Federal Executive Branch
Here's a look at documents from the U.S. Executive Branch
Federal Agencies
Featured Stories
FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following speech by Commissioner Olivia Trusty:
* * *
FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks
DOW Reception during the ITSO Assembly
National Air and Space Museum
October 1st, 2026
Good evening, everyone.
It is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington and to one of the most inspiring places in our nation's capital.
First, thank you to Vernita Harris for the kind introduction and thank you to my USG colleagues for hosting this wonderful reception and bringing us together in such a fitting setting.
I also want to thank ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following speech by Commissioner Olivia Trusty: * * * FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks DOW Reception during the ITSO Assembly National Air and Space Museum October 1st, 2026 Good evening, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington and to one of the most inspiring places in our nation's capital. First, thank you to Vernita Harris for the kind introduction and thank you to my USG colleagues for hosting this wonderful reception and bringing us together in such a fitting setting. I also want to thankDirector General Brazil-David, as well as the entire ITSO team, and all of you who have traveled from around the world to participate in the Forty-Second Assembly of Parties. I am "over the moon" to be here; but at a gathering of satellite experts, I realize that is a modest distance.
I know you have had a full day of meetings, so I'll spare you my jokes, and I promise not to stand for too long between you and the rest of the reception.
I want to take a quick moment to recognize the National Air and Space Museum. It is a museum that tells an extraordinary story. A story of people who looked at what seemed impossible and decided to attempt it anyway.
From the Wright brothers' first flight, to Charles Lindbergh's crossing of the Atlantic, to the Apollo missions that carried human beings to the Moon, the achievements represented here changed our understanding of distance, possibility, and even our place in the universe.
They are proud American accomplishments, yes. But their impact has never belonged to the United States alone.
The knowledge gained, the technologies developed, and the possibilities opened by those achievements have benefitted people around the world.
And none of that progress happened simply because someone built a better aircraft or a more powerful rocket. It also required communications.
Every mission depended upon the ability to transmit information reliably across great distances. Every astronaut depended upon a communications link back to Earth. And every breakthrough ultimately depended upon people, institutions, industries, and governments working together.
Those same principles guide our work today.
Satellites now connect communities separated by oceans and mountains. They bring broadband to places that terrestrial networks cannot easily reach. They support navigation, weather forecasting, agriculture, disaster response, national security, and the global economy.
Today, satellite and terrestrial networks are no longer operating in separate dimensions. They are becoming parts of one interconnected communications ecosystem.
For regulators, that creates an exciting responsibility: which is to develop policy that makes room for innovation, manages spectrum wisely, encourages investment and competition, and makes allowances for new services. This responsibility also includes developing policies that are compatible across borders, because neither radio waves nor satellites stop at national boundaries.
This does not mean that international cooperation requires every country to make precisely the same policy choices. But it does require us to listen to one another, to respect our shared obligations, and to build frameworks that allow new technologies to serve people in every part of the world.
As we look ahead to the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha, the international community will make decisions that will shape the future of global communications for years to come. Delegates will elect the ITU's leadership, members of its Radio Regulations Board, and the Member States that will serve on the ITU Council. The United States is seeking re-election to the ITU Council, continuing its longstanding participation in the work of the Union.
The United States is proud to support the re-election of Doreen Bogdan-Martin as Secretary-General of the ITU.
Doreen has devoted her career to the mission of global connectivity. As the first woman to lead the ITU, she has brought energy, openness, and a strong focus on delivering meaningful results.
She understands that connectivity is not an end in itself. It is a pathway to education, health care, economic opportunity, public safety, and fuller participation in modern life.
Under her leadership, the ITU has worked to build partnerships across governments, industry, civil society, and the technical community and to turn ambitious goals into practical action.
The United States is also proud to nominate Jennifer Warren for one of the Americas region seats on the ITU Radio Regulations Board.
