges, each challenge is
assigned a ``response code'' that corresponds with a particular reason
why the challenge was accepted or rejected. For bulk challenges, each
unique request to add or remove a location, or to update the address,
unit count or other information associated with the location receives
its own response code. For more details, please refer to the following
BDC Help Center article here: https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/
articles/17077103993371-Fabric-Challenge-Response-Codes.
Similarly, when resolving mobile or fixed availability challenges,
the FCC assigns an adjudication code with the reasoning behind the
adjudication decision. These outcomes are made available directly to
the user submitting the challenges either within the BDC system's Filer
or Broadband Map interfaces for users that have logged in, and we also
send information via e-mail when the challenge is closed out. Lastly,
the outcome of each challenge is made available in a publicly-
accessible data download generated at the beginning of each month.
The FCC provides technical assistance, support, and feedback to
challengers and providers the BDC Help Center. The BDC Help Center
staff is available to answer any questions or address concerns
regarding submitting challenges or understanding challenge outcomes,
and more complicated questions are escalated to and addressed by FCC
staff with relevant BDC subject matter expertise.
FCC staff have also met with a variety of providers and industry
groups to discuss the challenge processes and how to improve location
challenge process outcomes in particular. Feedback from those
interactions has been used to inform the challenge process improvements
discussed in our previous (above) response.
The FCC remains committed to providing support to entities
interested in filing challenges and those that have questions about
previous challenge results. Please have anyone seeking assistance
contact our Broadband Data team.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cynthia Lummis to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. How would you assess the current state of coordination
between the FCC and other Federal agencies on spectrum policy, and how
are you working to improve interagency coordination, particularly when
it comes to satellite permitting?
Answer. The FCC works closely and collaboratively with NTIA and
other Federal agencies to provide the maximum regulatory certainty in
the most efficient manner. In order to meet the ambitious spectrum
auction timelines of the Working Families Tax Cut Act, the FCC will
need to be in lockstep with our partners across the Federal government.
At the beginning of 2025, the FCC began engaging and coordinating with
our partners at NTIA, FAA, Department of Transportation, the Pentagon,
and elsewhere to ensure we are in lock stop as we begin the auction
process. The FCC continues to work with our Federal partners to improve
the interagency coordination process.
Question 2. What steps is the FCC taking to ensure the U.S.
maintains leadership in ITU forums including WRC-27?
Answer. The FCC, in coordination with NTIA and the State
Department, is already preparing for WRC-27. It is expected that space
issues will dominate WRC-27. The leadership and clear vision of the
Trump Administration will allow the U.S. to reestablish our leadership
at WRC-27.
Question 3. How will we ensure that U.S. delegates and sector
members are able to attend WRC-27 safely?
Answer. The FCC, along with other components of the Executive
Branch, are actively working on plans to make sure that the U.S.
delegation will be able to participate safely and securely at the WRC-
27 in Shanghai.
Question 4. Rip and Replace is a critical effort to secure American
infrastructure. Due to permitting, workforce access constraints, and
other factors, carriers not only in Wyoming but across the United
States may require extensions to complete the work required. How does
the FCC intend to ensure successful completion of the Rip and Replace
program, and what actions might be considered to enable that success?
Answer. When the Wireline Competition Bureau approved applications
to participate in the Rip and Replace Program in 2022, demand exceeded
available funding, which resulted in a significant funding shortfall.
Between 2022 and 2024, recipients indicated that the funding shortfall
was a significant impediment to their ability to timely complete their
removal, replacement, and disposal projects. Congress authorized
additional funding at the end of 2024. In May 2025, the Bureau issued
an initial disbursement of the additional funds and gave recipients in
Priority 1 until May 2025 to complete their projects. When allocating
the additional funding, the Bureau encouraged recipients to move
swiftly to complete their work under the Rip and Replace Program.
Pursuant to the Secure Networks Act, a recipient may request an
extension of time for ``up to'' or ``not more'' than six months if a
recipient can show that it is unable to meet the deadline due to no
fault of its own. In light of the additional funding, we expect the
need for such extensions will lessen. However, recipients may request
an extension if circumstances beyond its control impede its ability to
finish the work. The Commission will closely scrutinize extensions on a
case-by-case basis. The facts and circumstances supporting an extension
request must include the specific obstacles faced by the recipient, how
those obstacles, through no fault of the recipient, affected the
recipient's ability to meet its term deadline, steps taken by the
recipient to mitigate the impacts of the obstacles, and whether the
recipient expects to meet a future deadline, if an extension is
granted.
Question 5. The Commission has emphasized that securing U.S.
communications networks is both a national security and consumer
privacy imperative. What concrete steps have you taken to harden
infrastructure and better coordinate across the Commission on national
security, and how have you improved supply chain transparency so
providers, customers, and the public can understand and manage
adversary exposure?
Answer. The Commission has taken a range of actions to harden U.S.
networks and coordinate on national security across the FCC's work. One
of my first acts as Chairman was to set up a new Council on National
Security within the FCC to leverage all of the agency's authorities,
expertise, and relevant workstreams to counter the threats posed by
foreign adversaries, including the government of China. With regard to
transparency, just this month, the FCC will vote to adopt rules on
Foreign Adversary Control, requiring all FCC licensees to certify
whether they are owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary--allowing the
Commission to expose actors with opaque ties to foreign adversaries.
The FCC has also taken a variety of other national security
actions:
Cracked down on ``Bad Labs''--labs that review and approve
electronics for use in the United States, but are owned or
controlled by foreign adversary governments.
Executed `Operation Clean Carts', in which the FCC worked
with ecommerce platforms to take down millions of listings of
devices on the FCC's Covered List or otherwise prohibited for
sale in the United States.
Adopted new rules on undersea cable security, following
President Trump's America First Investment Policy Memorandum to
accelerate the buildout of undersea cables, while protecting
them from foreign adversaries.
Closed two loopholes that provided no check on old models of
covered equipment--potential spy gear--to be imported or sold,
as well as allowed devices to be approved that contain covered
equipment as module components.
Banned authorizations for new models of foreign-produced
Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) and their components to protect
American Airspace Sovereignty.
Worked directly with carriers to ensure that they are
adapting their cybersecurity practices and hardening their
networks against future attacks, in the wake of Salt Typhoon.
Question 6. Chairman Carr, you have promoted ``Delete, Delete,
Delete'' initiative to remove regulations that are outdated or
unnecessary. How and in what ways has the public benefited so far from
the initiative, and how do you expect it to in the future?
Answer. Eliminating unnecessary regulation has facilitated and
encouraged American companies' investment in modernizing their
networks, developing infrastructure, and offering innovative and
advanced capabilities.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Affordability. Chairman Carr, the question I keep coming back to is
simple: what are you doing to drive down costs for consumers? This
week, I released a report showing how costs are going up across the
board--broadband, wireless, cable, streaming--and you're not doing a
thing about it.
In the last year alone, streaming bills have increased by 13
percent. Basic cable bills have more than doubled over the last ten
years. Americans pay more for wireless service than almost every other
peer country. And 23 million low-income households lost support on
their broadband bills, and you've proposed nothing to replace it.
In wireless, you called Dish/EchoStar's spectrum licenses into
question, forcing EchoStar to sell them off and shut down its network,
which was the fourth largest in the country. Your colleague, former
Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, said, ``As a true fourth
national network, EchoStar protects consumer choice and lower consumer
prices. The FCC threatens such severe sanctions that they put
EchoStar's financial viability in question and threaten to kill the
company. This places every holder of a spectrum license in a riskier
position and will raise consumer prices by forcing every licensee, not
just EchoStar, to charge higher risk premiums.''
Question 1. Yes or no, do you agree that when there is less
competition in a marketplace, and companies have more market power,
consumers pay higher prices?
Answer. The FCC is advancing policies to increase competition and
drive down prices for consumers.
Question 2. Chairman Carr, since you took over, the fourth national
wireless carrier has been eliminated. You've also proposed eliminating
broadband labeling requirements that make it easier for consumers to
spot hidden fees. And you're moving to approve more media
consolidation. Which of those actions helps consumers pay less?
Answer. The FCC is working on several fronts to increase
competition and drive down prices for consumers.
Broadband Affordability. In August, the Commission began its annual
review of the pace and cadence of broadband deployment to assess
whether broadband ``is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and
timely fashion,'' as required by Section 706 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. As part of that review, you proposed to ignore the
importance of affordability. For many Americans, the cost of broadband
services is a greater barrier to closing the digital divide than the
lack of availability.
Question 1. After the demise of the Affordable Connectivity Program
(ACP) and in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, why did the FCC
exclude affordability from this year's review of broadband deployment
in the United States?
Answer. The FCC's 706 Report will comply with the relevant
statutory provisions.
Broadband Labels. Congress passed bipartisan legislation to ensure
transparency in billing. Chairman Carr, despite having previously voted
in favor of the FCC's rules to implement that legislation, you have
proposed to punch holes in the rules to implement that law, making it
easier for big corporations to tack on hidden fees to Internet bills.
In defending your actions, at the December 17, 2025, FCC Oversight
hearing, in response to questions from Senator Lujan, you stated ``[w]e
want clarity'' in the labels.
Question 1. Chairman Carr, as costs are rising across the board,
how does reducing the amount of information required in broadband
labels and making them harder to access provide greater ``clarity'' for
consumers?
Answer. The FCC has sought comment on potential changes to the
existing regulations but has not made any final decisions.
Merger Authority. Chairman Carr, you infamously said, ``We can do
this the easy way or the hard way,'' which led to Nexstar and Sinclair,
the two largest broadcast ownership groups, preempting Jimmy Kimmel's
late-night show for over a week, including on KOMO in Seattle.
At that time, Nexstar had announced a $6 billion merger with Tegna,
and Sinclair had also shown interest in acquiring another station
group--deals that would require FCC sign-off to complete. Weeks
earlier, you had held up the Paramount-Skydance merger until Paramount
paid $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit filed by the President
and appointed an ombudsman to oversee its news coverage.
These broadcasters recognized that you control their fates and that
they needed to fall in line, and that failure to comply risked you
killing their deals.
Question 1. Chairman Carr, yes or no, do you believe it's
appropriate for a regulator to threaten a regulated entity, to threaten
to take away their licenses, and to threaten to reject a merger--
because of a joke?
Answer. I don't think that we agree on what took place. Please see
my letter for additional information: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/DOC-415483A6.pdf
Question 2. Yes or no, is it appropriate for a regulator to force a
regulated entity to pay the president millions of dollars in order to
get a merger approved?
Answer. No and to the extent that your question suggests that
something like that took place here recently, please see my answer
above.
You've cited the 2011 Comcast-NBCUniversal deal as precedent for
requiring a ``bias ombudsman'' as a condition of the Paramount-Skydance
merger. But in 2011, the FCC simply preserved an ombudsman that the
company had already created as an internal firewall between the owners
and the newsroom. In Paramount-Skydance, Paramount created a new
position explicitly tasked with evaluating ``bias'' in news content and
policing speech.
Question 3. How are these comparable uses of the FCC's merger
authority?
Answer. In both cases, the FCC approved a transaction after the
parties committed to establishing an ombudsman.
Question 4. Have you spoken with the Paramount ombudsman?
Answer. Despite some social media posts to the contrary, the
ombudsman does not report to me or the President of the United States.
Question 5. Do you expect to receive regular updates from the
Paramount ombudsman about CBS's news coverage?
Answer. As noted above, the ombudsman does not report to me or the
President of the United States.
Merger Commitments. Traditionally, FCC merger conditions relate
directly to the company's ability to serve the public--such as
requiring expanded coverage, infrastructure investments, or service
obligations. But you have used merger review to extract concessions and
leverage companies to change their internal hiring policies.
Question 1. What specific language in the Communications Act
authorizes the FCC to regulate a company's human resources or hiring
practices through merger conditions?
Answer. In 2021, the Biden FCC accepted as a merger commitment the
extension of DEI practices.
FCC Independence. Chairman Carr, you previously testified to
Congress that the FCC was ``an independent, expert agency.'' You also
testified that Congress placed the FCC's ``authority outside of the
Executive Branch for a reason,'' such as not wanting technical
decisions ``to be made in a haphazard manner or based on misinformation
and short-term, political interests.''
Question 1. Do you stand by your congressional testimony that
Congress placed FCC authority outside of the Executive Branch to avoid
being based on short-term political interests?
Answer. As I have testified, Congress passed the Communications Act
before the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor. And
Congress chose not to include ``for cause'' removal protections for FCC
Commissioners.
Question 2. Do you believe it is appropriate for the FCC's
technical decisions to be based on the political interests of the
Executive Branch?
Answer. The FCC's decisions are based on the facts, the law, and
the agency's record.
In 2021, you issued a public statement calling on your FCC
colleagues to reject an ``attempt to inject partisan politics into our
licensing process'' and called it a ``deeply troubling transgression of
free speech and the FCC's status as an independent agency.''
Question 3. Do you still agree with your public statement, and if
not, why did you change your mind?
Answer. It was wrong for Democrats in Congress to pressure the FCC
to block the sale of a broadcast station license on the grounds that
Democrats thought the sale would hurt them in the midterm elections.
During the December 17, 2025, FCC Oversight hearing, Senator Kim
asked you if you've ever had a conversation with President Trump or
senior administration officials about using the FCC to go after his
critics, and you declined to answer because you ``don't get into the
specifics of conversations that I have.'' Setting aside whether the
substantive deliberative content of your conversations with President
Trump is privileged, factual information such as the existence of such
a conversation and the identities of its participants is not
privileged.
Question 4. Consistent with the above, have you ever had a
conversation with President Trump or senior White House officials
relating to the FCC penalizing or taking any adverse action against one
of President Trump's critics? If so, how many conversations were there,
and for each conversation, who participated in them, when, and where
did they occur?
Answer. Consistent with longstanding practice, I do not discuss
conversations vel non with the President.
Question 5. Consistent with the above, have you ever had a
conversation with President Trump or senior White House officials
relating to the FCC potentially revoking the station licenses for the
owned-and-operated stations of any major news network, including but
not limited to ABC, NBC, or CBS? If so, how many conversations were
there, and for each conversation, who participated in them, when, and
where did they occur?
Answer. See answer above.
Question 6. President Trump has made multiple public statements
about FCC matters, such as license revocation and other directives. If
the President is not satisfied with your performance implementing his
direction or suggestion, does he have the right to fire you?
Answer. A President can fire any Commissioner at any time.
Question 7. Are you concerned that not implementing the President's
directions or suggestions on FCC matters to target his political
critics could result in your termination or dismissal?
Answer. The FCC is focused on delivering great results for the
American people.
C-Band Spectrum. Chairman Carr, the FCC is planning to commence an
auction of the Upper C-Band. Under current law, the auction is supposed
to conclude with licenses awarded by 2027.
I'm deeply concerned that this auction could literally cause planes
to fall out of the sky. Former FAA officials and NTIA, in its comments
to the FCC, have warned that new civilian and military altimeters need
to be installed on likely all aircraft before cell companies can start
using this band. Those new altimeters are still under development, and
the standards are not even slated to be finished by 2027--the year this
process is supposed to conclude. Given the previous C-Band auction
nearly grounded air travel in the United States to a halt, I'm deeply
concerned that we are about to see the same story unfold--but with far
more dire consequences.
Question 1. Has the FCC coordinated with the Department of Defense
on the NPRM that the FCC released?
Answer. Yes, the FCC has been running the appropriate interagency
process.
Question 2. How much will it cost to retrofit military and other
government aircraft with new altimeters?
Answer. The FCC's proceeding is ongoing and asks about a range of
different issues.
Question 3. Who is going to pay for those upgrades, and how long
will that process take? Answer. The FCC's proceeding is ongoing and
seeks comment on a range of issues.
Question 4. Are you concerned that this process will negatively
impact military readiness, given that the Chinese are anticipated to
attack Taiwan in 2027?
Answer. The FCC's proceeding is ongoing and seeks comment on a
range of issues.
Question 5. As military and civilian aircraft radio altimeters must
be upgraded to address interference from any expansion of wireless
service, do you commit to providing the aviation and defense industry
the necessary time and space to safely retrofit the fleet operating
within the United States?
