This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters:  May 27, 2025 to May 29, 2025

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations.

• The FCC sent to Congress its Budget Estimates request for Fiscal Year 2026.  The budget request contains a few specific references to broadcast matters (along with more general information about inflationary increases in fees and proposals for FCC staffing).  Included in the request was a reference to an auction of FM broadcast channels at some point in Fiscal Year 2026 (October 1, 2025 to September 30, 2026)(which assumes FCC auction authority is reinstated – see our Broadcast Law Blog article here about the current state of that authority).  The request discussed FCC strategic goals, mentioning that: “The FCC will work to pursue policies that protect free speech and access to information, including efforts to foster media competition and ensuring access to local news sources” and “Ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest to include protecting freedom of expression across traditional and non-traditional media platforms.”  The report also promised to continue to ensure accessibility for all to media platforms and to gather information about foreign adversaries with interests in US media outlets.
• In connection with gathering information about the media interests of foreign adversaries, the FCC released the full text of its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted at is last Open Meeting, mentioned in our last summary of regulatory news.  The NPRM proposes to require certain FCC-regulated entities and auction applicants, including all broadcast licensees and permittees, to file a certification stating if they are owned or controlled by a foreign adversary, which the FCC proposes to mean the Peoples’ Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.  This includes proposals not only for reports on ownership interests or other investments by these countries, but also by their citizens.  The FCC made some changes in the final version of the NPRM from the draft it had released several weeks before the meeting, including seeking comment on how to treat individuals holding dual citizenship or multiple citizenships, and whether to adopt different rules for publicly traded companies who may have difficulty in promptly identifying all of their shareholders.  The FCC also added extensive discussion on their authority to ask for this information, perhaps in response to the recent Court decision we discussed on our Blog here, a decision which not only threw out the FCC’s attempt to reimpose Form 395-B, but also stated that the FCC’s authority to impose rules was strictly limited to areas in which Congress had specifically delegated to the FCC the authority to regulate.
• FCC Commissioner Simington and his Chief of Staff, Gavin Wax, published an article advocating the modernization of the FCC’s media ownership rules.  Simington and Wax state that the rules no longer reflect the current media market dominated by digital streaming platforms, who do not face the same regulatory obstacles as broadcasters and can grow larger and more monopolistic while avoiding basic public interest obligations.  To correct this, they argue that the FCC must reclassify streaming providers as multichannel video programming distributors to regulate them like cable and satellite providers.  They also argue that the FCC must modernize its ownership rules to provide broadcasters with greater flexibility to consolidate and compete through targeted reforms that reflect economic realities – without leaving broadcast transactions entirely unregulated.  They contend that doing so would enable broadcasters to scale, pool capital, and share infrastructure – particularly in rural areas.  Simington and Wax’s article follows their articles earlier this month calling for a DOGE-style reform of the FCC (which we noted here), and proposing that the FCC impose a 30% cap on reverse retransmission fees (which we noted here).
• FCC Commissioner Gomez continued her “First Amendment Tour to Challenge Government Censorship and Control“ with remarks at an event hosted by Free Press in Los Angeles.  The event also featured comments from Congressman Ruiz (D-CA), member of the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Subcommittee.  Gomez restated her call that the FCC must cease its investigations into broadcasters’ editorial decisions in their newsrooms, and into public broadcasters’ fulfillment of their noncommercial programming obligations, since these investigations are aimed at chilling speech.  Both Gomez and Ruiz also stated that the FCC’s potential roll back of its media ownership rules is part of an effort to manipulate and maintain an independent free press for either corporate or political interests, noting that journalists are an important check on political power in a democracy. 
• The FCC’s the Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Illegal Pirate Radio Broadcasting to Bronx, New York landowners for allegedly allowing a pirate to broadcast from their property.  The Bureau warned the landowners that the FCC may issue a fine of up to $2,453,218 under the PIRATE Radio Act if the landowners continue to permit pirate radio broadcasting from their property after receiving this notice.
• The Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Violation against a Michigan AM station after a site inspection by the Bureau’s field agents revealed that the station’s chief operator failed to maintain Emergency Alert System logs and failed to conduct weekly reviews of the station’s records as required by the FCC’s rules.  The station must now explain to the Bureau how it will correct the rule violations and prevent future violations from occurring. 
• The FCC’s Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director (OMD) took two actions against broadcasters for failure to pay their regulatory fees:
  • The Bureau and the OMD revoked two Texas FM stations’ licenses due to their failure to pay their delinquent regulatory fees or show that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred in response to the Order to Pay or to Show Cause issued against the stations in February, which we discussed here.  The stations have a combined unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $14,222.60 for fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2024.  The Bureau and the OMD also noted that the revocation of the stations’ licenses does not relieve them of their debt obligation to the FCC. 
  • The Bureau and the OMD also issued an Order to Pay or to Show Cause against a Tennessee AM station proposing to revoke the station’s license unless, within 60 days, the station pays its delinquent regulatory fees and interest, administrative costs, and penalties, or shows that the debts are not owed or should be waived or deferred.  The station has an unpaid regulatory fee debt totaling $16,752.12 for fiscal years 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.

On our Broadcast Law Blog, we took a look at the upcoming regulatory dates and deadlines in June impacting broadcasters.