Jennifer brings more than thirty-five years of experience spanning government, the private sector, and academia. She understands the technical, regulatory, and commercial dimensions of spectrum policy. Just as significantly, she understands the importance of listening carefully, applying the Radio Regulations fairly, and building confidence among administrations.
Those qualities are essential at a moment when demand for spectrum is growing, new satellite systems are being deployed, and the radio-frequency environment is becoming more complex.
Doreen and Jennifer are exceptionally well qualified. But this is about more than two American candidates.
It is about supporting leaders who believe international institutions must be effective, transparent, and responsive to the needs of their members.
It is about protecting a global communications environment in which countries can cooperate, innovators can invest, and new technologies can reach the people who need them.
And so, as friends and partners, we respectfully ask for your support for Doreen Bogdan-Martin and Jennifer Warren at the Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha.
The history surrounding us tonight reminds us that progress is rarely the achievement of one person, one organization, or even one nation.
For the United States, we planted our flag on the Moon, but doing so required thousands of people, decades of accumulated knowledge, and communications systems that allowed an entire world to share in the moment.
The technologies before us today are different. But the responsibility is the same: to work together, to think boldly, and to ensure that the next great communications breakthrough expands opportunity for people everywhere. Thank you for your partnership. Thank you for joining us tonight. And welcome to Washington.
It is now my pleasure to introduce someone whose expertise and judgment will serve the international community well: The United States' candidate for the ITU Radio Regulations Board, Ms. Jennifer Warren. Jennifer, the floor is yours.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.pdf
* * *
FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks
DOW Reception during the ITSO Assembly
National Air and Space Museum
October 1st, 2026
Good evening, everyone.
It is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington and to one of the most inspiring places in our nation's capital.
First, thank you to Vernita Harris for the kind introduction and thank you to my USG colleagues for hosting this wonderful reception and bringing us together in such a fitting setting.
I also want to thank ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following speech by Commissioner Olivia Trusty: * * * FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty Remarks DOW Reception during the ITSO Assembly National Air and Space Museum October 1st, 2026 Good evening, everyone. It is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington and to one of the most inspiring places in our nation's capital. First, thank you to Vernita Harris for the kind introduction and thank you to my USG colleagues for hosting this wonderful reception and bringing us together in such a fitting setting. I also want to thankDirector General Brazil-David, as well as the entire ITSO team, and all of you who have traveled from around the world to participate in the Forty-Second Assembly of Parties. I am "over the moon" to be here; but at a gathering of satellite experts, I realize that is a modest distance.
I know you have had a full day of meetings, so I'll spare you my jokes, and I promise not to stand for too long between you and the rest of the reception.
I want to take a quick moment to recognize the National Air and Space Museum. It is a museum that tells an extraordinary story. A story of people who looked at what seemed impossible and decided to attempt it anyway.
From the Wright brothers' first flight, to Charles Lindbergh's crossing of the Atlantic, to the Apollo missions that carried human beings to the Moon, the achievements represented here changed our understanding of distance, possibility, and even our place in the universe.
They are proud American accomplishments, yes. But their impact has never belonged to the United States alone.
The knowledge gained, the technologies developed, and the possibilities opened by those achievements have benefitted people around the world.
And none of that progress happened simply because someone built a better aircraft or a more powerful rocket. It also required communications.
Every mission depended upon the ability to transmit information reliably across great distances. Every astronaut depended upon a communications link back to Earth. And every breakthrough ultimately depended upon people, institutions, industries, and governments working together.
Those same principles guide our work today.
Satellites now connect communities separated by oceans and mountains. They bring broadband to places that terrestrial networks cannot easily reach. They support navigation, weather forecasting, agriculture, disaster response, national security, and the global economy.
Today, satellite and terrestrial networks are no longer operating in separate dimensions. They are becoming parts of one interconnected communications ecosystem.