Answer. The FCC's proceeding is ongoing and seeks comment on a
range of issues.
AI. The Trump Administration won't take no for an answer on a
moratorium on state AI laws without a Federal standard. First, they
tried to put it in the reconciliation bill, and we stripped it out by a
99-1 vote. Then they tried to attach it to the NDAA. Now they're
directing agencies like the FCC to attempt to preempt state laws
through an Executive Order.
Instead of trying to preempt laws that protect against AI fraud or
theft, we need to be protecting consumers. Chairman Carr, you have been
skeptical of the FCC's authority over new technologies in the past. In
2024, you said that ``Congress does not operate like a sieve--
inadvertently spilling grants of new authorities. Congress's delegation
of authority in these types of cases can no longer be implicit, it must
be explicit.''
Question 1. Yes or no, does the FCC have the authority to preempt
state AI laws under Title I of the Communications Act?
Answer. The Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial
Intelligence Executive Order calls on the FCC to commence a proceeding
to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure
standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.
Question 2. Is that what Congress intended when it rewrote a
portion of the Communications Act in 1996, 25 years before ChatGPT was
released?
Answer. The Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial
Intelligence Executive Order calls on the FCC to commence a proceeding
to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure
standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.
Question 3. Chairman Carr, given your prior statements regarding
your skepticism of the FCC's authority over the Internet as a Title I
service, where specifically in the text of the Communications Act do
you find the authority for the FCC to preempt state AI laws,
particularly post-Chevron deference?
Answer. The Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial
Intelligence Executive Order calls on the FCC to commence a proceeding
to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure
standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.
Question 4. Yes or no, does the FCC have the authority to adopt a
Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models?
Answer. The Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial
Intelligence Executive Order calls on the FCC to commence a proceeding
to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure
standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.
Question 5. How many technical AI experts does the FCC have on
staff?
Answer. The FCC has a range of different professionals on staff.
Investigations. Chairman Carr, you have opened and reopened
investigations into several broadcast networks for the content of their
programming.
Question 1. How many investigations have you opened or reopened
because of the content of a news program or other program?
Answer. Any ongoing FCC investigations are based on the relevant
portions of the Communications Act as well as FCC rules and precedent.
Question 2. What is the status of these investigations?
Answer. The FCC's open investigations remain pending.
Question 3. How much staff time has been devoted to these
investigations?
Answer. The FCC's open investigations remain pending.
Question 4. Have you updated the other Commissioners on the status
of these investigations? If so, provide the dates of each status update
and the individuals involved.
Answer. I meet regularly with my Commission colleagues, and we
discuss a range of FCC matters.
Local News. Harvard's Shorenstein Center found that broadcast
stations owned by large ownership groups produced more news at the
regional or national level rather than locally. On the other hand,
independent stations produced more news content locally. I am concerned
that further consolidation could lead to more news production outside
of the station's community and result in the closure of local
newsrooms.
Question 1. What is the FCC doing to ensure that local newsrooms
stay open?
Answer. The FCC is working to empower local broadcasters to meet
their public interest obligations, including serving the needs of their
local communities.
Net Neutrality. Because the FCC refuses to protect consumers
against unfair practices by broadband providers, my own state of
Washington and other states have acted to protect their consumers with
net neutrality laws. These laws protect consumers from harmful
practices such as blocking and throttling of legal content and paid
prioritization.
Question 1. Chairman Carr, is the FCC planning to try to preempt
state-level net neutrality laws?
Answer. The FCC generally announces the agenda for any Commission-
level, open meeting votes three weeks before any such vote.
Question 2. Does the FCC have any authority to do so?
Answer. The FCC has the authorities that have been delegated to it
by Congress.
Question 3. If the FCC has no authority to impose net neutrality
conditions under Title I, as you have argued, where specifically in the
text of the Communications Act do you find the authority for the FCC to
stop Washington from doing so, particularly in a world without Chevron
deference?
Answer. The FCC has the authorities that have been delegated to it
by Congress.
Section 230. In your Project 2025 chapter, you wrote that the FCC
should issue an order that interprets Section 230.
Question 1. Do you still believe the FCC has authority to
reinterpret the scope of Section 230 immunity under current law?
Answer. I wrote that chapter in my personal capacity, consistent
with guidance from FCC ethics staff. So, I have to be careful about
discussing questions about it when I am responding in my official
capacity.
Question 2. If so, please identify the specific statutory provision
you believe gives the FCC that power.
Answer. Please see my answer above.
Public Interest Standard. Chairman Carr, in your letters and
tweets, you've identified several kinds of reporting that you see as
not in the public interest, but you haven't explained what kind of
reporting is in the public interest.
Question 1. How do you define the ``public interest'' standard?
Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
numerous occasions.
Question 2. Will you commit to completing a Commission-level
rulemaking specifying the contours of the ``public interest'' standard
for broadcasters?
Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
numerous occasions.
DOGE Staff at FCC. Chairman Carr, on April 30, 2025, wrote in a
letter responding to my March 31, 2025, letter that you had ``invited
the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) into the building to get
fresh eyes on the way we operate'' and ``two people from DOGE
officially joined the FCC.'' However, recent reporting by The Verge
based on 1,000 pages of FCC FOIA documents indicates three DOGE
employees--Tarak Makecha, Jordan Wick, and Jacob Altik--were still
listed in the FCC's public directory as of December 16, 2025.
Question 1. How many DOGE employees did you invite into FCC's
building and officially hire, and if it was not just two people, what
explains the discrepancy with what you wrote in April 2025?
Answer. As stated in my earlier letter, two people from DOGE
officially joined the FCC and complied with applicable ethics rules.
The FOIA documents reflect the fact that there was discussion early on
about a third person joining the FCC, but only two people joined the
FCC as previously stated.
IPCS. At a time when the country is reeling from an affordability
crisis, the FCC's own analysis shows that your recent order on
implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act would cost families
approximately $50 million in higher phone rates.
Question 1. Doesn't this decision put company profits above making
it affordable for children to speak with their parents?
Answer. No.
Salt Typhoon. Last month, you rolled back an FCC declaratory ruling
and rulemaking adopted earlier this year in response to the Salt
Typhoon attacks, the worst cyberattack on U.S. telecom networks in
history. I requested the following documents and information from you
no later than November 25, 2025:
1. A copy of any cybersecurity assessment the FCC conducted before
moving to repeal its prior ruling. Please provide any
documents.
2. Any documents the telecommunications companies shared with you
that support their claims that they removed Salt Typhoon
hackers from their networks, including, but not limited to,
Mandiant digital forensic reports.
3. Documents and information sufficient to demonstrate the FCC's
collaborative approach to cybersecurity with telecommunications
providers ``continues to be effective.''
As of December 18, 2025, you have not responded to my request.
Question 1. When do you intend to respond to the request, and when
do you intend to provide documents?
Answer. I provided a written response to your letter on January 21.
Question 2. Do you believe you have a duty to respond to
congressional oversight requests, especially on topics critical to our
national security and public safety?
Answer. I believe that I or the FCC have already responded to every
or nearly every congressional inquiry that we have received.
Shutdown Operations. According to the FCC's September 2025 plan for
orderly shutdown prior to a lapse in Federal appropriations, you
anticipated that ``1,044 employees, or approximately 81 percent of
[staff] on board before the plan was implemented, will have been
furloughed and sent home.'' The 244 employees, or approximately 19
percent of staff, retained under the plan were limited to specific
tasks or exemptions, including protection of life and property, staff
in the Office of Inspector General, auction staff whose salaries are
not provided through appropriations, and certification of Universal
Service Fund and Telecommunications Relay Service disbursements.
However, on October 28, 2025, the FCC held an open meeting, at which it
considered nine items ranging from nearly every Bureau in the agency.
From the tentative agenda announcement on October 7 to the public
release of the items following adoption at the October 28th meeting,
each item required an opportunity for public comment, input from
stakeholders, and staff to review and implement any necessary changes
before the Commission's vote.
Question 1. Did the FCC comply with the September 2025 shutdown
plan?
Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.
Question 2. Please provide a breakdown of how many staff,
regardless of furlough status, worked between October 1, 2025, and
November 13, 2025; how many hours that staff worked; what the source of
funds was to pay that staff; and how much funding was used to pay that
staff.
Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.
In prior lapses of appropriations, such as in 2018-2019, the FCC
utilized holdover funds to keep the whole agency open until those funds
were expended. Yet during the Fall 2025 shutdown, you apparently chose
when and how to utilize holdover funds to maintain certain operations
funded through appropriations while allowing other operations to cease
until an additional appropriation was provided.
Question 3. What legal authority do you, as the FCC Chair, have to
determine which FCC directives or authorizations from Congress remain
operational during the lapse in appropriations? Please cite the
specific provision(s) of law.
Answer. The FCC has those authorities that have been delegated to
it by Congress.
The lapse in appropriations also appeared to impact the operations
of and public access to FCC online databases, such as the Universal
Licensing System, Equipment Authorization System, and functionality of
the broadband map.
Question 4. Please list which of the FCC's online databases were
reduced in operations between October 1 and November 13, 2025,
including any reduction in maintenance or public access, and which
databases were fully operating.
Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.
Question 5. Please also explain your rationale for determining
which databases were at full operations and which were at reduced
operations, if applicable.
Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.
Question 6. What were the factors you considered in making the
decision to close FCC online databases, while you used carryover funds
to continue to work on other appropriation-supported activities,
including Commission-level votes to increase the rates paid by
incarcerated people and their families, and opening a proceeding to
repeal broadband consumer protections required by Congress?
Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. In October the Commission voted to move forward with a
rulemaking on eliminating broadband labeling requirements. How will
eliminating requirements that Internet Service Providers tell consumers
exactly how much they are being charged, including by providing an
itemized list of fees, increase transparency efforts and bring prices
down for consumers?
Answer. The FCC has sought comment on potential changes to the
existing regulations but has not made any final decisions.
Question 2. Do you agree that transitioning to Next Gen 911 is a
national security imperative that should remain a top priority for both
the FCC and Congress?
Answer. Completing the transition to NG911 will enable significant
public safety benefits. The FCC has been taking actions to help promote
the transition.
Question 3. Would you support putting the proceeds from the Federal
Communications Commission's spectrum auctions towards modernizing our
9-1-1 infrastructure?
Answer. I defer to Congress on any changes in the law regarding the
spending of auction proceeds received by the FCC or the Federal
government.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Hon. Brendan Carr
FCC Public Interest Authority
Question 1. What is the FCC's standard for evaluating programming
under the public interest standard and news distortion policy?
Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard and the
news distortion policy on numerous occasions.
Question 2. What conditions would trigger the FCC to investigate or
take action against the speech of comedians, satirists, or commentators
under the public interest standard or news distortion policy?
Answer. The FCC's public interest regulations apply to licensed
broadcasters.
Question 3. Following the preemption of the Jimmy Kimmel Live! show
in September, you said we are ``. . . in the midst of a massive shift
in dynamics in the media ecosystem for lots of reasons, again,
including the permission structure that President Trump's election has
provided. And I would simply say we're not done yet with seeing the
consequences of that.'' Please elaborate on what you meant by ``the
massive shift in dynamics in the media ecosystem.'' Does this include
future decisions pertaining to programming?
Answer. The FCC is working to empower local broadcasters to meet
their public interest obligations.
Question 4. In your testimony, you indicated that you consider
Jimmy Kimmel's September comments to be in violation of the news
distortion policy. Given that in that case there was no extrinsic
evidence of an intent to mislead, is the FCC now adopting a standard
that an opinion or mistake on broadcast television can constitute news
distortion, even without malintent?
Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
the contours of the agency's news distortion policy.
Question 5. If there is evidence that FCC action, or the threat of
FCC action, towards broadcast television impacts programming decisions
on non-broadcast media through financial ties between companies, would
you consider this to be censorship?
Answer. The Supreme Court determined that the FCC's enforcement of
the public interest standard does not violate the First Amendment.
Question 6. Please describe whether the FCC would consider the
following scenarios on broadcast television as being in violation of
the public interest standard or news distortion policy. If you cannot
comment on these scenarios, please explain how programs can receive
clarity about how to abide by the FCC's public interest standard and
news distortion policy:
a. A comedian, commentator, or satirist insults the President in a
manner that is not obscene, profane, or indecent.
Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
the contours of the agency's public interest standard and news
distortion policy, which apply to licensed broadcasters.
b. A comedian, commentator, or satirist makes offensive statements
pertaining to violence or assault.
Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
the contours of the agency's public interest standard and news
distortion policy, which apply to licensed broadcasters.
c. An artist has a performance that could be considered an insult
to the President's policies or political positions.
Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
the contours of the agency's public interest standard and news
distortion policy, which apply to licensed broadcasters.
d. A politician states that a murder victim ``deserved'' their
death because of their hatred for said politician.
Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
the contours of the agency's public interest standard and news
distortion policy, which apply to licensed broadcasters.
Question 7. Do you endorse President Trump's calls to NBC to fire
Seth Meyers?
Answer. NBC makes its own decisions about its employees.
FCC Independence
Question 8. If the President determines that broadcast programming
content does not abide by the public interest standard or the news
distortion policy, will you defer to the President's opinion? What if
the President's opinion departs from FCC's precedent of interpretation?
Answer. The FCC bases its decisions on the law, the facts, and the
record.
Question 9. If, as you stated, the President can fire you for ``any
reason,'' how can companies and broadcasters trust that your judgement
will be fair, and not merely serve as a reflection of the President's
opinions?
Answer. The FCC bases its decisions on the law, the facts, and the
record.
Tribal Spectrum Windows
Question 10. Will the FCC commit to continuing to hold Tribal
priority windows in future spectrum auctions?
Answer. Commission decisions are determined through a vote by the
members of the Commission.
Question 11. Please provide 1) the number of locations associated
with individual Tribal areas; and 2) an aggregated rollup of the number
of Tribal locations and Tribal broadband availability nationwide within
the National Broadband Map, or to incorporate this information into a
separate Tribal National Broadband Map that includes data on Tribal
areas only?
Answer. The requested data is published as data downloads on the
National Broadband Map. Specifically, the data downloads page on the
National Broadband Map provides summary information about fixed or
mobile broadband in Tribal areas, specifically in the Fixed Broadband
Summary by Geography Type and Mobile Broadband Summary by Geography
Type downloads: https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov
/data-download/nationwide-data
Question 12. Will you direct ONAP to provide educational outreach
and technical assistance to Tribes to assist them with submitting
challenges to the National Broadband Map, especially for those Tribes
that have not submitted challenges?
Answer. ONAP plans and leads the Commission's outreach to Tribal
governments and organizations, with the objective of increasing their
awareness of, and participation in, Commission programs and
proceedings.
Local Programming Carriage
Question 13. Does the FCC plan to review any issues pertaining to
the pricing of carriage for local broadcast stations by streaming
services?
Answer. The FCC publicly discloses Commission meeting items
approximately three weeks before any such votes.
Upper C-Band Auctions
Question 14. Will the FCC extend the public comment period for the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the implementation of the Upper
C-Band rules for 2027 auction?
Answer. On December 19th, the FCC granted a 15 day extension of the
comment and reply comment dates in the Upper C-Band proceeding.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Hon. Brendan Carr
In one of your first acts as FCC Chairman, you reinstated a
complaint alleging that WCBS violated the FCC's news distortion policy
in airing a CBS interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris on 60
Minutes. The previous FCC dismissed this complaint, rightfully
concluding that the agency had no role in policing WCBS's editorial
decision-making. Moreover, for the FCC to find a violation of this
policy, it must find evidence that the broadcast station ``deliberately
distorted a factual news report.'' In addition, in its Hunger in
America proceeding, the FCC further required a complainant to provide
``extrinsic evidence'' demonstrating an intent to distort the news.
Question 1. Have you identified any extrinsic evidence of an
intentional news distortion to justify this investigation?
Answer. The relevant complaint remains pending at the FCC.
Question 2. When does the FCC intend to make a determination about
whether to proceed with or close this proceeding?
Answer. The relevant complaint remains pending at the FCC.
Question 3. Have FCC career staff provided any internal opinions or
other materials on the validity of the complaint in this proceeding? If
so, what was their determination?
