FCC votes to remove national broadcast ownership cap

The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 to eliminate the 20-year-old national television ownership cap, which limited a single broadcaster's reach to 39 percent of U.S. households. Led by Chairman Brendan Carr, the Republican majority replaced the limit with a case-by-case review process. Supporters argue the change allows local stations to scale and compete with streaming giants. However, critics, including dissenting Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez and Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Cruz, contend the FCC lacks the legal authority to bypass Congress, warning the decision will trigger massive media consolidation and political favoritism.

FCC broadcast ownership cap removal

• ▪The Federal Communications Commission's decision replaced the 39 percent national audience reach cap with a case-by-case review process
• ▪The national television ownership cap previously limited individual broadcasters to owning stations that reached no more than 39 percent of U.S. households
• ▪Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez cast the lone dissenting vote in the Federal Communications Commission's 2-1 decision to lift the cap
• ▪The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 at its August 2026 open meeting to remove the national television ownership cap

Congressional authority dispute

• ▪Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Cruz stated in July 2026 that he was skeptical the Federal Communications Commission could change the cap without an act of Congress
• ▪Former Representative Tom DeLay wrote that the 2004 law setting the 39 percent cap prohibited the Federal Communications Commission from changing the cap during its biennial reviews
• ▪Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr argued the agency has authority to modify the cap, citing a 2002 U.S. Court of Appeals decision
• ▪Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez and other critics argued that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the legal authority to change the ownership cap without congressional action

Case-by-case review concerns

• ▪Critics expressed concern that replacing the ownership cap with case-by-case reviews gives Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr subjective power to favor politically aligned broadcasters
• ▪Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has previously ordered early license renewal reviews for Disney-owned stations and complained about programs like 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' and 'The View.'
• ▪Representative Doris Matsui stated that replacing the clear limit with case-by-case decisions would hand the Trump administration greater power over who controls the news

Media consolidation impact debate

• ▪Senator Ben Ray Luján opposed the decision, stating it would further consolidate media power in the hands of a few massive broadcast conglomerates
• ▪In March 2026, the Federal Communications Commission waived the 39 percent cap to approve the Nexstar-Tegna merger, which was subsequently halted by a federal judge
• ▪Advocacy group Free Press stated that removing the cap will allow Trump-aligned billionaires to consolidate stations, leading to job cuts for journalists and reduced local news quality

Local news sustainability

• ▪Nielsen data from 2025 indicated that traditional broadcast television represented only 20.1 percent of total viewing, compared to 44.8 percent for streaming services
• ▪Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr argued that the 39 percent cap unfairly constrains local TV stations while competitors like streaming and social media face no such limits
• ▪Supporters, including National Association of Broadcasters CEO Curtis LeGeyt, argued that eliminating the cap allows local broadcasters to attract capital and invest in journalism

Viewpoint diversity concerns

• ▪Commissioner Anna Gomez stated that consolidation from lifting the cap strengthens the leverage of national owners without ensuring gains translate into community-focused reporting
• ▪Critics argued that the national ownership cap was essential for supporting viewpoint diversity and protecting independent voices in local media markets