For regulators, that creates an exciting responsibility: which is to develop policy that makes room for innovation, manages spectrum wisely, encourages investment and competition, and makes allowances for new services. This responsibility also includes developing policies that are compatible across borders, because neither radio waves nor satellites stop at national boundaries.
This does not mean that international cooperation requires every country to make precisely the same policy choices. But it does require us to listen to one another, to respect our shared obligations, and to build frameworks that allow new technologies to serve people in every part of the world.
As we look ahead to the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha, the international community will make decisions that will shape the future of global communications for years to come. Delegates will elect the ITU's leadership, members of its Radio Regulations Board, and the Member States that will serve on the ITU Council. The United States is seeking re-election to the ITU Council, continuing its longstanding participation in the work of the Union.
The United States is proud to support the re-election of Doreen Bogdan-Martin as Secretary-General of the ITU.
Doreen has devoted her career to the mission of global connectivity. As the first woman to lead the ITU, she has brought energy, openness, and a strong focus on delivering meaningful results.
She understands that connectivity is not an end in itself. It is a pathway to education, health care, economic opportunity, public safety, and fuller participation in modern life.
Under her leadership, the ITU has worked to build partnerships across governments, industry, civil society, and the technical community and to turn ambitious goals into practical action.
The United States is also proud to nominate Jennifer Warren for one of the Americas region seats on the ITU Radio Regulations Board.
Jennifer brings more than thirty-five years of experience spanning government, the private sector, and academia. She understands the technical, regulatory, and commercial dimensions of spectrum policy. Just as significantly, she understands the importance of listening carefully, applying the Radio Regulations fairly, and building confidence among administrations.
Those qualities are essential at a moment when demand for spectrum is growing, new satellite systems are being deployed, and the radio-frequency environment is becoming more complex.
Doreen and Jennifer are exceptionally well qualified. But this is about more than two American candidates.
It is about supporting leaders who believe international institutions must be effective, transparent, and responsive to the needs of their members.
It is about protecting a global communications environment in which countries can cooperate, innovators can invest, and new technologies can reach the people who need them.
And so, as friends and partners, we respectfully ask for your support for Doreen Bogdan-Martin and Jennifer Warren at the Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha.
The history surrounding us tonight reminds us that progress is rarely the achievement of one person, one organization, or even one nation.
For the United States, we planted our flag on the Moon, but doing so required thousands of people, decades of accumulated knowledge, and communications systems that allowed an entire world to share in the moment.
The technologies before us today are different. But the responsibility is the same: to work together, to think boldly, and to ensure that the next great communications breakthrough expands opportunity for people everywhere. Thank you for your partnership. Thank you for joining us tonight. And welcome to Washington.
It is now my pleasure to introduce someone whose expertise and judgment will serve the international community well: The United States' candidate for the ITU Radio Regulations Board, Ms. Jennifer Warren. Jennifer, the floor is yours.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-425560A1.pdf
FCC Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Anna M. Gomez:
* * *
Commission Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule
Re: Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Report and Order (August 6, 2026).
The Commission's decision to eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and longstanding broadcast policy. Congress set this cap in federal law, and only ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Anna M. Gomez: * * * Commission Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule Re: Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Report and Order (August 6, 2026). The Commission's decision to eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and longstanding broadcast policy. Congress set this cap in federal law, and onlyCongress can change it. I cannot support an action that so plainly exceeds the Commission's authority while simultaneously overlooking the real-world consequences for the public we serve.
The national cap matters and Congress, not this Commission, controls its fate. Today's action undermines our core public interest principles of localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition while failing to consider or address the interconnected rules, market realities, and economic pressures that define today's media ecosystem.
Broadcast television remains one of the nation's most vital civic institutions precisely because it is free, universally accessible, and rooted in the communities it serves. Unlike subscription-based or algorithm-driven digital platforms, broadcasting is a public-facing technology designed from the outset to deliver content that strengthens civic infrastructure and supports democratic engagement. At its best, broadcasting is a glue that holds communities together by providing local journalism, emergency information, cultural touchstones, and live events that speak to who we are and what we value.