Answer. The relevant complaint remains pending at the FCC.
Question 4. Have you had any private communication with President
Donald Trump about this investigation? If so, has President Trump
instructed you to take any specific action with respect to this
investigation?
Answer. Consistent with longstanding practice, I do not discuss
conversations vel non with the President.
In February, the FCC opened an investigation into KCBS's coverage
of a Federal immigration raid. In an interview on Fox News at the time,
you suggested that the radio station could have been in violation of
its public interest standard obligation.
Question 1. What is the status of this investigation?
Answer. I do not have any new information to provide you at this
time beyond what has been previously disclosed.
Question 2. What evidence was the grounds for opening this
investigation?
Answer. See answer above.
Question 3. Please describe how KCBS may have violated its public
interest standard obligation. In particular, what aspects of its news
programming may not have been in the public interest?
Answer. See answer above.
Question 4. In your Fox News interview, you appeared to suggest
that KCBS may have violated its public interest obligation because it
was reporting on the car models and location of immigration officers.
There is no evidence that this reporting was inaccurate or a hoax. Has
the FCC ever instituted an investigation or penalized a broadcast
station for accurately reporting the news? If so, please provide
examples.
Answer. The FCC enforces the public interest standard.
Question 5. If your concern with KCBS's coverage was that it may
have interfered with immigration enforcement operations or endangered
the life of Federal officers, has the FCC ever launched an
investigation or penalized a broadcast station for such purposes? If
so, please provide examples.
Answer. The FCC enforces the public interest standard.
Chairman Carr, before President Trump's second term, you were a
vocal supporter of the TikTok ban, also known as the Protecting
Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. For
example, in 2022, you stated, ``I do not see a path forward for
anything other than a ban. So, it is time for the Administration to act
with the urgency that this national security threat demands.'' In fact,
in March 2024, you wrote a letter to the House Energy and Commerce
Committee in support of the legislation. Although the Federal
Communications Commission is not charged with implementing the law, you
remain an important advisor to President Trump on technology and
telecommunications policy. Your views on the Trump Administration's
implementation of the TikTok ban remain important.
Question 1. Over the past year, President Trump has signed five
executive orders directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to not
enforce the TikTok ban against service providers (such as Apple,
Google, Oracle, and others) who continue providing services to TikTok
in violation of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary
Controlled Applications Act. Do you believe that the DOJ has the
authority to explicitly instruct companies that it will not enforce a
law enacted by Congress?
Answer. I would refer you to the DOJ for questions about the DOJ's
authority.
Question 2. You previously said the Biden administration should
``act with the urgency that this national security threat demands'' by
banning TikTok. Would you classify President Trump's actions on TikTok
as him ``acting with urgency''?
Answer. President Trump has acted with urgency on many matters.
Public Interested Standard
Question 1. Please define your interpretation of the public
interest standard.
Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
the contours of the agency's public interest standard.
Question 2. Does the public interest standard include any test or
rule around ideological or political bias?
Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
the contours of the agency's public interest standard and related
policies.
Pole Attachments
Question 1. The FCC has made progress streamlining the pole
attachment process. What additional reforms is the FCC pursuing to
ensure that broadband and telecommunications providers can obtain
timely and cost-effective access to poles?
Answer. Thank you for your support of these important efforts. The
FCC is pursuing a range of actions to accelerate and streamline the
cost-effective build out of infrastructure.
AM Radio
Question 1. Chairman Cruz and I have been working to pass our AM
Radio for Every Vehicle Act, which would require vehicles to have
broadcast AM radio. Our legislation has nearly four hundred cosponsors
in the Senate and House. Does AM radio continue to play an important
role in delivering emergency alerts across the country?
Answer. Thank you for your leadership on this important matter. I
support your legislation and agree that AM radio continues to play an
important role in communities across the country.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. Last month you chose to withdraw a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking established in response to Salt Typhoon--one of the largest
and most damaging cyberattacks in U.S. history. The proposed
regulations held covered companies responsible for basic cybersecurity
practices, but you voted to roll back these protections, stating this
was because providers have already ``demonstrated a strengthened
cybersecurity posture.'' What, if any, do you think the FCC and
Congress should be doing more to help prevent future lapses that allow
our adversaries to infiltrate our networks?
Answer. The decision that the FCC reversed was neither a lawful nor
effective response. While I defer to Congress on the nature of any
legislation, it is important that the private sector continue to take
actions that harden and strengthen networks based on the evolving
nature of cybersecurity threats.
Question 2. Earlier this year, the FCC requested comments on the
Bureau of Industry and Security's rule related to connected vehicles
and connected vehicle technologies, specifically whether and how to add
certain technologies to the FCC's covered entities list. I strongly
support the Bureau of Industry and Security's rule and believe we must
keep Chinese connected and autonomous vehicles and vehicle components
from entering our market. I believe the FCC must work closely with the
automotive supply chain to ensure any action it takes in this space
does not conflict with the BIS rule and achieves our goals of
protecting our national and economic security.
Will you commit to working with my office and the automotive supply
chain industry as you decide what actions to take on this issue?
Answer. I would be happy to work with you on these issues.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. Tribal communities face some of the most severe
challenges in accessing reliable and affordable broadband internet. In
Wisconsin, we host the Tribal Libraries, Archives, and Museums (TLAM)
Project at the University of Wisconsin, and libraries are an important
connector for communities when home without sufficient broadband. In
the last few years, the FCC has taken steps to improve tribal library
participation in E-Rate, updating the definition of library and
creating a program--called T-LEAP, or the Tribal Library E-Rate
Advocacy Program--to support Tribal applications for E-Rate. The
Commission concluded it would issue data about the status of tribal E-
Rate applications, yet we have not yet seen this data. A preliminary
analysis of the E-Rate data available shows that while 79 percent of
libraries in Wisconsin applied for E-Rate, only 1 of eight tribal
libraries in Wisconsin applied for E-Rate. What is the current progress
of this program?
Answer. T-LEAP is in its third year of providing support throughout
the E-Rate application and invoicing processes to Tribal libraries that
have opted to participate. Tribal libraries are able to join any time
during the year and receive individualized support. In funding year
2024, 294 Tribal libraries participated in the E-Rate program, and they
received over $13.7 million in funding (disbursements).
Question 2. Robocalls and ever increasingly sophisticated scams
pose a serious threat to millions of Americans, especially to our
seniors. These scams can lead to significant financial losses including
people losing their life's retirement savings, breach of sensitive
personal information, and loss of peace of mind as people are bombarded
by these spam communications. What is the FCC doing to support victims
of these scams and prevent these calls in the first place?
Answer. The FCC has been reinvigorating its work to crack down on
illegal robocalls. We are now looking at every portion of the lifecycle
of a call and taking actions that make it harder for bad actors to
place illegal robocalls.
Question 3. How would you define illegal Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion (DEI)? How have you determined which companies to investigate
for potential illegal DEI programs?
Answer. In the very first section of the Communications Act,
Congress stated that it created the FCC for the purpose of regulating
interstate and foreign commerce in communication ``without
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
or sex,'' 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151. Promoting invidious forms of
discrimination runs contrary to the Communications Act and deprives
Americans of their rights to fair and equal treatment under the law.
Question 4. Will you investigate companies that do not have a
formal DEI program, but the make-up of the company appears that they
have a de facto discrimination in hiring or promotion decisions based
on race or gender--for example if it were all-white or all-male? If
not, what is your justification for not considering it but launching
investigations into DEI programs?
Answer. The FCC will apply its regulations in a fair and even-
handed manner.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Question 1. Please clarify how you determine what the FCC deems the
public interest with regard to broadcast programming.
Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
numerous occasions.
Question 2. How do you determine alignment with the public interest
when considering mergers? Is there a standard applied the same to every
single merger that the FCC reviews?
Answer. The FCC has articulated the standard of review and public
interest framework that applies to transactions pursuant to Section
310(d) of the Communications Act.
Question 3. Is it your view, as you seemed to express during the
hearing regarding KCBS, that local reporting on ICE operations does not
align with the FCC's public interest standard? Please elaborate on what
specific statute or public FCC guidance related to the public interest
standard that KCBS potentially violated which prompted the FCC to open
an investigation.
Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
numerous occasions.
Question 4. If you think KCBS' coverage of ICE crossed the line,
how should local news outlets cover ICE operations in their
communities?
Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
numerous occasions.
Question 5. Please clarify to those who want to avoid violating the
public interest standard--reporters, journalists, editors--how does one
report in the public interest under this FCC? Do you plan to issue
clear guidelines to specifically define what actions align or violate
the public interest standard?
Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
numerous occasions.
Question 6. The FCC has an open proceeding on SIP Interconnection.
IP interconnection is a critical component in modernizing our
telecommunications networks and realizing some of the innovations that
can improve everything from public safety to combatting robo- and spam
calls from fraudsters who prey on vulnerable Americans. As the FCC
considers this proceeding, will you commit to addressing some of the
causes of continued delays by carriers who have resisted this
modernization?
Answer. Yes.
Question 7. Will you consider incorporating policies to maintain
competition in rural areas, prevent anticompetitive conduct even while
the proceeding is pending, and setting reasonable protections for IP to
IP interconnection to maximize the benefits to consumers?
Answer. The FCC is examining all of the relevant issues.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Hon. Brendan Carr
FCC Independence
(1) On the morning of December 17, 2025, I printed out and quoted
the Federal Communication Commission's page ``About the FCC'' which
stated that the Federal Communications Commission is ``[a]n independent
U.S. government agency overseen by Congress.'' As of the afternoon on
December 17, 2025 the same webpage states the Commission is a ``U.S.
government agency overseen by Congress'' removing the word
``independent'' after you stated at the hearing that, ``the FCC is not
formally an independent agency.''
When was the decision made to change the FCC's website?
Answer. The FCC's website is almost constantly changing.
Who directed FCC staff to change the website while you were
testifying? Was the decision made at your direction during the
hearing? If not, who made that determination?
Answer. As I noted above, the FCC's website is almost constantly
changing and getting updated.
How many individual web pages and/or documents did the FCC
change to remove the word ``independent'' before, during, and
after the December 17, 2025 hearing?
Answer. See answer above.
Please provide an archival screenshot of the page(s) before
and after the change(s).
Answer. The FCC's website is publicly available for review and
viewing.
How many staff members and staff hours were used to change
the website page(s)?
Answer. See answers above.
(1) Please provide a list with citations and hyperlinks to all
testimony, statements, speeches, opinion pieces, and law review
articles that you authored or co-authored that state, mention, or in
any way describe the Federal Communications Commission as an
independent agency.
Answer. Please see this page for links to my posted statements, op-
eds, speeches, and related materials: https://www.fcc.gov/about/
leadership/brendan-carr
National Ownership Cap
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 Congress set the
national audience reach cap to 39 percent. Congress set this limit, not
the Federal Communications Commission, yet recently you sought comment
on whether to modify the national ownership cap. In November, President
Trump posted on Truth Social and said he ``would not be happy'' if the
FCC lifted the national ownership cap to ``allow the Radical Left
Networks to `enlarge' ''. Please explain why the FCC is seeking comment
on modifying the national ownership cap. Does the FCC or Congress have
the power to raise the national ownership cap?
Answer. The FCC's proceeding has sought comment on a range of
different issues. The FCC has not reached a final decision.
Broadcast Licenses
President Trump has called upon the FCC to revoke licenses of ABC
(Disney) and NBC for news reporting he deems unacceptable. In 2021--you
said, ``a newsroom's decision about what stories to cover and how to
frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official.'' Can
you explain what statutory authority the FCC has to revoke licenses
based on disagreement with editorial choices?
Answer. The FCC has those authorities that have been delegated to
it by Congress.
In January 2025, the FCC dismissed complaints against CBS, ABC, and
FOX stations. As Chairman, you unilaterally reopened the complaints
against CBS and ABC but left the FOX complaint closed, even though the
FOX matter involved proven falsehoods about the 2020 election. What
objective criteria justified reopening only the complaints involving
coverage unfavorable to President Trump?
Answer. Please see the letter available at this link for detailed
information that responds to your question and sets the record
straight: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-410581A2.pdf
Public Interest Standard
On ``The FCC and Speech'' page of the FCC's website it states:
``The limitations on the FCC's power to restrict or ban speech begin
with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which decrees that
the Federal government `shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press.' Accordingly, Congress through Section 326
of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 326, explicitly declared that
nothing in the statute `shall be understood or construed to give the
Commission the power of censorship over the [broadcast] communications
or signals transmitted by any [broadcast] station, and no regulation or
condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall
interfere with the right of free speech by means of [over-the-air]
broadcast communication.' Pursuant to these legal mandates, the FCC has
long held that `the public interest is best served by permitting free
expression of views.' ''
You have frequently cited the public interest standard as the law
you are enforcing, but never fully defined what it means. Please state
how you define ``the public interest standard.''
Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
numerous occasions.
U.S. Cyber Trust Mark
In March 2024, the FCC adopted rules establishing the framework for
the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark program. On June 13, 2025, UL Solutions
submitted recommendations on Technical Standards and Testing
Procedures, Label Design, and Post-Market Surveillance for the U.S.
Cyber Trust Mark. What is the current implementation status of the U.S.
Cyber Trust Mark? Please provide an updated timeline for implementation
detailing the next steps.
Answer. On December 19, UL Solutions filed a Notice of Withdrawal
as Lead Administrator for the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark Program. In early
January, the FCC opened an application window so parties interested in
being the new administrator can apply.
Broadband Labels
The FCC recently adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
during the October 2025 Open Meeting that would seek to roll back key
requirements for the broadband labels. In that FNPRM you sought comment
on a proposal to eliminate the requirement that providers display the
label in the languages in which they market their services.
(f) Do consumers benefit from seeing the full price they will pay
at the end of the month, with no hidden fees?
Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.
(f) Will you commit to keeping the rules that require broadband
providers to publish the broadband label in the languages in which they
market their services?
Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.
(f) How is the FCC monitoring providers compliance with the current
broadband label rules? Please provide details and how many staff hours
have been used to monitor compliance.
Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.
(f) Did the FCC do any studies of the broadband labels prior to its
most recent proposals to modify or remove key price transparency
requirements from the labels?
Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.
(f) How many consumer complaints has the FCC received regarding the
broadband labels since the labels went into effect in 2024? Are the
consumers complaining that broadband labels are hard to find? Are
providers hiding the labels behind icons and/or links?
Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.
(f) Please summarize all consumer complaints received to date on
the broadband labels, organize them into categories, and provide
samples of each.
Answer. There is an open data platform for consumer complaints:
https://open
data.fcc.gov/Consumer/CGB-Consumer-Complaints-Data/3xyp-aqkj/about_data
Cybersecurity
In January 2025, the Commission adopted a Declaratory Ruling that
affirmatively required telecommunications carriers to secure their
networks from unlawful access or interception of communications. The
FCC also proposed rules to require covered communications service
providers to submit an annual certification attesting that they have
created, updated, and implemented cybersecurity and supply chain risk
management plans. You have since reversed that ruling and withdrawn the
proposed rules.
(3) What are the Commission's plans to ensure that our networks
remain secure from foreign threats?
Answer. The FCC is taking action on several fronts to protect our
networks from foreign threats.
(3) Is it possible to win the AI race against China if providers
are constantly leaking our IP to them through hacks in our telecom
networks?
Answer. The FCC is taking action on several fronts to protect our
networks from foreign threats.
(3) Does the Commission need additional authority to ensure the
security of our communications networks?
Answer. I want to thank you again for your leadership on
legislation like the FACT Act. Legislation like that includes forward-
thinking ideas that can promote the security of our networks.
Public Safety
(3) Emergency alerts are critical tools for protecting the public
during disasters, but their effectiveness depends on reaching the right
people at the right time, with clear, actionable information. Last
month, the FCC concluded the comment period on a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to comprehensively review the alerting framework and
expressed an intent to modernize alerting systems from the ground up.
Do you believe the FCC has sufficient authority under current law to
adopt and implement the reforms it has proposed?
Answer. I agree with you on the value and importance of emergency
alerting. As the FCC continues to review the record in this proceeding,
I will be mindful of areas where additional legislation would be
helpful.
