Good morning. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will come to order. Welcome to today's hearing, Oversight on 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's 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've 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've 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 US 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 buildout; 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 wrongthink 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'm 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'm excited for what the next several years will bring. Now I'll turn to Ranking Member 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 a free and diverse press, strengthening our national security, and bringing down the cost of telecommunications and media services. However, what we've seen this year and the 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% 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's making it easier for big corporations to tack on hidden fees to your internet bills.
I've even heard consideration by some groups saying that we should take away spectrum from broadcast television stations because maybe they're not getting as much use and maybe we should have even less competition. So, it's 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 cost. 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 don't 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 cost. 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 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 SEC process should not be used in this kind of extortion process, but to focus on what will drive down cost and help consumers in this process. People across the political spectrum agree there's 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'm 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 can't do their job in covering this unbelievable flood, which is affecting 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 telecommunication 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 cost, but to protect them on their safety and security? Mr. Chairman, it's 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.
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 20th, 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.
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 in everything they've accomplished for the American people. In my view, the FCC's public servants are simply the best in government. At the outset, I'd 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've moved quickly to execute on an ambitious set of reforms. We're advancing a Build America agenda, a concrete plan to unleash high-speed infrastructure buildout, drive down prices for consumers, and restore US leadership in wireless. We're reinvigorating the agency's consumer protection work, including new efforts to crack down on illegal robocalls. We're strengthening America's national security with work underway that tracks Senator Fischer and Senator Lujan's leads on the FACT Act. And we're empowering broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations.
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 US 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 band 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're 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're modernizing permitting rules and cutting red tape. For another, we're 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're boosting America's space economy. And in all of this, we're 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%.
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're closing loopholes that allowed foreign groups to swoop in and undercut US workers. And they're improving safety. Finally, the FCC is now pursuing the largest deregulatory effort in the agency's history. To date, we've 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%. And in many ways, we're 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.
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've 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 US 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 nations' borders. They also used this forum to seek US 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 US 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. US 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, US 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 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.
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 US 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 long-standing 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 US 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 communication services. Beyond missed opportunities, the FCC has taken affirmative actions that have raised costs and reduced choice for consumers. FCC actions contributed to the loss of a potential fourth competitor on the 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's 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've 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.
Thank you to each of you. Chairman Carr, let's 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?
Yes, Senator, I agree. And those are cases, in fact, where rather than following SEC precedent, the agency broke from it and did so in a weaponized way.
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 in 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, shouldn't it be understood to encompass robust First Amendment protections to ensure that the FCC cannot use it to chill speech?
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 the cable context, it's entirely different. There's no license. There's 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 was 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.
All right, let's 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 US history. It won't 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'm 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?
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're very actively working with our partners across government, Department of Transportation, FAA, NTIA, and we're all aligned to deliver on the statutory deadline of July 2027 for that auction.
And what will the benefits to consumers be of 800 megahertz of spectrum being made available for auction for the private sector?
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 didn't 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've seen that cable modem prices drop by 37% where they used to have a monopoly. So, it's good for our economy, for innovation, and for prices for consumers as well.
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?
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 Radiocommunication Conference, where we can focus on key US interests. We can work with our international allies in advance to preempt those who are seeking to undermine US interests at the conference in Shanghai, China. In 2023, at the last World Radiocommunication Conference, we didn't have this kind of legislative backing or support. We didn't have auction authority. We didn't 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 our economic and national security and global leadership in next-generation communications technologies.
Terrific. Thank you. Ranking Member Cantwell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 didn't 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 telecom companies accountable, but the FCC rolled that back last month. So, are these Chinese hackers still in the American telecom system?
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 didn't 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's what we've been doing. We've worked directly with the carriers.
You think there's still hackers in the system?
Well, recently over the summer, the FBI's cyber director, I'll 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' and, quote, 'dormant' in the networks, that they're not actively infiltrating information. So I'd again refer you to sort of the FBI, which is the lead spokesperson on this issue. But we've done...