Local journalism sits at the center of this civic mission. It is the backbone of localism, supplying coverage of public safety issues, local government, community concerns, school board decisions, and regional sports, matters that national outlets neither cover nor understand with the nuance they require. Many national stories begin at the local level, and communities rely on reporters who know their neighborhoods, understand their residents, and can contextualize national issues through a local lens. This service cannot be replicated at a national scale. That is why the law has long afforded local broadcasters special treatment: because communities depend on them.
Broadcasting is also indispensable in emergencies. Over-the-air alerts save lives, and broadcasters' ability to reach virtually every household, even when broadband is down or mobile networks are congested, is a public-safety asset unmatched by any technology company. When a hurricane is approaching, when wildfires threaten communities, when a chemical spill forces evacuations, when seconds matter, broadcasters provide immediate, authoritative information.
Culturally, broadcasting binds the country together through shared experiences. National sporting events such as the Super Bowl, the Olympics, and the World Cup are not merely entertainment, they are common, unifying moments that cross political, geographic, and demographic lines. Regional and local sports carry similar importance, reflecting the identities of states, towns, and schools. Congress recognized the civic and cultural significance of sports broadcasting when it enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act, underscoring the public value of ensuring these shared experiences remain broadly accessible.
These public-interest benefits flow from what broadcasters do uniquely well, delivering time-sensitive live content. News, emergency alerts, and sports, all core to the public interest, depend on real-time distribution, consistency, and universal reach. And while news and emergency services are public goods, sports content serves the public interest and helps sustain the economic model that makes those public goods possible. Recent events underscore this synergy: the World Cup's unifying impact and strong ratings, the Olympics' broad national resonance, and football's extraordinary audience reach. Ninety-two of the top one hundred broadcasts in 2025 were football games. These are not just ratings milestones, they are reminders of broadcasting's unique role in our cultural fabric.
But today, the financial model that underpins broadcast journalism and emergency communications is under strain. Global digital platforms, which include some of the largest and most powerful corporations in history, are aggressively moving into sports, siphoning away a cornerstone of broadcast revenue at a moment when advertising markets are already tightening. It is difficult to overstate the significance of this shift. As Big Tech competes for sports rights, the economic viability of the broadcast model becomes more precarious. Broadcasters are being squeezed from both sides. Digital giants compete for their most valuable programming and advertising, while consolidation pressures at the national level threaten the local reporting and public-safety functions on which communities rely. But eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from that strain. It just changes who is doing the squeezing. A handful of station-group giants do not represent the wishes of local broadcasters. They are large national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them without much local input. Trading a squeeze from Big Tech for a squeeze from Big Media does nothing to protect the communities this cap was designed to serve.
Eliminating the national audience reach cap would accelerate these pressures precisely when communities need strong, independent local journalism and robust emergency communications the most. The cap has long served as a guardrail preserving localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition. Removing it now, without regard for the public policy consequences, risks undermining the very features of broadcasting that distinguish it from nationalized, centralized digital media systems. At a time when shared civic experiences are increasingly rare, weakening an institution that still produces them is not just unwise policy; it is a step in the wrong direction for our country.
Most fundamentally, however, the Commission does not have the authority to raise or waive the 39 percent national audience reach limitation. Simply put, the 39 percent national audience reach limitation was established by a statute and only Congress has the authority to raise or eliminate it. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (2004 CAA) directed the Commission to set the national audience reach limitation at 39 percent, removed this limitation from the congressionally created review process, established an ongoing divesture requirement for any entity that exceeds the 39 percent limitation, and not only failed to provide the Commission with authority to modify, waive, or raise the limitation, it affirmatively stated that the Commission was prohibited from forbearing from enforcing the statutory provision./1 These steps were deliberate, explicit, and binding.