(3) When an outage affects the public's ability to reach 9-1-1,
emergency communications centers need timely, actionable information
about the nature, scope, and location of the outage. Yet 9-1-1
professionals often lack the detailed information necessary to respond
effectively. This is why I supported the Enhancing First Response Act,
which unanimously passed the Senate in September and included a
provision directing the FCC to review the current outage notifications
rules. In 2022, the Commission directed the Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau to collect information on 9-1-1 outages, including the
volume of 9-1-1 outages that go unreported and possible alternative
outage reporting thresholds.
(b) What is the status of the Bureau's efforts to collect this
information, and will the FCC be putting forth any public analysis or
recommendations based on the information collected?
Answer. The Bureau is continuing to consider this issue, and the
agency has issued detailed reports on major 911 outages, including
here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-issues-report-nationwide-att-
mobility-outage
(b) How will you ensure that 9-1-1 call centers receive useful
information about the status of 9-1-1 outages, and what measures will
the FCC take to prioritize these needed reforms?
Answer. The FCC is consistently working to ensure that 911 call
centers have the actionable information they need.
(3) At the beginning of the year, the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials International, the National Emergency Number
Association, and the National Association of State 9-1-1 Administrators
jointly submitted a proposal outlining ways to improve outage
notifications to 9-1-1 centers by incorporating visual representations
of the outages and real-time information from service providers. They
also requested additional rule changes to strengthen the outage
notification framework. Can you provide an update on the status of the
FCC's consideration of this proposal and the related rulemaking
requests.
Answer. The FCC is continuing to review a range of ideas for
improving outage notifications.
Multilingual Wireless Emergency Alerts
In a recent Federal Register publication, the Federal
Communications Commission set the compliance date for multilingual
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) as June 12, 2028. However, that same
Federal Register publication states that ``47 CFR 10.480 (amendatory
instruction 2) and 47 CFR 10.500(e) (amendatory instruction 3) are
delayed indefinitely.'' Please explain why these rules are ``delayed
indefinitely'' and what steps the FCC will take to secure a compliance
deadline for those rules.
Answer. The compliance date for the multilingual WEA template
requirement is June 12, 2028. The rules that are ``pending
indefinitely'' are minor rule changes adopted in the January 2025
order, but because of the long lead time to compliance in 2028, the
pending rules should be approved in the normal course well before
compliance is required.
Universal Service Fund
On December 17, 2025, I sent a letter with Senator Fischer and
Representatives Matsui and Hudson requesting a briefing from your staff
to help inform our bipartisan, bicameral Universal Service Fund Working
Group. I look forward to that briefing taking place no later than
January 30, 2026. Ahead of that briefing, please provide a list of any
current or future rulemakings/reforms to the USF programs under
consideration by the Commission.
Answer. The FCC is looking forward to this briefing.
Tribal Connectivity
The Affordable Connectivity Program delivered tremendous benefits
to tribal members in my state and across the country during the
pandemic, increasing access to telehealth, education, and other
opportunities. Many tribal households cannot afford two telecom
subscriptions and their only connection to the Internet is through a
mobile device. So, even if BEAD investments eventually get improved
broadband out to these remote lands, affordability remains a tremendous
challenge. And it is not just in my state of New Mexico. There are
remote tribal lands with tremendous demographic challenges in Arizona,
Washington, Montana, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, and others as
well. Should the FCC invest its universal service support funding to
support Tribal areas?
Answer. Yes.
Independent Programmers
As consolidation continues across Big Tech, the telecommunications
and entertainment industries, these large players gain even stronger
leverage to negotiate with smaller and independent players. Nowhere is
this more apparent than in the Pay TV market, where carriage in both
the linear and streaming sectors continues to be difficult to negotiate
for the smaller, independent programmers that are often more diverse in
content and ownership. Would you consider taking a new look at the
market and current negotiating practices to explore if there is a
viable approach to address this issue?
Answer. One step the FCC has recently taken on this front is
opening a proceeding that asks about the relationship between licensed
local broadcasters and national programmers.
vMVPDs
Last Congress, I led a letter, joined by 19 other senators
requesting that the FCC examine the growth of streaming and the impact
on local stations, given that these stations do not control pricing of
the payments paid by the streaming services for carrying their
stations. I remain concerned about this issue. Can the FCC examine the
video marketplace and establish policies that address this vMVPD issue
to ensure the viability of local broadcast stations?
Answer. As noted above, the FCC recently asked for comment on the
dynamics that are relevant to the relationship between licensed local
broadcasters and the national programmers.
Robocalls
(1) We continue to see large volumes of robocalls and fraudulent
activity originating from outside the United States. Many of these
calls use U.S. communications networks and SIM farms to reach American
consumers.
(b) What steps is the FCC taking to prevent foreign-originated
fraud and scams from reaching U.S. consumers?
Answer. The FCC has proposed and is pursuing a number of actions
that would focus specifically on the problem of foreign-originated
illegal robocalls.
(b) Are there specific limitations that prevent the FCC from doing
more in this area? If so, can the FCC explain these constraints?
Answer. The FCC is continuing to review the record regarding these
proposals and will examine whether additional legislation would aid in
the agency's efforts.
(1) The Commission recently removed a large number of voice service
providers from the Robocall Mitigation Database.
(b) Since this purge, has the FCC observed a measurable decrease in
fraudulent robocalls targeting American consumers? If so, can you
quantify the results?
Answer. The FCC is taking a number of actions that aim to reduce
the number of illegal robocalls that Americans would otherwise have
faced.
(b) If not, what further enforcement actions does the FCC plan to
take to achieve meaningful results for American consumers?
Answer. The FCC is pursuing a number of additional actions aimed at
cracking down on illegal robocalls.
(1) Some international gateway providers continue to transmit high
volumes of illegal foreign-originated traffic onto U.S. networks, often
with inadequate know your customer (KYC) practices.
(b) What steps is the FCC taking to identify providers that
repeatedly allow this type of traffic into the US, and what enforcement
measures are being used to hold these providers accountable?
Answer. The FCC should continue to enhance and strengthen its KYC
regulations.
(b) What limitations prevent the FCC from imposing foreign
ownership limits on, or even prohibiting foreign ownership of,
international gateway providers?
Answer. The FCC is looking at a number of ideas for cracking down
on illegal robocalls from abroad.
(1) All-IP networks enable more effective use of tools like STIR/
SHAKEN and caller ID authentication, both of which are critical in
identifying and blocking foreign-originated fraud and scams. What
additional actions can the FCC take to accelerate the transition to
all-IP networks and ensure these protections are implemented quickly
and at scale across all providers?
Answer. The FCC is pursuing a number of steps to accelerate the
transition to all IP networks, including through our actions on copper
retirement.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
Hon. Brendan Carr
Low-Power Television (LPTV)
5G innovation continues to unfold as expansive uses of 5G come to
market. These solutions provide enhanced programming, datacasting, and
connectivity for those who are often left out of cutting-edge
technologies. One of these solutions is 5G LPTV Broadcast. Colorado is
home to 38 LPTV stations, all of which represent opportunities to bring
enhanced programming and new 5G connectivity options directly to
Coloradans through new broadcast technologies. Allowing LPTV stations
to pursue this technological step requires only permission from the
FCC, with no mandates or impacts on other technologies.
Question 1. How is the FCC ensuring that its regulatory processes
are not delaying or discouraging innovative uses of spectrum, including
5G LPTV broadcast technologies that could improve spectrum efficiency?
Answer. The FCC has been working to empower local broadcasters to
find innovative uses of their spectrum.
Privacy
As cyberattacks and data breach threats continue to evolve, we have
seen repeated breaches of communications providers. With each breach,
sensitive consumer proprietary network information (CPNI) could be
exposed. These instances shine a spotlight over how the FCC exercises
strong enforcement over data security and privacy rules versus securing
quick settlements and voluntary commitments through consent decrees.
Question 2. Why has the FCC relied on consent decrees in response
to data-privacy violations--including those involving geolocation
data--instead of imposing stronger penalties to deter repeat offenses?
Answer. The FCC has issued CPNI penalties and has a range of
enforcement actions it can take.
Question 3. What incentives is the FCC creating to better promote
data security, minimize unauthorized breaches, and better protect CPNI?
Answer. The FCC has specific regulations that govern CPNI.
Artificial Intelligence
During your testimony, we discussed the President's recent
Executive Order entitled, ``Ensuring A National Policy Framework for
Artificial Intelligence'' (Executive Order on AI). We specifically
discussed the Executive Order's directive in Section 6 requiring the
FCC to ``initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal
reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts
conflicting State laws.'' Additionally, Section 5(b) requires
``Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall assess their
discretionary grant programs in consultation with the Special Advisor
for AI and Crypto and determine whether agencies may condition such
grants on States either not enacting an AI law that conflicts with the
policy of this order.''
Question 4. Does the FCC have explicit statutory authorization to
adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard that specifically
applies to AI models, in accordance with the Executive Order on AI? If
yes, provide statutory justification.
Answer. The FCC will be initiating a proceeding to explore the
issues raised by the Executive Order.
Question 5. During your testimony, you specifically stated the FCC
is not an independent agency. As such, would the requirements for
Executive Departments and Agencies within Section 5(b) of the Executive
Order on AI apply to the FCC? Yes or no?
Answer. I stated in the hearing that the FCC is not an independent
agency, formally speaking.
Question 6. Will the FCC consider withholding any amounts from the
Universal Service Fund (USF) from eligible recipients in states with AI
laws implicated by Section 5(b) of the Executive Order on AI? Yes or
no? Please explain.
Answer. The FCC has no relevant withholdings under consideration.
Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF)
The FCC has a coordination role with the Department of Commerce
when Federal spectrum bands are transitioned to be available for
commercial users. The Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) only allows a
Federal department or agency to recover costs related to modifying
systems using spectrum up to a ``comparable capability.'' The FCC plays
a contributing role in overseeing the SRF as a member of the Technical
Panel, along with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA).
Question 7. If the SRF were amended by Congress so Federal agencies
were able to recover additional relocation costs beyond a ``comparable
capability'' in order to best fulfil their Federal mission, would the
FCC continue to have successful commercial auctions of spectrum?
Answer. There are a lot of considerations that go into whether a
particular FCC auction will be successful.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. Will you commit to working with Congress on legislative
reforms to the Universal Service fund and ensure this critical program
continues?
Answer. Yes.
Question 2. What steps have the FCC already taken or can take to
address waste, fraud, and abuse and improve efficiency across Universal
Service Fund programs?
Answer. In my time at the FCC, the agency has taken action at both
the full Commission level and on delegated authority to ensure
universal service support only is provided in accordance with program
rules and requirements. These Commission actions include: coordination
with other Federal agencies to eliminate duplicative spending, denying
unlawful support requests, and requiring reimbursements for
overpayments.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. The FCC collects data from broadband providers and from
state, local, and Tribal governments, as well as through a newly
established crowdsourcing process, to ensure more accurate and reliable
broadband mapping. The FCC uses these maps when awarding funds, and
other agencies are encouraged to use them for their programs.
Commissioner Trusty, accurate mapping is essential to ensuring
broadband funds are allocated where they are needed most. I know you
are committed to ensuring the FCC's Broadband Data Maps reflect
consumers' real-world experiences. Significant progress has been made
in improving both accuracy and accountability for Federal investments.
What metrics should the Commission, working with this Committee,
prioritize to continue refining and approving these maps?
Answer. One important metric is the stability in the broadband
serviceable locations fabric. The ultimate goal should be for that
fabric to require updates only to reflect new on-the-ground
developments like new construction, which is consistent with the low
level of changes currently being seen across different iterations of
the fabric--approximately 1 percent. We've made significant progress on
this issue and we need to ensure we maintain that consistency.
We also need to continue improving the broadband availability
challenge process. Based on what we've been hearing from stakeholders,
the Commission, working with this Committee, should explore ways to
streamline the challenge process and make it less costly and more
efficient to test locations, ensuring timely updates to the maps to
reflect the realities of where service is provided.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. PRC domestic law and cybersecurity infrastructure opens
all devices made in the PRC or by PRC companies to the risks of the
CCP's military civil fusion program, cybersecurity law, and
counterespionage law, which require certain data be transferred to the
government and infrastructure to be available to the government in
times of conflict, regardless of whether it is located in the Mainland
or abroad. In your view, does this domestic regulation mean that all
PRC connected devices or PRC devices that transmit data or connect to a
broader telecommunications infrastructure is at risk of CCP meddling?
Answer. This is consistent with what other agencies have found.
Equipment and services closely tied to the foreign adversaries, like
China, and can allow the CCP to surveil Americans, disrupt
communications networks, and otherwise threaten U.S. national security.
The Commission continues to make updates to the Covered List of
equipment and services that have been determined to pose unacceptable
risks to the national security of the United States and its citizens.
Question 2. The FCC's Covered List includes large PRC
telecommunications companies like Huawei and ZTE. Given the explosion
of PRC-made connected home devices that plug into this
telecommunications infrastructure, should this list expand to include
connected consumer products like routers, smart TVs, and home security
systems?
Answer. The Commission is concerned about the potential risks from
technological devices linked to foreign adversaries, but we would defer
to national security experts in Congress or throughout the Executive
Branch to make specific determinations as to risks from certain
equipment or services.
Question 3. PRC manufacturers often produce devices sold under
different brand names, making it hard to identify true origin. Or, PRC
manufacturers engage in ``white labeling''--or manufacturing a product
that another company then rebrands and sells under a non-PRC name. How
does the FCC handle equipment authorization when the actual
manufacturer is obscured?
Answer. The Commission has made clear that re-branding or ``white
labeling'' of any covered equipment does not change the status of
whether the equipment is covered equipment. Covered equipment is still
covered equipment even if it is sold under a different brand. If the
FCC learns of white-labeling it can and will revoke equipment
authorizations and take enforcement actions against those entities
involved.
Question 4. When looking at the supply chain around these devices
and the need for the actual physical OLED and LCD displays and
components that go into them, there are concerns over the potentially
lower quality of PRC produced components getting into devices under
different brand names. Companies like BOE and Tianma being key examples
with an outsized hold over the global display component supply chain.
What is the FCC doing to raise awareness and counteract this aspect of
the connected devices ecosystem?
Answer. I am monitoring this issue, and I am always willing to work
with public and private national security experts to develop the best
response to security concerns.
Question 5. Many of the companies across the PRC connected devices
supply chain like TP-Link, BOE, Hisense, Xiami, TIanma, or TCL, have
manufacturing facilities capable of multiple purposes beyond connected
device production. BOE in particular has potential to shift their
fabrication plants from OLED display production, to potentially
advanced semiconductor production. How is the FCC thinking through the
various other lanes of national security that these companies may
impact? How is the FCC coordinating with the rest of the U.S.
Government to tackle these concerns as well?
Answer. The Commission is always working with other government
agencies to monitor threats to the communications supply chain and
network infrastructure from foreign adversaries.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Olivia Trusty
AI. The Trump Administration won't take no for an answer on a
moratorium on state AI laws without a Federal standard. First, they
tried to put it in the reconciliation bill, and we stripped it out by a
99-1 vote. Then they tried to attach it to the NDAA. Now they're
directing agencies like the FCC to attempt to preempt state laws
through an Executive Order.
Instead of trying to preempt laws that protect against AI fraud or
theft, we need to be protecting consumers. Chairman Carr has been
skeptical of the FCC's authority over new technologies in the past. In
2024, Chairman Carr said that ``Congress does not operate like a
sieve--inadvertently spilling grants of new authorities. Congress's
delegation of authority in these types of cases can no longer be
implicit, it must be explicit.''
Question 1. Does the FCC have the authority to preempt state AI
laws under Title I of the Communications Act?
Answer. Under Executive Order 14365, the FCC has been directed to
initiate a proceeding to seek comment on whether to adopt a Federal
reporting and disclosure standard for AI models and preempt conflicting
State laws. I'm open-minded about both the Commission's authority and
the policy merits of any action regarding AI reporting and disclosure,
and I look forward to reviewing the record before making any decision.
Question 2. Is that what Congress intended when it rewrote a
portion of the Communications Act in 1996, 25 years before ChatGPT was
released?