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 don't 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 don't 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, I think, but I think it's bigger than that. We're seeing this massive amount of consolidation in the marketplace. I think we have a chart back here, 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, we pay the most or second most in broadband cost. And so the question is, what are we going to do to drive down cost 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'm more impressed with spectrum that doesn't interfere with DoD. I'm more impressed with spectrum that basically helps expand into rural areas and drives down costs. I'm more impressed with a spectrum policy that basically takes that low end of the market that doesn't have affordable costs and basically does something to help them participate in the market. Why give more spectrum if the telecom companies flout and decide not to do the rules on security and then 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 world. Could you help explain a little more on your thoughts about what we do to increase competition and lower costs?
Thank you, Senator. I'm 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'm so glad you raised that, because one of the things that I'm 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're not going to make sure that they are sustainable if people can't afford to actually purchase that service.
So isn't that what's 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 whatever it is, 20 million Americans that don't have broadband.
Yes, that's exactly right. I mean, an incentive is your economic incentive is where the profits are. So that's where government steps in.
Well, I don't think that's where the FCC is stepping in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, 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 '90s 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?
Thank you, Senator, and thanks for your longtime leadership on these universal service issues. I've 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's ongoing in the Senate looking at this issue. And I think you're right. I think it's time for Congress to take a fundamental look at the program to make sure it's fit for service in the coming years.
And Commissioner Trusty and Gomez, do you have anything you'd like to add to that? Commissioner Trusty.
Thank you for the question, Senator. I agree with, thank you for your leadership on these issues. You've been a longtime 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.
And Commissioner Gomez, anything to add? Any comments about reforms?
Yes, thank you, Senator, and again also thank you for yours and Senator Lujan's leadership on this issue. I think it's 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'm really hopeful that what you are able to provide is that sustainable affordability program as part of the reforms that you put forward.
Thank you. As a 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's efforts in this regard. Chairman Carr, will you commit to getting a briefing on the books in January for our staff and the commission?
appropriate commission personnel?
Yes, I look forward to working with you on this issue.
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 an element to this challenge is the upcoming World Radiocommunication Conference that will take place in China. Commissioner Trusty, what will be the biggest risks that this adds to a complex process?
Thank you for the question, Senator. I think security is the business risk that adds to this process. And as you know, we're working at the FCC to ensure that providers uphold their commitments to patch outdated equipment, to update their access controls, to make sure they're 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. And I think there needs to continue to be whole-of-government conversations about how to protect our assets in this forum.
I would imagine that those are many of the things that you'll take into account as the United States develops its positions at this conference.
Correct. That's absolutely right. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell brought up spectrum. I can't let it go by without also chiming in. There are a lot of decision-making 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% 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?
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 licensed uses for Wi-Fi 7, Wi-Fi 8, to support the Internet of Things and other forms of connectivity that's benefiting all Americans. We also need spectrum for satellite and space uses. So we have the Satellite Spectrum Abundance Proceeding, where we're 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 GHz 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.
Thank you very much. I look forward to having conversations with all of you on this in the future. Thank you.
Thank you, 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'll ask that in writing. But the events of this year moved me to focus on free speech in 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's 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?
Yes, Senator. And whenever that satire or any other programming is over the public airwaves for broadcasters, there's a public interest standard and there's a news distortion rule, a broadcast hoax rule, opportunity rule.
You answered it. You answered it. Yes. And I'm just going to go on.
Senator, 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's no public interest standard. We'll get to that in a minute. Robust, wide open. 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?
I think any licensee that operates on the public airwaves has a responsibility to comply with the public interest standard, and that's been the case for decades.
I asked if you think it's appropriate for you to use your position to threaten companies, and this incident with Kimmel wasn't an isolated event. You've launched investigations into every major broadcast network except Fox. Is that correct?
I don't know if that's 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 don't think that's a good thing.
Okay. You brought up social media. So, do you think it's appropriate after a horrific murder and the stabbing of Rob Reiner and his wife? Do you think it's 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's 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?
Senator, look, Democrats on this dais are accusing me of engaging in censorship. And now you're trying to encourage me to police speech on the internet. I'm simply not going to do that. I think those kind of words are cruel. I think they hurt President Trump to say that kind of thing. I think it hurts him with trust from the American people.
But this is the kind of stuff that's going on right now. And yet you are going after broadcast stations except for Fox and making threats.
We are applying the law. Let's sit back. Broadcast TV is fundamentally different than any other forms of media, whether it's cable or podcast or soapbox or man on the street. There's a public trustee model that Congress has set up.
There should be no rules in place when it comes to tech platforms, then?