* * *
1. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, Sec. 629, 118 Stat. 3 (2004) (2004 CAA).
There are few, if any, issues with more history at the Federal Communications Commission than broadcast ownership limitations. The Commission has regulated broadcast ownership since 1941 to promote localism and competition, preserve diverse viewpoints, and avoid "concentration of control."/2 At the outset, ownership was limited to one television station within a given area and three "scattered" stations. The Commission later raised the ownership limitation to five stations in 1944 and seven in 1954. In 1984, the Commission increased the limitation to twelve stations and proposed phasing it out, but in direct response to such Commission action Congress quickly intervened to block the phase-out./3 And in response to Congress stepping in and directing the Commission to reconsider its action, the Commission proceeded more cautiously by maintaining the twelve-station limitation, and, for the first time, also adopted a percentage-based limitation./4 This limitation prohibited any single entity from acquiring
2. Kannon Shanmugam and William Marks, The FCC Lacks Statutory Authority to Revise the Telecommunications Act's 39% National Ownership Cap for Television at 3 (2025), https://americantelevisionalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/NationalOwnershipCapWhitePaper_12-15-25.pdf (quoting Broadcast Services Other Than Standard Broadcast, 6 Fed. Reg. 2282, 2282 (Apr. 30, 1941)).
3. See Second Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 98-396, Sec. 304, 98 Stat. 1369, 1423 (1984) (1984 SSAA).
4. In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.3555 [formerly Sections 73.35, 73.240 and 73.636] of the Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of AM, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 100 F.C.C.2d 74 (1984).
ownership interests in stations reaching more than 25 percent of the national audience. These actions ultimately set the stage for Congress to revisit the Commission's ownership limitations in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). In the 1996 Act, Congress again asserted its authority over broadcast ownership limits when it created an initial national audience reach limitation of 35 percent and simultaneously created a biennial review process that required the Commission to consider whether this congressionally created limitation, along with additional rules "adopted pursuant to [the 1996 Act]" and all of the Commission's other existing ownership rules, continued to be "necessary in the public interest."/5 In June of 2003, the Commission raised the national audience reach limitation to 45 percent as part of such required review.6 In direct response to this Commission action, in January of 2004, Congress stepped in yet again and in the 2004 CAA modified the relevant sections of the 1996 Act in several critical respects.7
5. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.) (1996 Act).
6. 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 et al., Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 13620, 13814 para. 499 (June 3, 2003) (2002 Biennial Review).
7. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
Specifically, Congress directed the Commission to set the national audience reach limitation to 39 percent in the Commission's rules by modifying the language in section 202(c)(1)(B) of the 1996 Act.8 It also changed the review process it had created by explicitly removing review of "the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B)"9 from the required, now quadrennial, review of the Commission's rules that were "adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules."10 The 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B), and its precursor 35 percent rule originally adopted in 1996, are the original and subsequently congressionally modified version of a rule that was "adopted pursuant to this section."/11
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.; 1996 Act Sec. 202(h).
11. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Fox I); see also Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, modified on reh'g, 293 F.3d 537, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2002).] (Fox II)
The changes to the text of the 1996 Act also prohibited the Commission from forbearing from the 39 percent national audience reach limitation./12 Forbearance is a term used specifically in the Communications Act to provide the Commission with the authority to not enforce statutory provisions./13 As used here, by stating forbearance authority "shall not apply" to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, the language makes clear two things. First, that Congress believed the limitation was statutory. Forbearance only applies to statutory provisions, it is not necessary for rules established by the Commission and use of the word would make no sense if Congress believed otherwise. Second, that forbearing from it was prohibited makes clear Congress's intent that the limitation was not to be changed.
12. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
13. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160. Congress provided the Commission with specific forbearance authority in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in response to the Supreme Court reversing a Commission decision not to enforce a statutory tariffing requirement because the Commission lacked forbearance authority. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218, 114 S. Ct. 2223 (1994). See also Cary Adickman, Grin and Forbear It: Suffering Statutory Forbearance Under The Telecommunications Act Of 1996 at 5-8 (2013).