Answer. I'm open-minded about both the Commission's authority and
the policy merits of any action regarding AI reporting and disclosure,
and I look forward to reviewing the record before making any decision.
Question 3. Does the FCC have the authority to adopt a Federal
reporting and disclosure standard for AI models?
Answer. I'm open-minded about both the Commission's authority and
the policy merits of any action regarding AI reporting and disclosure,
and I look forward to reviewing the record before making any decision.
Public Interest Standard. Chairman Carr has publicly identified
several kinds of reporting that he sees as not in the public interest,
yet has not explained what kind of reporting is in the public interest.
Question 1. Would you support the Commission opening a rulemaking
specifying the contours of the ``public interest'' standard for
broadcasters?
Answer. Historically, the public interest standard has been
implemented for broadcasters through a combination of requirements
specified under the Act and FCC rules and individual decisions creating
a body of precedent regarding that standard in the licensing context.
Although that approach gives considerable guidance to broadcasters, I'd
keep an open mind if the Commission wished to consider alternative
procedural approaches to construing and applying the public interest
standard in the future.
Local News. Harvard's Shorenstein Center found that broadcast
stations owned by large ownership groups produced more news at the
regional or national level rather than locally. On the other hand,
independent stations produced more news content locally. I am concerned
that further consolidation could lead to more news production outside
of the station's community and result in the closure of local
newsrooms.
Question 1. What is the FCC doing to ensure that local newsrooms
stay open?
Answer. To ensure local broadcasters can survive, the Commission is
working to modernize and update the broadcast regulatory framework to
help broadcasters better compete against Big Tech for viewers,
programming, and advertising revenues.
Universal Service. Schools and libraries serve as anchor
institutions in communities around the country--they are where students
learn, job seekers apply for employment, and veterans seek care.
Question 1. Please explain the role that E-Rate plays in ensuring
that these anchor institutions have the connectivity they need to serve
their communities.
Answer. The E-Rate program provides discounts for
telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections to
eligible schools and libraries. It helps to connect students, teachers,
and consumers to jobs, life-long learning, and information in the
global digital economy.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. In your testimony you spoke about the importance of the
USF working group instituting reforms to support rural communications
networks. What steps should Congress take to make sure the USF program
continues to help the most rural networks maintain the most secure and
up-to-date networks?
Answer. While I generally defer to the USF working group to take
the lead on modernizing universal service, our Alaska Connect Fund
program illustrates some helpful principles, including support for
ongoing expenses of operating networks in rural areas and seeking to
meet Americans' connectivity needs where they live, work, and travel.
Question 2. How is the Commission working to improve data sharing
and coordination between Federal agencies with broadband programs to
ensure that the broadband maps being used for BEAD and other Federal
funding programs are as accurate and up to date as possible?
Answer. As discussed in a GAO report last Spring (GAO-25-107207),
the FCC and other Federal agencies with broadband programs have been
improving their coordination, but there still is more that can be done.
The GAO report identified a number of recommendations, which the FCC
agreed with and is working to implement.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. What is the FCC's standard for evaluating programming
under the public interest standard and news distortion policy?
Answer. Assuming the focus is on programming broadcast by FCC
licensees, as directed by the Supreme Court, the FCC's approach to
determining the public interest is a function of the purposes of the
Communications Act, the requirements it imposes, and the statutory
context. The public interest also includes the obligation for stations
to meet the needs of their local communities and to not distort the
news under the news distortion policy.
Question 2. What conditions would trigger the FCC to investigate or
take action against the speech of comedians, satirists, or commentators
under the public interest standard or news distortion policy?
Answer. For clarity, unless the comedians, satirists, or
commentators were Commission licensees they would not be governed by
the public interest standard, including the news distortion policy.
In the case of FCC licensees that broadcast the speech identified
in the question, because the initiation of investigations generally
does not come up for a vote of the full Commission, I would direct you
generally to the standards in provisions such as section 403 of the
Communications Act and sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's
rules.
As a general matter, any Commission action against a broadcast
licensee under the public interest standard, including the news
distortion policy, would turn on the evidence of whether a violation
occurred, coupled with the burden of proof and required procedure
governing the action at issue (e.g., declaratory ruling, cease-and-
desist order, denial of a license, license revocation, financial
penalty).
Question 3. If there is evidence that FCC action, or the threat of
FCC action, towards broadcast television impacts programming decisions
on non-broadcast media through financial ties between companies, would
you consider this to be censorship?
Answer. There are a wide array of legal and colloquial definitions
of ``censorship,'' and a wide range of facts that might be relevant to
applying a particular standard, so without more it is not possible to
opine definitively.
As an FCC Commissioner, my primary focus is on implementing the
Communications Act, consistent with the First amendment, long-standing
legal doctrine, and Supreme Court precedent.
Question 4. Please describe whether the FCC would consider the
following scenarios on broadcast television as being in violation of
the public interest standard or news distortion policy. If you cannot
comment on these scenarios, please explain how programs can receive
clarity about how to abide by the FCC's public interest standard and
news distortion policy:
a. A comedian, commentator, or satirist insults the President in a
manner that is not obscene, profane, or indecent.
b. A comedian, commentator, or satirist makes offensive statements
pertaining to violence or assault.
c. An artist has a performance that could be considered an insult to
the President's policies or political positions.
d. A politician states that a murder victim ``deserved'' their death
because of their hatred for said politician.
Answer. Given the range of obligations imposed on broadcast
licensees, without more context and information it is not possible to
definitively opine on whether a broadcaster's decision to broadcast
such programming would violate obligations imposed on broadcast
licensees under the Act or FCC rules or precedent.
If a broadcaster wants guidance about how to comply with its public
interest obligations, including with respect to the news distortion
policy, it can look to the obligations imposed under the Act and FCC
rules and precedent. It also is free to seek guidance or an
interpretation from the Commission regarding a specific factual
scenario.
FCC Independence
Question 5. If the President determines that broadcast programming
content does not abide by the public interest standard or the news
distortion policy, will you defer to the President's opinion? What if
the President's opinion departs from FCC's precedent of interpretation?
Answer. As a FCC Commissioner, my job is to vote on matters that
come before the Commission based on facts in the record, FCC precedent,
and the law. I remain committed to that.
Tribal Spectrum Windows
Question 6. Will the FCC commit to continuing to hold Tribal
priority windows in future spectrum auctions?
Answer. I can commit to reviewing the record in future proceedings
to determine if a Tribal priority window is in the public interest.
Question 7. Please provide 1) the number of locations associated
with individual Tribal areas; and 2) an aggregated rollup of the number
of Tribal locations and Tribal broadband availability nationwide within
the National Broadband Map, or to incorporate this information into a
separate Tribal National Broadband Map that includes data on Tribal
areas only?
Answer. This request is best directed to FCC Chairman Carr.
Question 8. Will you direct ONAP to provide educational outreach
and technical assistance to Tribes to assist them with submitting
challenges to the National Broadband Map, especially for those Tribes
that have not submitted challenges?
Answer. I support ONAP's continued efforts, consistent with its
role and available resources, and in collaboration with the Broadband
Data Task Force, to provide information and technical assistance to
Tribes regarding the National Broadband Map and the challenge process,
as part of the FCC's broader goal of ensuring that all Americans,
including Tribal communities, are accurately reflected and served.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. Earlier this year, the FCC requested comments on the
Bureau of Industry and Security's rule related to connected vehicles
and connected vehicle technologies, specifically whether and how to add
certain technologies to the FCC's covered entities list. I strongly
support the Bureau of Industry and Security's rule and believe we must
keep Chinese connected and autonomous vehicles and vehicle components
from entering our market. I believe the FCC must work closely with the
automotive supply chain to ensure any action it takes in this space
does not conflict with the BIS rule and achieves our goals of
protecting our national and economic security.
Will you commit to working with my office and the automotive supply
chain industry as you decide what actions to take on this issue?
Answer. Yes.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. During the hearing, I referenced the concerning trend
of the FCC approving mergers immediately after enacting policies
favored by the Trump administration. Specifically, I highlighted the
timing of the Paramount Global and Skydance Media merger coming only
after Paramount agreed to pay the President $16 million to settle a
frivolous lawsuit and Paramount agreed to change its news editorial
policies, and the approval of AT&T's purchase of U.S. Cellular's
wireless license just one day after AT&T terminated their diversity,
equity, and inclusion policy. Do you feel the perception that companies
need to make political concessions to the Trump administration
undermines the independent of the FCC?
Answer. My decision-making approach always involves applying the
law and FCC policy to the facts before me, regardless of the parties
involved. In the items I vote on, including the Paramount-Skydance
Merger Order, the full justification for my decision is set forth in
the item.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. What can Congress do to ensure that the U.S. has a
strong and unified strategy in international communications policy,
especially as we go into the next World Radio Conference?
Answer. In advance of WRC-27, Congress can work to promote
alignment among public and private sector interests; encourage pre-WRC
coordination with international allies; and ensure the U.S. delegation
to the WRC-27 has the resources to support technical and diplomatic
representation.
Question 2. How does inconsistent spectrum policy damage our
ability to promote U.S. leadership globally?
Answer. A consistent spectrum policy is important for promoting
U.S. investment and innovation in allocated bands, and due to the
spectrum provisions in the ``Working Families Tax Cuts Act'' and the
Presidential Memoranda on ``Winning the 6G Race'', we're well
positioned to promote U.S. leadership in spectrum policy.
Question 3. How should we promote U.S. leadership on spectrum
policy globally? What steps should we take to promote American
innovation and build policy around trusted providers?
Answer. To promote U.S. leadership, American innovation, and
network integrity, the focus should be on the following: ensuring a
predictable domestic spectrum policy by maintaining FCC auction
authority and a long-term spectrum pipeline; leading in international
standard-setting bodies; maintaining strong interagency coordination;
and developing a regulatory environment that promotes investments in AI
technologies to increase spectrum efficiency and network security.
Question 4. Earlier this month, I launched the bipartisan Senate
Wi-Fi Caucus with my colleague, Senator Ricketts. Wi-Fi is a uniquely
American innovation, allowing spectrum sharing in real time and
enabling new smarter tech like IoT. The U.S. has long been a leader in
innovative spectrum uses. How can we build trust and enable more
efficient uses of spectrum, without compromising critical defense uses?
Answer. Artificial intelligence and capabilities, such as
Integrated Sensing and Communications, or ISAC, can help increase
spectrum efficiency without compromising Federal spectrum users.
Question 5. What do you see as the future of U.S. spectrum
innovation? How can we build on the successes of CBRS and other
spectrum innovations?
Answer. The U.S. has long been a leader in innovative uses of
spectrum and CBRS is a model of that. Putting spectrum to its highest
and best use and finding opportunities to increase the utility of
unlicensed spectrum, by accommodating more unlicensed devices, can
promote more spectrum innovation.
Question 6. Having secure and resilient communication networks is
critical to our national security. However, I am concerned that recent
actions taken by the FCC could place these critical systems at risk
without proper oversight. As Ranking Member on the SASC Cybersecurity
Subcommittee, I understand the need to be able to react quickly and
with increased flexibility to cyber threats from our adversaries. How
can the FCC balance the need for flexibility while ensuring companies
are improving their cybersecurity posture?
Answer. The FCC can balance the need for flexibility in responding
to emerging cyber threats and ensuring companies are improving their
cybersecurity posture by engaging in public private partnerships and
education campaigns to share threat intelligence information and share
cybersecurity best practices.
Question 7. How can we make sure we take a proactive response
rather than reactive in securing our networks?
Answer. A proactive response to malicious cyber actors includes
engagement in public private partnerships, education campaigns, whole-
of-government efforts regarding deterrence, and investments in
artificial intelligence to automate threat detection and response
strategies.
Question 8. What milestones, goals, or objectives should the FCC
have in place to ensure that these providers are making timely and
meaningful cybersecurity updates to their networks?
Answer. Malicious cyber actors are sophisticated and persistent,
and constantly evolving their tactics to exploit vulnerabilities and
weaknesses. Providers should remain vigilant, agile, and adaptable in
responding to these threats, which may require routine or periodic
updates to a provider's cybersecurity practices, depending on the
provider's size, risk, and organizational posture.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 Congress
set the national audience reach cap to 39 percent. Congress set this
limit, not the Federal Communications Commission, yet recently the FCC
sought comment on whether to modify the national ownership cap. In
November, President Trump posted on Truth Social said he ``would not be
happy'' if the FCC lifted the national ownership cap to ``allow the
Radical Left Networks to `enlarge' ''. Does the FCC or Congress have
the power to raise the national ownership cap?
Answer. Congress certainly has the power to raise the national
ownership cap, and the Obama FCC concluded that the FCC also has the
authority to do so. This issue is pending in a 2017 NPRM in which the
Media Bureau recently refreshed the record, and I look forward to
reviewing the complete record in reaching any decision.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to
Olivia Trusty
Question 1. Commissioner Trusty, you recently spoke about the need
for the U.S. to keep pace with international telecommunications trends,
including cybersecurity. Commissioner Trusty, do you believe the FCC
has taken the appropriate steps to future proof the cybersecurity of
everyday Americans in an increasingly complex telecommunications
ecosystem?
Answer. The FCC has taken great strides to protect our
telecommunications ecosystem from malicious cyber threat actors. This
includes efforts to enhance the supply chain integrity of
telecommunications components, coordinate with national security
agencies on emerging threats, and information sharing with
international allies on network security matters.
Question 2. Is there anything specific you think the FCC must
implement to protect consumers' cybersecurity in this space?
Answer. In the past year, the FCC has adopted a number of
proceedings to help protect consumers' cybersecurity by improving the
integrity of the communications supply chain integrity, boosting
coordination with national security agencies and the private sector,
and enhancing device and network security.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Anna M. Gomez
Question 1. PRC domestic law and cybersecurity infrastructure opens
all devices made in the PRC or by PRC companies to the risks of the
CCP's military civil fusion program, cybersecurity law, and
counterespionage law, which require certain data be transferred to the
government and infrastructure to be available to the government in
times of conflict, regardless of whether it is located in the Mainland
or abroad. In your view, does this domestic regulation mean that all
PRC connected devices or PRC devices that transmit data or connect to a
broader telecommunications infrastructure is at risk of CCP meddling?
Answer. The issues you cite highlight the risk that Americans' data
and access could be compelled from PRC-based companies, including for
products sold abroad. While not every device may present the same level
of threat, there is always the potential for coercion or interference
when a device transmits data, receives updates, or connects into
broader communications infrastructure. That is why we should approach
PRC-connected devices with heightened scrutiny and a risk-based
posture.
The FCC can help reduce risk by strengthening the integrity of the
equipment authorization ecosystem and by giving consumers clearer
information about baseline cybersecurity. The Commission's bipartisan
``bad labs'' action is an example of closing a real vulnerability in
the authorization process by preventing untrustworthy actors from
exerting control over testing and certification. The Cyber Trust Mark
is another practical tool designed to promote baseline cybersecurity in
wireless connected products and to help consumers make informed
choices. That effort, however, has stalled, and returning to and
advancing that work would provide consumers with clearer information
while encouraging stronger cybersecurity practices across the market.
Question 2. The FCC's Covered List includes large PRC
telecommunications companies like Huawei and ZTE. Given the explosion
of PRC-made connected home devices that plug into this
telecommunications infrastructure, should this list expand to include
connected consumer products like routers, smart TVs, and home security
systems?
Answer. It is worthwhile to consider whether and how the
Commission's existing tools, including the Covered List, can keep pace
with the rapid growth of connected consumer products that plug into
communications networks and handle sensitive personal data. Any such
consideration should be grounded in clear statutory authority, a strong
evidentiary record, and an understanding of how these products interact
with networks and pose security risks.
At the same time, not every concern is best addressed through this
approach. The Cyber Trust Mark was intended to complement other
national security tools by promoting baseline cybersecurity and
informed consumer choice, but its delayed implementation by this
current FCC has postponed those benefits, and the Commission should
work to get that program back on track.
Question 3. PRC manufacturers often produce devices sold under
different brand names, making it hard to identify true origin. Or, PRC
manufacturers engage in ``white labeling''--or manufacturing a product
that another company then rebrands and sells under a non-PRC name. How
does the FCC handle equipment authorization when the actual
manufacturer is obscured?