I think there's no public interest obligation. There is no license.
You think we should change the laws? Here's one. 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 shouldn't 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?
Well, when it comes to AI in particular, there's an executive order. It asked the FCC to initiate a proceeding. We're going to initiate a proceeding. We're open-minded on where that goes. But look, if you want to step back and talk about weaponization, we saw that for four years in the Biden administration. Senate Democrats, including...
Joe Biden is no longer president. You are head of the FCC and Donald Trump is president and I'm 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, refused 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?
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'm very dubious of our authority to do so. That said, we have sought comment on this.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Chairman Cruz, 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's 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 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 is considering.
I also want to highlight broadband mapping. Seems like deja vu, a conversation we've 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, 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'm ever, if on the occasion I get a compliment, it's usually followed by a word, 'but.' And that's what I'm 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 improve 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 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 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 six gigahertz band. Again, you've 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's true. Ms. Gomez, Commissioner Gomez, you and I have not had this conversation, but I'd be happy to have you confirm that you agree with me.
Apologies. Happy to have this discussion with you.
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 just that and lamented 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 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?
Yeah, 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've got a great working relationship across the FCC, the NTIA, the NEC, and many other agencies that have brought in funding to make sure that we're addressing some of this coordination issue that's been a challenge before.
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 addressing those problems. True?
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman.
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've had several meetings in our office and it's usually, I don't want to say mundane, but it's technocratic, it's technical, it's nonpartisan, and all the rest of it. And so I'm hoping we can do that again right here, but it is a more sensitive topic. So, I'm just going to ask you a couple of yes or no questions. I don't mind a quick explanation, but I'll 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're going to decide what speech we like and what we don't, and we're going to threaten to take you off the air if we don't like what you're saying.' Do you see this issue the same way as the chairman?
Well, my position on this is pretty clear. We have a public interest standard that Congress has put into the law and there's a number of very specific rules and doctrines that flow from that. The broadcast hoaxes rule, the news distortion rule. And my position, and I think the Trump administration position, is that we should be enforcing those rules and policies. If Congress wants to change, you're free to change it.
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, just that one is a yes or no. Do you have jurisdiction or not?
We have jurisdiction with respect to the broadcast airwaves uniquely to ensure that their operations are in the public interest. There's very specific rules for broadcast hoax and news distortion.
So if there's 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?
That's not my position at all. My position is if the use of the facility is in the public interest. Satire that's not broadcast hoax, that's not news distortion policy is perfectly fine. But I also don't understand the conversation about what satire are we talking about? Where was their satire?
We're not doing the questions in this direction. What is the FCC's standards for making this kind of evaluation about whether news has been distorted? My understanding is that this has been used eight times. The chairman, and I think he's right, is saying like this is rarely invoked. And there's 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's one thing, right? If they're violating the terms of their broadcast license, that's another thing. If they just say an awful thing on the air, it seems to me, chairman, that's not your jurisdiction. And I know you're quick and you understand this law backwards and forwards. I remember you when you were counsel for Chairman Powell. So, I don't doubt your ability to race right into how the architecture of the originating statute, but I'm 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?
Senator, my job is to implement the law passed by Congress. And Congress has said that broadcast is fundamentally different, that there's a public interest standard. There are decades of precedent on this.
Do you think there are any conservative commentators or conservative comedians or conservative satirists that ever say anything offensive that you would consider investigating?
I'm not looking at things that are offensive or awful, to use your words. I'm looking at things that are consistent with our public interest rules and regulations. That's the full story.
And in what way? So I'm 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 this seems like a little much for you, chairman, that you went out and you said that was fake news. 'I didn't do that. This is fake news. I am not doing that. I'm not going after Jimmy Kimmel.' And now you're saying you have a perfect right to go after Jimmy Kimmel. And I'm wondering which one it is.
No, two different things. Democrats at the time were saying that we explicitly threatened to pull a license if Jimmy Kimmel wasn't 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's up to Congress. And one idea, for instance, is why don't we 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.
I mean, you're 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, or there's 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'm hoping we can recalibrate.
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 raising?
I'm going to allow this because I was tough on you. You did ask me a question. This is the first time I'm ever going to respond to a question from a witness.
I did not sign that letter.
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've 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're 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?