This interpretation of the meaning of the forbearance provision is consistent with the related actions in the 2004 CAA that demonstrate Congress's intent to establish a limitation that the Commission did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.
14. 2002 Biennial Review at 13814 para. 499 (2003); 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
15. 2004 CAA Sec. 629 (amending 1996 Act Sec. 202(h) "by striking ''biennially'' and inserting ''quadrennially'' and by adding the following new flush sentence at the end: ''This subsection does not apply to any rules relating to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B).")
16. Fox I at 1043; see also Fox II at 540.
17. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
Notably, Congress took further consistent actions. It also created a stand-alone ongoing divestiture obligation that made it crystal clear that the directed rule change removed the Commission's authority to change it./18 Specifically, Congress established a statutory two-year timeline for entities that exceeded the limitation to come into compliance that was independent of the effective date of the 2004 CAA. The divestiture requirement is that any entity "that exceeds the 39% national audience reach limitation . . . through grant, transfer, or assignment of an additional license for commercial broadcast television station shall have not more than two years after exceeding such limitation to come into compliance with such limitation."/19 Importantly, this language refers specifically to a numerical limitation and then refers back to that specific limitation twice. It is not referencing the Commission's rule, it is speaking to the specific limitation that Congress had created with this action.
18. Id.
19. Id. (emphasis added).
Conspicuously, the language the 2004 CAA inserts into the 1996 Act speaks in terms of the specifically enumerated "39 percent national audience reach limitation." Neither the exclusion of the limitation from quadrennial review, the divestiture requirement nor the prohibition against forbearance refer to the national audience reach limitation "in the Commission's rules." Instead in each instance the statutory language states explicitly "the 39 percent national audience reach limitation," demonstrating that Congress intended this specific limitation to be set absent further action by Congress.
Further, knowledgeable republicans with direct experience shaping, and later interpreting, the national audience reach cap agree that today's action is plainly foreclosed by law. Former FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, who was personally involved in the negotiations that produced the 39 percent cap, has stated unequivocally that the Commission "does not have the authority to modify the national audience reach cap," explaining that Congress expressly codified the cap in statute, removed it from the Commission's periodic ownership review, and never revisited that limitation./20 Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who negotiated the final compromise with Senator Ted Stevens, has likewise emphasized that the 39 percent cap was deliberately enacted to prevent FCC revision absent a future act of Congress, underscoring that "regulatory agencies cannot defy or modify laws enacted by Congress" and reaffirming that the cap is "a statute, not a suggestion."/21 And while Senator Ted Cruz did not serve in Congress during those negotiations, his present role as Chair of the Senate Commerce
20Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 10785, 10808, para. 2 (2017).
21/ Tom Delay, I Helped Create The FCC's Ownership Cap. Here's How We Did It (Aug. 3, 2026) https://www.dailywire.com/news/tom-delay-i-helped-create-the-fccs-ownership-cap-heres-how-we-did-it.
Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today.Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today.Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today./22 Monty Tayloe, Howard Buskirk, Matt Daneman and Jimm Phillips, FCC to Vote on Eliminating National Cap at Aug. 6 Meeting (July 16, 2026), https://communicationsdaily.com/article/view?search_id=82641&id=2789159.