Answer. The Commission relies on accurate certifications, FCC
recognized testing and certification bodies, and clear identification
of the responsible party to ensure compliance with its rules. When the
actual manufacturer is obscured, that undermines transparency and
raises legitimate concerns about supply chain risk. Strengthening
oversight of testing and certification, alongside renewed efforts to
provide consumers with clearer security information through initiatives
like the Cyber Trust Mark, would help address these challenges in a
practical and scalable way.
Question 4. When looking at the supply chain around these devices
and the need for the actual physical OLED and LCD displays and
components that go into them, there are concerns over the potentially
lower quality of PRC produced components getting into devices under
different brand names. Companies like BOE and Tianma being key examples
with an outsized hold over the global display component supply chain.
What is the FCC doing to raise awareness and counteract this aspect of
the connected devices ecosystem?
Answer. Concerns about the quality and reliability of components
used in connected devices, including displays and other key inputs, are
part of a broader supply chain challenge with implications for security
and consumer trust. While the FCC does not regulate component
manufacturing directly, it can play a role by promoting greater
transparency and cybersecurity assurance at the device level. The Cyber
Trust Mark was designed to do just that by signaling that a product
meets baseline security standards, but delays in launching the program
and the recent withdrawal by its lead administrator after months of
unexplained scrutiny by this FCC have slowed its impact. Moving forward
with this initiative would help raise awareness and encourage better
practices across the connected device ecosystem.
Question 5. Many of the companies across the PRC connected devices
supply chain like TP-Link, BOE, Hisense, Xiami, TIanma, or TCL, have
manufacturing facilities capable of multiple purposes beyond connected
device production. BOE in particular has potential to shift their
fabrication plants from OLED display production, to potentially
advanced semiconductor production. How is the FCC thinking through the
various other lanes of national security that these companies may
impact? How is the FCC coordinating with the rest of the U.S.
Government to tackle these concerns as well?
Answer. The FCC has long coordinated with other Federal agencies on
national security matters, and that coordination is essential to
addressing risks related to supply chains, emerging technologies, and
foreign influence. The FCC will continue to work closely with
interagency partners on the broader set of national security challenges
these technologies present.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Anna M. Gomez
AI. The Trump Administration won't take no for an answer on a
moratorium on state AI laws without a Federal standard. First, they
tried to put it in the reconciliation bill, and we stripped it out by a
99-1 vote. Then they tried to attach it to the NDAA. Now they're
directing agencies like the FCC to attempt to preempt state laws
through an Executive Order.
Instead of trying to preempt laws that protect against AI fraud or
theft, we need to be protecting consumers. Chairman Carr has been
skeptical of the FCC's authority over new technologies in the past. In
2024, Chairman Carr said that ``Congress does not operate like a
sieve--inadvertently spilling grants of new authorities. Congress's
delegation of authority in these types of cases can no longer be
implicit, it must be explicit.''
Question 1. Does the FCC have the authority to preempt state AI
laws under Title I of the Communications Act?
Answer. The Communications Act does not provide the Commission with
express authority to preempt state laws governing artificial
intelligence. Title I does not contain a general preemption provision,
and the Commission's ancillary authority is limited to actions that are
reasonably tied to explicit statutory mandates.
Given those constraints, I am skeptical that the FCC has the
authority to broadly preempt state AI laws under Title I. The
Commission is seeking comment on this issue, and I look forward to
reviewing that record. But any assertion of preemption authority would
require a clear and compelling statutory basis, which does not appear
to exist today.
Question 2. Is that what Congress intended when it rewrote a
portion of the Communications Act in 1996, 25 years before ChatGPT was
released?
Answer. When Congress updated the Communications Act in 1996, it
did not contemplate artificial intelligence as it exists today. The
statute does not reference AI, machine learning, or algorithmic
decision-making, and there is no indication that Congress intended to
grant the FCC authority to broadly preempt state laws governing AI
technologies.
Absent clear congressional direction, the Commission should be
cautious about asserting nationwide preemption in this area. Decisions
about displacing state AI laws are more appropriately made by Congress.
Question 3. Does the FCC have the authority to adopt a Federal
reporting and disclosure standard for AI models?
Answer. The FCC has authority to act on Federal reporting and
disclosure of artificial intelligence within certain narrow areas, just
as it has exercised its authority in the past under the Communications
Act, as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, to propose
increased transparency through disclosure requirements related to
political advertisements on television and radio. In contrast, adopting
a broad Federal approach that would preempt state AI laws raises
serious legal concerns and is a decision best left for Congress.
Local News. Harvard's Shorenstein Center found that broadcast
stations owned by large ownership groups produced more news at the
regional or national level rather than locally. On the other hand,
independent stations produced more news content locally. I am concerned
that further consolidation could lead to more news production outside
of the station's community and result in the closure of local
newsrooms.
Question 1. What is the FCC doing to ensure that local newsrooms
stay open?
Answer. Large corporate parents of local broadcast stations are
advocating that the FCC raise or waive the Congressionally established
nationwide audience reach cap (a single ownership group can reach no
more that 39 percent of the households in the United States) and the
local ownership cap (a single ownership group can own no more than 2
broadcast stations in a single DMA) to facilitate further consolidation
based on the misconceptions that the relevant market is the entire
media ecosystem and that consolidation will allow economies of scale to
support more local news.
The assertion that the relevant market is the entire media
ecosystem because local broadcasters compete with national digital
media platforms for advertisers and audience share is an
oversimplification that ignores the complexity of the broadcast
ecosystem. The regulatory structure underlying broadcasting is designed
to, on the one hand, ensure a diversity of viewpoints are represented
by precluding one entity from dominating the voices available in a
community and, on the other hand, support a balance of negotiating
power between large broadcasting networks that produce news and
entertainment content targeting a national audience and locally
licensed broadcasting stations that produce news and entertainment
content that is targeted locally.
The structure is further complicated by the impact of consolidation
on broadcasters' negotiations with Multichannel Video Programming
Distributers (MVPDs) for retransmission consent payments for the
distribution of the broadcasters' content. These payments are an
additional important source of support for free over the air
programming. The MVPD community asserts that allowing consolidation
into larger broadcast ownership groups will result in increased
retransmission consent fees that will be paid by consumers.
These arguments further ignore the longstanding policy goals of the
Commission's media ownership rules that require broadcasters to operate
in the public interest. The public interest for local broadcasters has
long been defined as facilitating localism, diversity of viewpoints and
competition.
Localism means providing programming that serves the
interests of the station's community of license;
Diversity of viewpoints means that different broadcast
station owners or ownership groups bring such owners'
individual priorities in what programming to deliver to their
communities of license. It is focused on the absence of common
ownership, not any particular viewpoint.
Competition means that having a diversity of viewpoints
competing to serve local communities will result in programming
that serves the interests of the local community because the
broadcasters need to compete for their audience.
The economies of scale broadcasters intend to use to save money
include, among many things, the following:
Using single studios for broadcast for multiple stations;
Sharing equipment;
Sharing reporters across stations;
Sharing management personnel across stations; and
Stations reporting to executives that are responsible for
stations across geographically and demographically varied
communities of license. Such management decisions are driven by
profitably serving the corporate parent in light of all their
stations.
There are no simple answers for how to balance the interests of the
public in the continued provision of locally generated news with the
challenges of changes to the media ecosystem. The Commission should be
examining these issues in their full complexity and working with
Congress to target changes to further longstanding public interest
goals.
Broadband Affordability and Universal Service. A broadband
connection is essential for life today. But for millions of Americans,
the cost of connectivity is out of reach. Just last year, the
Affordable Connectivity Program ended, leaving 23 million households
without the support they needed to get and remain online. Now, families
in every state and community are struggling to afford the connections
they need for work, school, health care, banking, and more.
Question 1. What is the FCC's role in ensuring service is
accessible and affordable?
Answer. Since I became a commissioner over two years ago, one of my
top priorities has been working to close the digital divide and
ensuring that everyone, everywhere has access to high quality,
affordable broadband--regardless of income, background, or geography.
As outlined in the Communications Act, the duty of the FCC is to
make available for all people of the United States, ``without
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio
communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.''
Access to reliable high-speed Internet is a catalyst for economic
growth and development. I see investment in broadband as an investment
in the next generation's ability to learn, in rural communities' access
to healthcare, and in working families' ability to thrive in an
increasingly digital world.
Moreover, global leadership on AI has been expressed as a clear
bipartisan priority. For us to be leaders on AI, we must ensure that
everyone, everywhere in the United States can access affordable
broadband. We cannot expect to be leaders in this space if we do not
build a strong digital workforce and equip people with the tools they
need to develop digital skills.
To achieve these goals, the FCC should take initiative in
addressing accessibility and affordability concerns for consumers.
Universal Service. With the end of programs that aimed to connect
families at home, like the ACP and Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF),
connectivity at community anchor institutions, including schools and
libraries, is more important than ever before. Libraries in particular
serve as the most welcoming place for the whole community to learn,
grow, and seek care.
Question 1. Has the end of ACP and ECF made FCC support for anchor
institutions through the E-Rate program even more important?
Answer. Certainly. Broadband is the infrastructure of opportunity.
Across the political spectrum, lawmakers have acknowledged the
existence of the digital divide--the gap between those who have access
to affordable, reliable broadband and those who do not.
For more than 25 years, the FCC's E-Rate Program has helped us
narrow the digital divide by making telecommunications and information
services more affordable for schools and libraries. It has connected
library patrons, empowered teachers, and equipped students with digital
skills.
The ACP and ECF programs previously provided broadband support to
low-income households. Since funding for these programs has lapsed,
families have had to make tough decisions like deciding whether to buy
groceries or to pay their Internet bill. In the absence of ACP and ECF,
the FCC's long-standing E-Rate program's support for anchor
institutions became all the more important.
The Commission has long held that as technology changes, E-Rate
funding needs to expand to cover new services, including those that
provide off-site connectivity. Recognizing this need, the FCC under the
last administration wisely chose to allow the use of E-Rate funding for
hotspot lending to allow students and library patrons to use broadband
at home and for Wi-Fi on school buses to allow children to complete
their homework and continue learning on their commute to and from
school.
Tragically, in September, the FCC rolled back funding for hotspots
and Wi-Fi on school buses. The decision ignored our Nation's
educational landscape today and the need to equip students with digital
skills for the future. Failing to provide this type of support to
anchor institutions will make it harder for students to learn, harder
for libraries to serve their community, and harder for us to close the
digital divide.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Anna M. Gomez
Question 1. In your testimony you said, ``Whether in broadcasting
or streaming, media consolidation should not erode the independence of
the press or diminish the voices of local communities.'' What role
should the need to preserve local journalism play in evaluating
proposed mergers under the FCC's public interest standard?
Answer. The FCC should consider the harms that will likely arise as
a consequence of a merger, including the impact on local journalism.
Large corporate parents of local broadcast stations are advocating
that the FCC raise or waive the Congressionally established nationwide
audience reach cap (a single ownership group can reach no more that 39
percent of the households in the United States) and the local ownership
cap (a single ownership group can own no more than 2 broadcast stations
in a single DMA) to facilitate further consolidation based on the
misconceptions that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem
and that consolidation will allow economies of scale to support more
local news.
The assertion that the relevant market is the entire media
ecosystem because local broadcasters compete with national digital
media platforms for advertisers and audience share is an
oversimplification that ignores the complexity of the broadcast
ecosystem. The regulatory structure underlying broadcasting is designed
to, on the one hand, ensure a diversity of viewpoints are represented
by precluding one entity from dominating the voices available in a
community and, on the other hand, support a balance of negotiating
power between large broadcasting networks that produce news and
entertainment content targeting a national audience and locally
licensed broadcasting stations that produce news and entertainment
content that is targeted locally.
The structure is further complicated by the impact of consolidation
on broadcasters' negotiations with Multichannel Video Programming
Distributers (MVPDs) for retransmission consent payments for the
distribution of the broadcasters' content. These payments are an
additional important source of support for free over the air
programming. The MVPD community asserts that allowing consolidation
into larger broadcast ownership groups will result in increased
retransmission consent fees that will be paid by consumers.
These arguments further ignore the longstanding policy goals of the
Commission's media ownership rules that require broadcasters to operate
in the public interest. The public interest for local broadcasters has
long been defined as facilitating localism, diversity of viewpoints and
competition.
Localism means providing programming that serves the
interests of the station's community of license;
Diversity of viewpoints means that different broadcast
station owners or ownership groups bring such owners'
individual priorities in what programming to deliver to their
communities of license. It is focused on the absence of common
ownership, not any particular viewpoint.
Competition means that having a diversity of viewpoints
competing to serve local communities will result in programming
that serves the interests of the local community because the
broadcasters need to compete for their audience.
The economies of scale broadcasters intend to use to save money
include, among many things, the following:
Using single studios for broadcast for multiple stations;
Sharing equipment;
Sharing reporters across stations;
Sharing management personnel across stations; and
Stations reporting to executives that are responsible for
stations across geographically and demographically varied
communities of license. Such management decisions are driven by
profitably serving the corporate parent in light of all their
stations.
The Commission therefore must ensure that any proposed mergers
further the Commission's goals of ensuring localism, diversity of
viewpoints, and competition.
Question 2. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included over $14
billion for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided
subsidies for Internet service to low-income households, helping more
Americans get connected. The ACP ended in June 2024 due to a lack of
funding. What reforms should the USF working group implement to make
sure affordability remains a top priority?
Answer. Affordability has been one of my top priorities since I
became a Commissioner over two years ago. The Universal Service Fund
(USF) is a key part of ensuring both access and affordability. The USF
has become all the more important in the absence of ACP funding.
However, the USF must be reformed to ensure long-term sustainability of
the fund and its programs.
USF reform should prioritize expanding the existing Lifeline
support program. While Lifeline provides a crucial benefit for
consumers, $9 a month is insufficient for families struggling to afford
broadband. This subsidy should be increased to match the ACP's previous
offering of $30 per month per household. I also strongly believe that
any changes to the contributions base should not increase costs for
consumers.
Another technical reform for the program should eliminate the
requirement for broadband providers to be deemed Eligible
Telecommunications Carriers in order to participate in the Lifeline
program. The ACP and ECF did not include this requirement, which
enabled more providers to participate in the program.
Importantly, Congress should be the one to reform the USF. I was
encouraged by the proposals put forward last Congress by the
bipartisan, bicameral USF working group. I stand ready to provide
technical assistance to this Congress, and thank you for your
leadership on this important issue.
Question 3. What can we do to make our broadband data collection
more efficient, including by ensuring that the Commission is addressing
legitimate challenges to the broadband maps?
Answer. To win the AI race and give every American the tools they
need to succeed in a more inclusive digital economy, we must have
accurate and reliable data showing where broadband is and is not
available nationwide. Over the last few years and throughout multiple
Administrations, the FCC has worked diligently to implement the
Broadband DATA Act, resulting in the most granular broadband
availability data in our history.
In the past, the Commission relied on census block-level reporting,
which assumed that if even only a single location in a census block was
served, the entire block was served. That approach overstated
deployment and made it difficult to identify communities that were
truly unserved or underserved. Today, using the authority Congress
provided, the FCC collects broadband availability data on a location-
by-location basis and publicly discloses it through the National
Broadband Map.
The current framework also allows state, local, and Tribal
governments, as well as consumers and other stakeholders with on-the-
ground knowledge, to challenge reported data. The Commission regularly
updates the map to reflect these challenges and supplements this
process with audits and verification efforts to improve accuracy.
Because this is an iterative process, the map continues to improve over
time.
At the same time, the FCC has learned important lessons through
this implementation and is always seeking opportunities to make the
data collection and the challenge processes more efficient, more user-
friendly, and more responsive to legitimate concerns raised by
communities. That is why the Commission is seeking comment on potential
improvements to its mapping, challenge, audit, and verification
processes. I look forward to reviewing that record.
Accurate broadband maps are an ongoing effort, and I urge Congress
to ensure the FCC has the resources it needs to address legitimate
challenges and continue improving the data that underpins our broadband
policy decisions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Anna M. Gomez
FCC Public Interest Authority
Question 1. What is the FCC's standard for evaluating programming
under the public interest standard and news distortion policy?