Yeah. Oh, thank you, Senator, for your leadership on this issue. I think we've actually been making some real significant progress on the mapping issue. The fabric itself, the locations are starting to stabilize. You're seeing less than 1% change in terms of iterations of the map. We've solved a lot of issues. One that's popping up recently and that I've heard from you is the challenge process. And it's 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'm open to looking at that.
Right. Commissioner Trusty, did you have something to say on that issue on the mapping?
Sure. One of the issues that I've heard about on mapping is 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.
Thank you. Commissioner Gomez, do you have anything to add there?
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, right, which is problematic. So the staff continue to update and update and update the map, and you know, every iteration makes it better, but it still needs improvement.
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. Chairman Carr, I appreciate the work, and it's 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're trying to preserve that local news as we've seen what's 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're 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?
Well, thank you, Senator. We are, you know, very open-minded as to how to resolve that proceeding. We haven't 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's natural disasters. Right. One of the things I'm trying to do with our media policy as a general matter is to re-empower those local broadcasters to invest in local news because what's happened over the years, we've 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'm not sure that's 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're 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 haven't made a decision there yet.
Thank you. I'll 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, you know, who's 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're hearing less about the lack of coordination between all these different entities, and I think that's particularly at the federal level, and I think that's extremely important because number one, we don't want to overbuild, but we don't want to underbuild too, and we don't want to squash innovation. So I thank you all for your efforts in that. I think it's been very helpful and I appreciate that we can keep working on that because I think that'll make the dollars go quicker and make the connectivity come faster as well. So with that, I will recognize 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's why people in influential positions have always targeted it for censorship.' That's why your threats against ABC and Disney over Jimmy Kimmel's political monologue were so outrageous. And here's what you said. In September of 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's 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?
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.
Do you regret making that statement?
Senator, my job is to enforce the law.
So, you don't regret making that statement? Well, that's a refusal 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, don't 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?
Senator, you look at the evidence, the express 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.
And again, you're 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're the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Actually, you're 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'm 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 government officials.' Do you stand by that statement? This was a letter written by House Democrats to cable companies pressuring them to drop Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax simply because you stand by your state. Do you stand by your statement?
Yes, I do. I think that's inappropriate what the Democrats are doing.
Good. 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. An 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're telling me that reporting on statements from public officials and a community group is grounds for an FCC investigation?
So 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 undercover locations were being disclosed. And they can provide that to us.
There is nothing in here that discloses anything. There's no risk to anyone except... No, no. The risk that's posed here is to you, to the broadcast journalist coverage, and that's what really happened. The news journalists were just covering an important news story and some conservatives were upset by the coverage. So you use your power as FCC chair to hang a sword of Damocles over a local radio station's head. And that's 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's what you wanted. That's 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 instigate an investigation of that San Francisco radio station? Was that a mistake?
Senator, broadcasters understand, perhaps for the first time in years, that they're going to be held accountable to the public interest, to broadcast hoax rules, to the news distortion policy. I think that's a good thing. I don't have a poster board, but listen, in 2018, you signed this letter right here to the FCC. You signed a letter to the FCC asking us to investigate Sinclair's news activities. You said investigate Sinclair's news. You know what happened after that?
Over 227 licenses were up for renewal, were due during that period. Almost none of them were renewed after your letter. Your letter produced...
Point of order, Madam Chair.
Well, you're well over your time here.
So in a lot of it is because... Well, no, it's not, because I looked at the clock and you were already two minutes over. So I'll just finish, Madam Chair. He is turning the Federal Communications Commission into the Federal Censorship Commission. It's a betrayal of the FCC's mission. You should resign, Mr. Chairman. You are creating a chilling effect.
In 2018, asking us to investigate Sinclair's news activities.
There's a lot of people on this committee. Thank you.
Chairman Carr. We'll move to the next question. Senator Sullivan.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Chairman and the other commissioners. I'm going to turn back to the topic that Senator Cantwell, the chair, was talking about, and that's rural broadband, which is really important to so many of us. There's rural broadband, Mr. Chairman, as you know, and then there's 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, 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. This 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've taken a lot of incoming here. I want to compliment you on the good work that you've 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've done an exceptional job. So can you talk to those issues?
Yeah, thank you, Senator. And frankly, I don't 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's the only really way to understand the challenges that are up there. Frankly, in my view, I don't think the FCC had been taking the appropriate lawful approach with respect to Alaska.