Today's order eliminating the 39 percent audience reach limitation ignores or summarily dismisses inconvenient facts and legal findings from its description of the relevant history. The Commission concludes that Congress's statutory action in the 2004 CAA changing the language in the 1996 Act directing the Commission to set the limitation at 39 percent was a mere temporary action in response to the Commission raising it too quickly. The Commission bases its analysis on the fact that the 2004 CAA did not change the language in the 1996 Act that directed the Commission to "modify its rules," the Commission's general rulemaking authority and language in appellate decisions predating the 2004 CAA./23 Specifically, that "had the Congress wished to insulate the [national ownership reach limitation] from review under Sec. 202(h), it need only have enshrined the 35% cap in the statute itself."/24 Upon close examination, the analysis falls apart. The order relies in large part on its analysis of the D.C. Circuit opinions in the Fox litigation./25 The order is correct that the D.C. Circuit found that Congress had directed the Commission to review the national ownership reach limitation and that the Commission was required to revisit the 35 percent limitation because it was only a starting point./26 The order fails to acknowledge, however, that the reason that the 35 percent limitation was only a starting point and the Commission was required to review it was that the statute required a biennial review of rules adopted pursuant to that section of the 1996 Act. The decision specifically noted that the rule in question, the national audience reach limitation, was a rule adopted pursuant to the 1996 Act./27 When Congress removed the 39 percent national audience reach limitation from the required, now quadrennial, review, it removed the statutory requirement on which the court relied in making its determination.
23/ Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No 17-318, at 45-46, paras. 84-85 (August 6, 2026) (National Television Multiple Ownership Rule).
24/ Fox II at 540.
25/ National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 47-48, paras. 87-88.
26/ Fox I at 1043.
27/ Id.
The Commission's reliance on Fox II is equally unpersuasive. It relies on the court's statement that "had Congress wished to take away the Commission's ability to alter the cap, 'it need only have enshrined the 35% cap in the statute itself.'"28 While it is an accurate recitation of the court's decision, it completely ignores that in the 2004 CAA Congress, in fact, took action to enshrine the 39 percent national audience reach limitation by statute. As explained above, Congress (1) directed the Commission's rules be changed to reflect the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, (2) directed the removal of the 39 percent national audience reach limitation from the review process for congressionally established broadcast ownership rules that served as the basis for the decision in Fox I, (3) directed that the Commission should not forbear from the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, and (4) established an ongoing two-year deadline by which any broadcasters that exceeded the 39 percent
28 National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 47 para. 87 (citing Fox II at 570).
national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.29 2004 CAA Sec. 629 (divesture requirement does not apply when the national audience reach limitation is exceeded through population growth). See also 47 CFR Sec. 202(c)(3).
The Commission's assertion that national ownership limitations have always been rules set by the agency with longstanding Congressional deference is contrary to history. Congress legislated on national television broadcast ownership limitations three separate times over the course of 20 years in 1984, 1996, and 2004.30 What is clear is that Congress kept the Commission on a very short leash with regard to these limitations.
30 1984 SSAA Sec. 304; 1996 Act Sec. 202; 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
The public-interest harms that will arise from this unauthorized rule change compound the statutory deficiency. This decision ignores the harms to the media ecosystem that will likely arise as a consequence of raising the national audience reach limitation. These harms include the negative impact on local journalism, consumers paying higher fees to their cable and satellite providers, known as Multichannel Video Program Distributors (MVPDs), and the MVPDs' loss of customers as increased costs result in more consumers cutting the cord. These are not speculative harms. When the Media Bureau waived the cap to clear the way for the Nexstar-TEGNA merger, a federal judge halted the transaction, finding that the states and DIRECTV are likely to succeed in proving it violates antitrust law. A court has already signaled that this kind of consolidation may harm competition and consumers, a signal that this Commission should take seriously before eliminating the cap altogether. Broadcasting does not need to look outside the world of journalism for a second warning. Over roughly the same period that the largest newspaper chains grew their share of the industry from one-third to 70 percent, the country lost more than 3,300 newspapers. Consolidation did not save that industry. It concentrated what remained of it while the industry itself collapsed.
I am cognizant of the economic challenges facing broadcasters today and I remain open to discussing solutions that address these challenges by taking actions that are within our authority and address the issues in a holistic manner. Local journalists do important work and local broadcasters are provided with valuable rights precisely because the public values local journalism. However, the Commission is not doing its job when it modifies its rules to protect the profit margins of corporate behemoths without ensuring that they will continue to provide claimed public interest benefits to consumers.
