Skip to main content

FCC moves to deliver long-sought win for Trump-aligned broadcasters

(CNN) — The Federal Communications Commission is changing its rules so that local TV station owners can get much, much bigger.

The looming vote, which is likely to be challenged in court, is a long-sought victory for media moguls who are aligned with President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

The change is a priority for FCC chair Brendan Carr, who says it is necessary for broadcasters to better compete with tech giants and other competitors.

Carr announced on Wednesday that the FCC will vote next month to repeal its national broadcast ownership rule, which prohibits a single company from reaching more than 39% of US TV households.

As a result, a broadcast network like NBC has affiliated stations across the US that are owned by a variety of companies, rather than all being owned by NBC.

The rule is intended to encourage local ownership, but Carr says it is “outdated” because it is preventing station owners “from gaining the same scale that their competitors are free to enjoy.”

The FCC has waived the so-called ownership “cap” in the past, and now Carr’s office says he wants to implement a “case-by-case” review process that “will empower the FCC to approve deals that promote the public interest while allowing the agency to reject any deals that do not meet that standard.”

Critics say Carr has weaponized the “public interest” standard to favor Trump’s allies and punish his critics.

But the FCC is currently firmly under Republican control; only one of the three commissioners, Anna Gomez, is a Democrat, so the August 6 vote to eliminate the rule will almost certainly pass.

On Wednesday, Gomez called the impending change an “unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration.”

“A free and diverse media landscape depends on real limits on how much of the public airwaves any one company can control, and this FCC is now poised to allow local broadcasters to sell those airwaves off to the highest bidder,” Gomez said.

Carr’s office portrayed it very differently, of course, saying “this action will foster a competitive media market, enhance localism, and promote investment in trusted sources of news and information.”

Such an approach would ease the way for current and future mergers. Nexstar, one of the biggest TV station owners in the US, had to win a waiver from the FCC to acquire one of its rivals, Tegna, earlier this year.

The merger was put on hold by a federal judge after a coalition of state attorneys general sued to block it, arguing the combination violates antitrust laws.

On Wednesday, a Nexstar spokesperson hailed Carr’s plan to revoke the rule as “a welcome and long-overdue step toward bringing broadcast regulation into the modern media marketplace.”

Sinclair, another station owner that stands to benefit from the change, said, “Given the undeniable change and disruption to the media ecosystem, updating these rules to reflect the current landscape is common sense.”

Conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups have similarly pushed for the elimination of the cap for years, suggesting that it would level the proverbial playing field.

Carr promoted that position in an op-ed for the right-wing website Breitbart on Wednesday, touting it as a way to “restore balance to the broadcast airwaves.”

Public interest groups that support the cap — and oppose further consolidation in the local TV industry — said Carr is really trying to help his political allies.

Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press, pointed out that Congress set the 39% cap in a 2004 law.

“Brendan Carr cannot undo the limit that Congress set just because he feels like it,” Wood said in a statement foreshadowing future legal action.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Trump needs to get tough on China to get tough on Iran’s economy. He’s been reluctant to do that

(CNN) — The Trump administration appears to have landed on a fallback strategy in the Iran war after military strikes and negotiations failed to deliver victory: threats of harsh economic sanctions.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has called them the “toughest sanctions in history,” which will “collapse this regime.” He’s even called it an “economic D-Day” for Iran, comparing it to the historic invasion of Nazi-occupied France during World War II.There’s just one problem: Making good on those tough words requires not just getting tough on Iran, but also getting tough on China, which is Tehran’s No. 1 trading partner.And Trump and his administration have proved quite reluctant to do that.When Bessent rolled out the economic strategy Monday, he didn’t name specific countries that would be punished — or lay out timelines — if they don’t cut ties. And the announcement notably did not include secondary sanctions on the large Chinese banks that facilitate Beijing’s purchases from Iran.China buys as much as 90% of Iran’s oil. Economic analysts have told CNN that targeting these banks and Chinese companies would be crucial to exacting a major toll on Iran’s economy.But not for the first time in recent days, Bessent punted on exactly what would be done on that front. He suggested messages were being sent — saying “no one is above the reach of US sanctions” — but didn’t detail what will happen with China.“If they facilitate transactions and are part of the ecosystem that turns Iranian oil into money, into repression, they will be targeted,” Bessent said. “We find that the best way to engage with countries is through quiet diplomacy.”He added: “So when the hammer of US Treasury actions falls upon them, they will have no one to blame but themselves.”But you could be forgiven for thinking this might be lots of sound and fury signifying relatively little.That’s because not only has the administration regularly backed off the threats it’s made in the Iran war, but it has a track record of treading gently around China, whose leader, Xi Jinping, is set to visit the White House next month.While Trump has made a big show about getting tough on China over the years, he backed off his trade war with Beijing in October, agreeing to a one-year truce. That followed shortly after Beijing upped its leverage by restricting access to critical rare-earth minerals and halting purchases of American soybeans.Trump last year also ignored federal law to help save the Chinese-owned video app TikTok, despite his first administration having labeled it a grave national security threat because of its ability to spy on Americans.Fast forward to Trump’s visit to China in May, and rather than pressing Xi publicly on a potential invasion of Taiwan, Trump made some major Taiwan-related rhetorical concessions.He also backed off his previous promises to get China to free Jimmy Lai, a former Hong Kong media tycoon who criticized the Chinese Community Party, as well as to ban Beijing from buying American farmland and to “aggressively” revoke Chinese student visas.By July, Trump delivered a primetime address in which he claimed China effectively interfered in the 2020 US election (which is not what the evidence actually showed). But rather than punish China for this seemingly major purported provocation, Trump downplayed the need for retaliation.The president seemed to prefer to use China to try to substantiate his still-baseless claims of stolen elections, without going to the trouble of holding the alleged thief accountable.And even in the context of the Iran war, Trump has been gentle with China.He has repeatedly shrugged off the idea that Beijing is helping Iran. And on his way back from China in May, he said he was considering lifting sanctions on Chinese companies that buy Iranian oil.Trump at the time was trying to secure a deal with Iran. But it’s telling that he’s been willing to telegraph potential carrots involving China, even as his administration is reluctant to publicly threaten to use the stick against it. In the latter case, it prefers “quiet diplomacy.”Also telling would seem to be Bessent’s comments Monday when CNN asked why the major secondary sanctions he previewed didn’t start immediately.“Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior,” he said. “Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?”The administration appears well aware that getting tough on Iran would entail going after China — a risk that it might decide isn’t worth it.There’s an argument to be made that these topics are best addressed next month, during Xi’s state visit to Washington.But such pomp and circumstance can drain Trump of his resolve to get tough (as seen during his May visit to China) — and that’s if he even wants to get tough on China right now.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story