By the way, this is not some earmark. It's in the law, right? Connectivity is required for all Americans and my constituents are Americans.
And you brought that to my attention and others. And when I went up there in 2018, I had a chance to visit Unalaska, Dutch Harbor. It's an island part of the way out the Aleutian chain. And 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 misapplication 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, phase one of that undersea cable is now complete. Unalaska is getting connected to next-generation high-speed internet thanks to that. There's a phase two that's coming. It's just not there. On a subsequent visit, you took me to a small village, Nikolski, which you could 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 Nikolski was not even on the national broadband map. Yes, the FCC acted, and Commerce Department back then, the Biden years, acted like it didn't even exist. And after you took us...
From their perspective, it didn't 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...
Look, there's obviously a long way to go still, but the digital divide has been closing in Alaska. And again, you know, Senator, I don't think we'd be in the position where we are in Alaska right now with connectivity but for the leadership you've had on this committee.
Well, look, it's been your leadership and others. I want to thank Commissioner Trusty. I'm 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 UN Alaska project, and again, if you look at a map, this is the Aleutian Island chain, and it goes way out in the Pacific, actually crosses the international date line, which a lot of people don't know, but these are Americans out there. It's a very strategic part of our country, very close to China and Russia and Japan and our allies. But can I just very quickly, since I'm 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 work on that, all of you?
Yes, Senator. Absolutely.
Okay, great. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Certainly. 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've 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'm 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 protest. 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've 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 US 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 oppose them?
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's 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's completely different than saying you're 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. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Blackburn.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Carr, I want to chat with you for a minute about the new form of payola, or show, 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.
Well, thank you, Senator, for your leadership on this. Historically, there's 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's 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 don't do that. I think that's 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.
Thank you very much for that, Ms. Trusty. Thank you so much for your time. Yesterday we talked a little bit about the World Radiocommunication 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 Mr. Trusty, I know that it's going to be essential to prepare for it because it's going to be in China. So give me a minute about what you're going to do in preparation for that conference.
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're working and focusing on key US priorities, and we can work with our international allies in advance to preempt those seeking to undermine US interests in Shanghai, China. As I mentioned a little bit earlier, in 2023 at the previous World Radiocommunication Conference, we didn't have this kind of legislative support. We didn't 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're the leader in the next generation of communications technologies.
Thank you. Staying on spectrum, Mr. Chairman, coming to you. Looking at midband spectrum, about 60% of our midband is held by government agencies and about 5% is licensed to 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's important for the record for you to speak about the importance of freeing up this 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.
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 overleveraged 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's truly exclusive use, high power, the type of stuff you want to build 5G and 6G on. That's what we're addressing in the near term, particularly in the CBAND, and working very well across the administration. The NTIA Administrator, Ariel Roth, is doing a fantastic job. They're 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're actually loading their spectrum up. And again, I think that's 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, yeah, 2% year-over-year. In fact, they're down 5% over Biden-era highs. It's not where, you know, we want to keep driving down by eliminating inflationary prices, but we're heading in the right direction. We just have to keep at it. Thank you. Thanks.
Thank you, Senator Lujan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Carr, yes or no? And please, yes or no. Is the FCC an independent agency?
Senator, thanks for that question. I think...
Yes or no is all we need, sir. Yes or no? Is it independent?
Well, there's a test for this in the law, and the key portion of that test...
The key portion of that test is...
Okay, I'm 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 isn't a trick question.
Okay. The FCC is not, is not, is not...
So, is your website wrong? Is your website lying?
Possibly. The FCC is not an independent agency.
Okay. Can I read this to you? The FCC's mission on the homepage of the FCC: 'an independent US government agency overseen by Congress.' Is that factual or is that a lie?
The FCC is not formally an independent agency.
Is this true or is this a lie?
I can, I'm happy to answer your question.
The sine qua non of being removable by the president.
Chairman, I have a little bit of time. I'll get back to you.
It's not an independent agency, formally speaking.
Appreciate you saying that and being honest with the American people. Commissioner 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 aren't independent.
So, is your website lying?
I can't speak to the website. I've not seen that.
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 wasn't even my gotcha question. I'm surprised that I've burned up three minutes talking about this damn thing. Commissioner Gomez.