Answer. Any actions that the FCC takes based on broadcaster
programming must be grounded in the First Amendment and Section 326 of
the Communications Act, which prohibits the FCC from censoring
broadcasters.
The Commission has long construed its public interest standard to
include consideration of whether the action at issue (e.g., broadcast
license renewal or adoption of rules applicable to broadcasters)
furthers localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition.
A violation of the Commission's news distortion policy ``must
involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect
of the news report.'' In weighing the constitutionality of the policy,
courts have recognized that the policy ``makes a crucial distinction
between deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of
opinion.'' As a result, broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if
it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news
report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not
actionable.
I released the following news distortion policy statement: Press
Statement--Commissioner Gomez on CBS Fishing Expedition.docx
Question 2. What conditions would trigger the FCC to investigate or
take action against the speech of comedians, satirists, or commentators
under the public interest standard or news distortion policy?
Answer. The FCC is prohibited by law (Section 326 of the
Communications Act) from engaging in censorship or infringing on First
Amendment rights. Those protected rights include, but are not limited
to, a broadcaster's selection and presentation of news or commentary.
The FCC has authority to investigate when a broadcaster:
Violates the Commission's news distortion policy. News
distortion ``must involve a significant event and not merely a
minor or incidental aspect of the news report.'' In weighing
the constitutionality of the policy, courts have recognized
that the policy ``makes a crucial distinction between
deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of
opinion.'' As a result, broadcasters are only subject to
enforcement if it can be proven that they have deliberately
distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or
errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable.
Violates the Commission's rules prohibiting obscene or
limiting indecent or profane programming. It is a violation of
Federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also
a violation of Federal law to broadcast indecent or profane
programming during certain hours. The FCC defines indecent
speech as material that, in context, depicts or describes
sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for
the broadcast medium.
Violates the Commission's children's programming rules. The
Children's Television Act requires each U.S. broadcast
television station to air programming specifically designed to
serve the educational and informational needs of children. It
also limits the amount of time broadcasters, cable operators,
and satellite providers can devote to advertisements during
children's programs.
Violates the Commission's sponsorships identification rules.
When a broadcast station transmits any matter for which money,
service, or other valuable consideration is paid or promised
to, or charged or accepted by such station, Federal law and FCC
rules require the broadcaster to announce, at the time of the
broadcast, that such matter is sponsored, paid for, or
furnished and the identification of the sponsor.
Violates the Commission's political programming rules. The
FCC's political programming and campaign advertising rules
generally govern the circumstances under which broadcast
stations and other regulatees air political-related
advertisements. Broadcast stations, cable system operators, DBS
providers, and SDARS licensees are required to maintain public
inspection files, of which political files are a part.
Question 3. If there is evidence that FCC action, or the threat of
FCC action, towards broadcast television impacts programming decisions
on non-broadcast media through financial ties between companies, would
you consider this to be censorship?
Answer. Yes. I am concerned that this FCC's unprecedented threats
against broadcasters are already suppressing free speech by sending the
message that media companies, including non-broadcast licensee
affiliated entities, hosting content critical of the Administration
will invite government retaliation. That is censorship and not what
America stands for.
Question 4. Please describe whether the FCC would consider the
following scenarios on broadcast television as being in violation of
the public interest standard or news distortion policy. If you cannot
comment on these scenarios, please explain how programs can receive
clarity about how to abide by the FCC's public interest standard and
news distortion policy:
a. A comedian, commentator, or satirist insults the President in a
manner that is not obscene, profane, or indecent.
i. Answer. No, this is protected speech.
b. A comedian, commentator, or satirist makes offensive statements
pertaining to violence or assault.
i. Answer. No, this is protected speech.
c. An artist has a performance that could be considered an insult
to the President's policies or political positions.
i. Answer. No, this is protected speech.
d. A politician states that a murder victim ``deserved'' their
death because of their hatred for said politician.
i. Answer. No, this is protected speech.
FCC Independence
Question 5. If the President determines that broadcast programming
content does not abide by the public interest standard or the news
distortion policy, will you defer to the President's opinion? What if
the President's opinion departs from FCC's precedent of interpretation?
Answer. No. I swore and oath to support, defend and bear true faith
to the U.S. Constitution and my actions as a Commissioner will be
consistent with that oath.
Tribal Spectrum Windows
Question 6. Will the FCC commit to continuing to hold Tribal
priority windows in future spectrum auctions?
Answer. I support holding Tribal Licensing Windows in future
auctions. The Federal government's Trust Responsibility to Tribal
Nations is a legal obligation established by the Constitution, Tribal
Treaties, and more than a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent.\1\
As part of the Federal government, the FCC bears this responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3; Cherokee Nation v.
Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 16 (1831); Seminole Nation v. United States, 316
U.S. 286, 296-97 (1942); See generally, Cohen's Handbook of Federal
Indian Law Sec. 5.04(3) (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to this responsibility, the FCC engages with Tribal
Nations and Native Hawaiians on a government-to-government basis, a
practice known as the Trust Relationship, and is charged with carrying
out the law in a manner that supports Tribal sovereignty.
With regard to spectrum policy, the unique legal framework and
relationship between the Federal government and Tribal Nations requires
us to ensure that Tribal Nations, including Native Hawaiians, have a
fair and meaningful opportunity to secure spectrum rights essential to
their economic development, public safety, and cultural preservation.
With respect to spectrum access over Native Hawaiian Homelands, the FCC
granted a waiver of the ``eligible entity'' requirement that allowed
the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to obtain licenses during the 2.5
GHz Tribal Priority Window.
I believe that holding a Tribal Licensing Window is consistent with
and acknowledges our Trust Responsibility, and I support holding such
windows in future auctions. A Tribal Licensing Window can occur before
or concurrently with an auction because the tools that we would utilize
to facilitate such a window have already been created by the
Commission.
Furthermore, and importantly, Tribal Licensing Windows help us
close the digital divide and extend connectivity to the least served
areas in the United States such as Tribal Lands. Absent a Tribal
Licensing Window, Tribal Lands become part of larger license service
areas and are often the last areas to see service, if at all. But with
a Tribal Licensing Window, Tribal Nations get access to a license
limited to the boundaries of their Tribal Lands which allows them to
begin providing connectivity to residents rather than being forced to
wait for a carrier to develop a business case to do so.
Question 7. Please provide 1) the number of locations associated
with individual Tribal areas; and 2) an aggregated rollup of the number
of Tribal locations and Tribal broadband availability nationwide within
the National Broadband Map, or to incorporate this information into a
separate Tribal National Broadband Map that includes data on Tribal
areas only?
Answer. I understand that the Chairman's office is providing
materials responsive to this question. I would be glad to assist your
office with any follow up questions on this material.
Question 8. Will you direct ONAP to provide educational outreach
and technical assistance to Tribes to assist them with submitting
challenges to the National Broadband Map, especially for those Tribes
that have not submitted challenges?
Answer. The Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) is
responsible for planning and leading outreach to Tribal Nations and
organizations at the Federal Communications Commission. The goal of
such outreach is to increase Tribal Nation awareness of and
participation in the FCC's proceedings and programs, such as the
National Broadband Map, which ensures that Native views and interests
are accounted for in the decision-making process. I support ONAP
providing educational outreach and technical assistance to Tribal
Nations in order to encourage their participation in the National
Broadband Map, including assistance with submitting challenges to the
map. I believe this is a prime example of the value and role of ONAP at
the FCC.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
Anna M. Gomez
Question 1. Earlier this year, the FCC requested comments on the
Bureau of Industry and Security's rule related to connected vehicles
and connected vehicle technologies, specifically whether and how to add
certain technologies to the FCC's covered entities list. I strongly
support the Bureau of Industry and Security's rule and believe we must
keep Chinese connected and autonomous vehicles and vehicle components
from entering our market. I believe the FCC must work closely with the
automotive supply chain to ensure any action it takes in this space
does not conflict with the BIS rule and achieves our goals of
protecting our national and economic security.
Will you commit to working with my office and the automotive supply
chain industry as you decide what actions to take on this issue?
Answer. I am committed to working closely with your office and with
the automotive supply chain industry as the Federal Communications
Commission considers this issue, particularly given the serious
national security and consumer privacy risks that can arise from
connected vehicle technologies tied to China.
Protecting Americans' sensitive data and safeguarding our
communications and transportation ecosystems requires close
coordination with Federal partners, including the Bureau of Industry
and Security, and careful engagement with industry to ensure actions
are effective and do not conflict with existing rules.
These challenges transcend party lines, and I believe our approach
to national and economic security, especially where consumer privacy is
at stake, should continue to be bipartisan and grounded in
collaboration across government and industry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
Anna M. Gomez
Question 1. In 2021, Congress enacted the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act which created ``broadband labels,'' similar to food
nutrition labels, that would allow consumers to quickly understand the
costs and services provided. However, in October, the FCC adopted
proposals to reverse several elements of the ``broadband label''
requirements. Can you walk us through why you objected to these
proposals and what approach you believe the Commission should have
taken?
Answer. The broadband labels are about empowering consumers. The
goal of the labels is to provide critical information to consumers to
help them understand their Internet bill and service, thus empowering
them to make informed choices about the services they buy. But in
October 2025, the Commission proposed to remove several requirements
that provide transparency.
First, the FCC proposed to undo the requirement that service
providers read labels to customers that shop for broadband over the
phone. The Commission proposed to do this by redefining the meaning of
``point of sale'' to exclude phone calls. In the 2022 Broadband Labels
Order, the Commission defined ``point of sale'' as ``both ISP websites
and any other channels through which their service is sold, including
ISP-owned retail locations, third-party owned retail locations, and
over the phone.'' \2\ That definition acknowledges the reality that
some consumers looking for broadband service do not currently have it
and thus rely on phone calls to find information about potential
service plans. The practical result of the change the Commission
proposed is that if a consumer calls a broadband service provider to
ask about what is included in the cost of broadband Internet access
service in their area, the company would no longer be required to
provide the details to which they would have access via the label
because the FCC believes sales do not occur over telephone calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2022 Broadband Label Order, 13714, para. 88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also proposed to eliminate the requirement that
providers itemize fees that they choose to pass through to customers.
These are fees that broadband providers are not required to pass on to
customers, but they choose to add to customers' bills so they can
collect them without including them in their marketed price. With this
proposed change, the FCC would allow companies to no longer explain
these fees, line by line, or disclose them in detail, thus reducing
price transparency for consumers.
In the October NPRM, the FCC also proposed to eliminate the
requirement that companies display broadband labels on customers'
online account portals. This matters because at the time the NPRM was
adopted, a broadband label is only available to consumers in two ways:
at the ``point of sale'' when they are shopping for broadband service,
and via an online account portal once the consumer has become the
customer of a broadband provider that offers online account portals.
Notably, a broadband label is not required to be displayed on a
customer's monthly bill.\3\ I believe that if this proposal is adopted,
much of the information that Congress wanted to ensure consumers could
access to make fully informed decisions about the cost of their
broadband service would no longer be available to them via their online
customer portal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2022 Broadband Label Order, 13717, para. 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally, the FCC proposed to no longer require that a company
provide its customers the label in a language other than English even
if the provider marketed the service to that customer in a language
other than English. This means that companies that have sought out and
convinced customers to choose their service in Spanish, French,
Vietnamese, or any language other than English would no longer have to
provide this important consumer information about the service their
customers are paying for, in that language. For this proposal, the FCC
did not even explain why it was necessary or at the very least not
harmful to consumers.
If these proposals were to be adopted, the label would only be
available to consumers at the point of sale which would no longer
include purchases made over the phone; would no longer be available to
consumers via their online customer portal; would not disclose every
fee that a broadband provider chooses to pass through to customers; and
would no longer be available in a language other than English even when
the provider marketed the service in that language. I opposed these
proposals because I believe that they are antithetical to transparency,
consumer protection, and the spirit of the law that Congress directed
us to implement.
Instead of scaling back the information that consumers already
receive, the Commission could have focused on making the labels more
accessible to consumers--are they easy to find? Are they buried deep
inside a company's website? I believe that information is power, and
that the FCC plays an important role empowering consumers with the
information provided in the broadband labels.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Anna M. Gomez
Question 1. The October decision to gut the Martha Wright-Reed Just
and Reasonable Communications Act will increase the rates paid by
incarcerated people and their families by up to 83 percent compared to
the 2024 final rule. In fact, more than three quarters of prisons
across the United States were already in compliance with the 2024 rate
caps required under the law, meaning that most prisons can and do
provide services under the 2024 rate cap. The FCC's reason for this was
that the 2024 final rule created ``unintended consequences.''
a. Can you outline any facts supporting this vague threat of
undefined ``unintended consequences''?
Answer. The facts were slim. As far as I could discern from the
record of the proceeding, the Commission heard from two IPCS providers
that the 2024 rate caps resulted in reduced access to revenue and the
safety and security measures that providers offer to correctional
facilities, which left some prisons considering stopping the provision
of IPCS.\4\ But to be clear, the 2025 FCC Order does not cite to any
incidents demonstrating unsafe conditions at correctional facilities as
a result of the 2024 rate caps. Instead, the Commission relied on
providers' claims of isolated facilities warning that they would not be
able to pay for safety and security measures for IPCS services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter from Michael Pryor, Counsel for Securus Technologies,
LLC, and Marcus Trathen, Counsel for Pay Tel, Inc., to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket Nos. 23-62 and 12-375 (filed Apr. 3,
2025) (Securus and Pay Tel Apr. 3, 2025 Ex Parte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2025 Order cites a letter that points to a single facility in
Arkansas that reported terminating access to IPCS--the Baxter County
Sheriff's Office, which posted this decision on February 25, 2025 on
its website.\5\ Additionally, in that same letter, Pay Tel asserts it
``was forced to cease IPCS services to four small jails in Arizona and
New Mexico,'' and Securus asserts it was ``forced to end service to
three smaller facilities for economic reasons,'' without specifying the
location.\6\ Finally, both providers point to statements made by a
North Carolina Sheriff and the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers
Association that budgetary constraints in their jails would ``lead to a
reduction in service.'' \7\ That is all the evidence provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Securus and Pay Tel Apr. 3, 2025 Ex Parte, at 3. See also John
Montgomery, Inmate Phone System Will Not Be in Use After March 30th
(Feb. 25, 2025), https://www.baxtercounty
sheriff.com/press-releases/inmate-phone-system-will-not-be-in-use-
after-march-30th.
\6\ Securus and Pay Tel Apr. 3, 2025 Ex Parte, at 4.
\7\ Securus and Pay Tel Apr. 3, 2025 Ex Parte, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This slim evidence is belied by the fact that, by one estimate, 76
percent of prison systems across the country had already been in
compliance with the 2024 rate caps, and only three states -Florida,
Kentucky, and Oklahoma--have rates above the interim rate caps the
Commission adopted in the 2025 FCC Order.\8\ This means that the
majority of the prisons in the country can and do provide IPCS services
within the 2024 rate caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Letter from Bianca Tylek, Executive Director, Worth Rises, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Sept. 15, 2025).
b. Would you characterize the rates set by the 2024 rule as just
and reasonable to families of incarcerated people and telecom
providers?
Answer. I believe the rate caps set in the 2024 Order were just and
reasonable to both the families of incarcerated peoples and IPCS
providers.
c. Can you explain why you strongly opposed and voted against
Chairman Carr's order that violates clearly defined statutory
requirements governing the implementation timeline for my Marth Wright-
Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act?
Answer. The October 2025 Order claims that the FCC lacked
sufficient data to support the decisions made in 2024, and yet without
receiving additional or new data, the FCC decided to grant higher rate
caps and provide additional benefits such as a two-cent additive and an
inflation factor to the monopoly companies that have provided the
supposedly insufficient data. The 2025 Order allows IPCS providers to
recover costs that have nothing to do with making the calls, which
violates the Martha Wright Reed Act.
d. Do you know how old the survey was used that justified an
additional two-cent-per-minute additive?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, the survey is over 10 years
old as it was conducted in 2015.
e. Did the survey collect data from prisons, or solely jails?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, the survey included data
solely about jails.
Question 2. In 2022 I was proud to lead the Senate to a unanimous
vote in support of the Martha Wright Reed Act to lower predatory rates
for phone and video calls with incarcerated people. Last year the FCC
acted, as directed, to adopt rules implementing that law. The record
showed that loved ones calling people in prisons, for example, would
pay 6 cents per minute for calls.
You--and Chairman Brendan Carr--voted for that decision. While
Chairman Carr expressed concern over whether very small jails required
different rates, he nevertheless both voted for the 2024 rule and when
the FCC's unanimous decision was challenged in court, directed his
General Counsel defend the rule--resulting in Chairman Carr's General
Counsel, ironically, filing an extremely strong brief defending the
FCC's decision in April.
Then, suddenly, on June 30, 2025, FCC staff suspended all the rules
implementing the Martha Wright Reed Just and Reasonable Communications
Act without any valid reason, or even an explanation. This sudden,
unexplained surrender was perplexing and surprising--since not a single
industry filing submitted before the June 30, 2025, ruling asked for
such a dramatic change.
Chairman Carr's spineless surrender foreshadowed his flip-flop in
reversing the FCC's position on the litigation--months after directing
his General Counsel to draft and file a strong brief defending the FCC.
Then, Chairman Carr ordered the FCC to notify the Federal circuit court
that the FCC would adopt a new order, and Chairman Carr promised to
share the draft proposed order with the court when it was released to
the public.
However, four days before the draft order was released to the
public, Chairman Carr issued a press release that included quotes from
outside organizations.
a. Are you troubled that the FCC Chairman appears to be engaging in
undisclosed contact with outside stakeholders that have key equities
regarding pending FCC orders, and that this contact appears to involve
Chairman Carr improperly sharing information with parties appearing
before the agency?
Answer. I am not aware of any undisclosed contact. To protect the
fairness of FCC proceedings and ensure that FCC decisions are not
influenced by impermissible off-the-record communications, the FCC's ex
parte rules require stakeholders to disclose their communications with
agency staff directed to the merits or outcome of a proceeding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See FCC, Ex Parte Resources (Jan. 5, 2026), https://
www.fcc.gov/proceedings-actions/ex-parte/general/ex-parte-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An ex parte is ``a communication directed to the merits or outcome
of a proceeding that, if written, is not served on all of the parties
to the proceeding and, if oral, is made without giving all the parties
to the proceeding advance notice and an opportunity to be present.''
\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In ``Permit-but-disclose'' proceedings, such as the IPCS rate caps
proceeding, ex parte presentations to Commission decision-making
personnel are permissible but subject to certain disclosure
requirements such as the requirement that a copy of written
presentations and a summary of oral presentations must be filed in the
record. Additionally,
Copies of written presentations or summaries of oral
presentations must generally be filed no later than two
business days after the presentation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1206(b); See also FCC, How to File a Notice
of an Ex Parte Presentation (Jan. 5, 2026), https://www.fcc.gov/
reports-research/guides/how-file-notice-ex-parte-presentation.
Copies and summaries should be filed electronically using
the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
The summaries of oral presentations must list all persons
present and describe the substance of the new data or arguments
presented (or provide a citation to prior written filings
containing the data or arguments) and not merely list the
subjects discussed. Generally, more than a one or two sentence
description is required.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1206(b)(2); See also FCC, How to File a
Notice of an Ex Parte Presentation (Jan. 5, 2026), https://www.fcc.gov/
reports-research/guides/how-file-notice-ex-parte-presentation.
b. Has Chairman Carr provided you a clear and honest explanation of
how private actors with business before the FCC were informed of the
Chairman's plans and actions--even before the circuit court reviewing
the FCC's 2024 rule was notified of Chairman Carr's flip-flop
surrender?
Answer. I have not had any conversations about this with Chairman
Carr.
c. Given Chairman Carr's current belief--which repudiates his own
prior beliefs when serving as a Commissioner--that then-Commissioner
Carr was wrong when he passionately and forcefully defended the
importance of the FCC maintaining its independence as an independent
Federal agency, do you believe that Chairman Carr coordinated his
actions with political appointees at the White House or the U.S.
Department of Justice?
Answer. The FCC was created by Congress as an independent, expert
agency to implement communications law. However, an executive order
released on February 18, 2025, claims to eliminate the FCC's
independence and directs the agency to ``submit for review all proposed
and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the
President before publication in the Federal Register.''
Question 3. This Committee's Chair, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, has
been very critical of the FCC's decision to take actions at the Bureau
level, which appears designed to avoid judicial review and sidestep the
regular order of business.
In June 2025, the FCC's Wireline Bureau acted in just this manner,
overturning a full Commission order which implemented legislation
adopted unanimously in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House
of Representatives.
a. Are you considered that Chairman Carr is empowering unelected
and unappointed staff at the bureau level to block and overturn FCC
rules necessary to ensure compliance with Federal law?
Answer. In this instance, the Bureau waived the rules established
by the full Commission in 2024. It is not uncommon for a Bureau to act
on delegated authority, at the direction of a Chair. That is because
the volume of decisions that the FCC must make in order to implement
the law is vast and it would become prohibitive for the full Commission
to gather to vote on every decision. However, a Bureau cannot make new
or novel decisions even on delegated authority. A Bureau implements the
decisions that the full Commission has made, but does not have the
authority to make new decisions. Similarly, a Bureau cannot reverse the
decisions on which the full FCC voted. In this instance, the Bureau, at
the direction of the Chair, waived enforcement of the 2024 rules, but
eventually it was the full FCC that decided to reverse the rule. I
dissented from this reversal.
b. Did Chairman Carr explain to the other Commissioners whether he
directed the Wireline Bureau to take this action?
Answer. My office received notice less than 24 hours before the
Bureau's decision was released.
c. Are you troubled that Chairman Carr may abuse bureau level
action to conduct major actions, such as merger approvals, in a
secretive manner that undermines transparency and bypasses full
Commission processes, policies and procedures?
Answer. While it is common for a Bureau to act on delegated
authority at the direction of a Chair, a Bureau cannot make new or
novel decisions or reverse the decisions the full FCC has made. A
Bureau's role is to implement the full Commission's decisions. However,
I am concerned that a Bureau's waiver of a rule posits a hurdle for
stakeholders seeking recourse in court. Stakeholders can only seek
review of a final Commission decision. Stakeholders cannot go to court
to seek judicial review of a bureau order waiving a rule because itis
not a final agency decision. This is a concern with bureau level
decisions in the merger context as well.
d. Have you requested that Chairman Carr ensure the FCC provides
the parties impacted by his reconsideration of the FCC's compliance
with the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act,
with due process, including access to judicial review of the bureau
level actions that reverse full Commission decisions?
Answer. All stakeholders should have full access to judicial review
and recourse through our court system. I am concerned that this
Administration's use of delegated authority is leaving parties without
recourse because they will have to wait for an agency to make a final
decision on their requests, a process that can take years. Inaction can
lead to a delay on accessing judicial review. And justice delayed is
justice denied.
Question 4. I am concerned that Chairman Carr has only paid lip-
service to ending the pernicious practice of kickbacks or site
commissions in the procurement of contracts for carceral facilities.
For example, while I welcomed the FCC barring site commission payments,
Chairman Carr paired this action with authorizing a new fee that
appears to effectively be a site commission by another name.
Answer. In addition to increasing per minute rates, Chairman Carr
added two cents per minute to every phone and video call in the
country. Supposedly these fees are to reimburse facilities for costs,
but Chairman Carr failed to require providers submit evidence
confirming the provider incurs costs necessitating reimbursement
through a de facto site commission fee.
a. Do you share my alarm that Chairman Carr's new fee may result in
facilities being reimbursed for costs that never actually occurred?
Answer. Yes, I do.
b. Can you elaborate on the threat of waste, fraud and consumer
abuse that will likely result from forcing Americans to pay fees
authorized under the pretext of reimbursing facilities for
unsubstantiated costs that lack documentation?
Answer. I am concerned that the October 2025 Order will result in
adding costs to the IPCS rate caps for functions that have nothing to
do with the provision of IPCS. In 2024, the Commission allowed costs
for CALEA compliance and Communications Security Services to be
incorporated into the rate caps.\14\ In the 2025 Order, the FCC
expanded the types of costs that providers can recover from the
families of incarcerated persons and included five additional
categories: Law Enforcement Support Services, Communication Recording
Services, Communication Monitoring Services, Voice Biometric Services,
and Other Safety and Security Measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 2024 IPCS Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 7825-7826, para. 339
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided by IPCS providers themselves, the Law
Enforcement Category includes expenses for ``search warrant
processing'' and ``FOIA request processing.'' \15\ The Communications
Recording Services Category includes expenses for ``storing recorded
communications, transcribing such recordings, and converting recordings
into digital formats to support investigation and litigation
activities.'' \16\ And the Communications Monitoring Services Category
is now predominantly ``used to aid investigations related to detention
facilities,'' ``aid corrections and law enforcement agencies in
investigation and litigation activities,'' and ``provide for skilled
investigators.'' \17\ None of these functions serves to facilitate the
actual provision of IPCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 2024 IPCS Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 7857, para. 394.
\16\ 2024 IPCS Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 7861, para. 398.
\17\ 2024 IPCS Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 7864, para. 403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in September of 2025, the FCC adopted a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to allow correctional
facilities to use jammers to block communications from contraband
phones. The policy goal for this NPRM is to combat criminal activity
aided by contraband phones in correctional facilities. While I support
advancing this policy goal, should this proposal become a rule, I am
concerned that the expenses that a correctional facility will incur in
order to jam signals from contraband phones will inevitably be
incorporated into the IPCS rate caps and thus passed on to the families
of incarcerated people. Once again, asking the families of incarcerated
people to cover the costs of functions that are unrelated to the actual
provision of IPCS.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Anna M. Gomez
Question 1. What is the threat to free speech and our democracy if
journalists and broadcasters do not have a clear understanding of what
is a violation of the public interest standard under this FCC?
Answer. The First Amendment to the Constitution provides (emphasis
added):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
A key way in which broadcasters serve their local communities is
through the provision of local news. Local broadcast journalism is a
central element of the United States' civic infrastructure that keeps
our democracy strong.
This FCC appears to be initiating investigations into potential
violations of the ``public interest'' standard without defining what
that means by making vague references to the Commission's news
distortion policy as potentially applicable to any reporting that is
critical of the Administration.
A violation of the Commission's news distortion policy ``must
involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect
of the news report.'' In weighing the constitutionality of the policy,
courts have recognized that the policy ``makes a crucial distinction
between deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of
opinion.'' As a result, broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if
it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news
report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not
actionable.
The fear of an FCC investigation or threats to revoke a license
will chill free speech because they likely cause the license holder to
instruct their employees to ``be careful'' or ``not provoke'' the
Administration. This is because revoking a broadcaster's license will
end the broadcaster's business, including the provision of local news,
as it cannot broadcast without a license. Additionally, litigation can
be financially debilitating even if the broadcaster ultimately
prevails.
Question 2. Is there statutory authority or legal precedent for the
FCC to revoke broadcast licenses because a station reported on law
enforcement activity?
Answer. No. The Commission's authority to revoke broadcast licenses
is constrained by the First Amendment and Section 326 of the
Communications Act, which specifically prohibits the Commission from
censoring broadcasts.
Question 3. As a member of the USF Working Group, I'm interested in
how we can ensure people not only have access to a reliable Internet
connection, but that they can also afford it. What parts of the
Affordable Connectivity Program were successful, and what should
Congress consider when reforming Lifeline, the affordability component
in USF?
Answer. Affordability has been one of my top priorities since I
became a Commissioner over two years ago. The Universal Service Fund
(USF) is a key part of ensuring both access and affordability. The USF
has become all the more important in the absence of funding for the
Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The USF must be reformed to
ensure long-term sustainability of the fund and its programs.
The ACP was the most successful tool our country has ever had to
address the digital divide. There are a few aspects of ACP that the USF
Working Group should consider adding to the Lifeline program as it
develops a proposal. The Lifeline support amount was set at a level
sufficient to support plain old telephone service and is simply
insufficient for broadband. While Lifeline provides a crucial benefit,
$9 a month is not enough for families struggling to afford broadband.
This subsidy should be increased to match the ACP's offering of $30 per
month per household.
Further, many broadband providers currently do not qualify for
Lifeline support because they are not considered ``Eligible
Telecommunications Carriers.'' This requirement stands in the way of
more providers being able to offer an affordability support to the
consumers that need it.
And most importantly, any reforms made to the USF contributions
base should not increase costs for consumers.
Question 4. How do demand-side support programs ensure the success
of broadband deployment programs like BEAD?
Answer. When it comes to broadband, access is only one piece of the
puzzle. Affordability and digital literacy are the others. The pandemic
highlighted the importance of affordability, a lesson we cannot forget
now. Failure to ensure affordability would disproportionately impact
those who need connectivity the most, deepening economic and social
inequalities. And to participate in the AI economy, digital literacy
skills will be paramount.
Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress invested
billions of dollars in broadband infrastructure. Now, support for
affordability and digital literacy are key to ensuring that this
massive investment in infrastructure is put to its best use. Even if we
build the fastest, most efficient network we possibly could, our
efforts to close the digital divide will fall flat without support for
affordability and digital literacy. And without this support, we risk
having stranded investments and an unsustainable network. For these
reasons, demand-side support programs are a crucial complement to BEAD.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Anna M. Gomez
Question 1. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 Congress
set the national audience reach cap to 39 percent. Congress set this
limit, not the Federal Communications Commission, yet recently the FCC
sought comment on whether to modify the national ownership cap. In
November, President Trump posted on Truth Social said he ``would not be
happy'' if the FCC lifted the national ownership cap to ``allow the
Radical Left Networks to `enlarge' ''. Does the FCC or Congress have
the power to raise the national ownership cap?
Answer. Only Congress has the power to raise the national ownership
cap. As you correctly note, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004
(2004 CAA) set the national audience reach cap at 39 percent and did
not provide the Commission with authority to modify the cap.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 created both an initial national
audience reach cap and a process that required the Commission to
consider whether such cap continued to be in the public interest. In
2003 the Commission raised the national audience reach cap to 45
percent as part of the required review. In response, in the 2004 CAA,
Congress modified the relevant sections of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 in three key respects. First, it directed the national audience
reach cap be set to 39 percent in the Commission's rules. Second, it
removed review of the national audience reach cap from the required,
now quadrennial, review. Finally, it prohibited the Commission from
forbearing from the national audience reach cap. The forbearance
prohibition language makes clear that the other two actions, lowering
the audience reach cap and removing it from the established review
process, were intended to prohibit the Commission from modifying or
otherwise relaxing the 39 percent audience reach cap.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to
Anna M. Gomez
Question 1. Commissioner Gomez, Chairman Carr ended the FCC's
promotion of DEI in January, 2025. Since then, the FCC has approved
mergers and major transactions conditioned on companies eliminating
internal DEI programs, an approach Chairman Carr has publicly
celebrated. DEI initiatives have long supported opportunities for
women, veterans, people with disabilities, and religious minorities.
Veteran hiring preferences in the Federal government are one clear
example.
Commissioner Gomez, can you explain how conditioning FCC approvals
on the elimination of DEI programs undermines job opportunities and
weakens America's long-term economic competitiveness?
Answer. Conditioning FCC approvals on the elimination of voluntary
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs risks undermining job
opportunities by discouraging lawful, good-faith efforts to promote
fair access to employment and to recruit from the broadest possible
pool of qualified workers. Diversity and inclusion initiatives are
fundamentally about fairness and equal opportunity, and many companies
adopt them voluntarily to reduce barriers and reflect the communities
they serve. When companies are pressured to abandon such efforts as a
prerequisite for regulatory approval, particularly without any finding
of unlawful conduct or failure to meet a defined public interest
obligation, it sends a troubling signal and chills legitimate workplace
practices.
This approach also raises concerns about the appropriate scope of
the Commission's transaction review authority and its implications for
long-term economic competitiveness. Using FCC approval processes to
influence internal workplace policies unrelated to the transaction at
hand introduces uncertainty, deters investment, and risks politicizing
routine regulatory decisions.
[all]