The Commission concludes that consolidation will allow economies of scale to support more local news and that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem. The claim that media consolidation will lead to more local news is belied by history as submitted by DIRECTV.31 In short, history shows that media consolidation leads to commonly owned stations sharing "common news website[s] and content, common news leadership, and common news talent."32 These assertions are validated by academic research that studied how broadcaster consolidation impacts the rate of news duplication, where station pairs connected through a service agreement, duopoly, or common ownership with one content originating station and one non-originating member had at least 50 percent of the content of their transcripts matched exactly.33
31/ See DIRECTV Letter in MB Docket No. 17-318 at pp. 7-8, filed February 25, 2026; see also DIRECTV Reply to Opposition in MB Docket No. 25-331, at pp. 21-27, filed January 26, 2026.
32/ Id.
33/ Danilo Yanich and Benjamin E. Bagozzi, "Reusing the News: Duplication of Local Content," at 28-29, University of Delaware, (May 2025).
Further, the assertion that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem because local broadcasters compete with national digital media platforms for advertisers and audience share is an oversimplification that ignores both the public interest and the complexity of the broadcast ecosystem. The complex and longstanding regulatory structure underlying broadcasting is designed, on the one hand, to ensure a diversity of viewpoints are represented by precluding one entity from dominating the voices available in a community and, on the other hand, to support a balance of negotiating power between large broadcasting networks that produce news and entertainment content targeting a national audience and locally licensed broadcasting stations that produce news and entertainment content that is targeted locally. Those advocating for lifting the national audience reach limitation assert it is necessary to preserve local broadcasting from the dominance of national networks. The assertion that the creation of large national ownership groups will result in more locally generated news content to serve local communities is both nonsensical and contrary to the evidence.
The structure is further complicated by the impact of consolidation on broadcasters' negotiations with MVPDs for retransmission consent payments for the distribution of the broadcasters' content. These payments are an important and significant source of support for free over-the-air programming. The MVPD community asserts that increasing or waiving the national audience reach limitation to allow consolidation into larger broadcast ownership groups will result in increased retransmission consent fees that will be paid by consumers. This assertion is supported by the public statements of Nexstar, the broadcast ownership group granted a waiver of this limitation by the Media Bureau earlier this year, which asserted such consolidation would cause Nexstar to achieve hundreds of millions of dollars in "economic synergies," which includes significantly increased retransmission consent fees.34 This is further supported by Nexstar's actions after the transaction closed, where it asserted in court filings that it was required by its contracts to raise retransmission consent rates for acquired entities./35
34/ Press Release, Nexstar Media Group, Inc., Nexstar Media Group, Inc. Enters into Definitive Agreement To Acquire TEGNA Inc. for $6.2 Billion in Accretive Transaction (Aug. 19, 2025), https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar-media-group-inc-enters-into-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-tegna-inc-for-6-2-billion-in-accretive-transaction/.
35 Todd Spangler, Nexstar and Tegna Claim They Can't Fully Comply With Court Order Halting Merger Because Certain Actions 'Cannot Be Undone' (Apr. 1, 2026) https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/nexstar-tegna-merger-tro-court-order-reply-1236704471/.
The Commission's response in this decision to stakeholder concerns about increases in retransmission consent fees that are likely to result from eliminating the national reach limitation is jaw-dropping when considered together with its prior statements on the subject of retransmission consent fees. Specifically, in the order adopted today the Commission states that the impact of eliminating the 39 percent national audience reach limitation on retransmission consent fees is not appropriate for consideration in this proceeding and should instead be considered as part of the case-by-case reviews in individual transactions or in a separate rulemaking proceeding.36
36 National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 34-36, paras. 67-68.
There is nothing new about case-by-case reviews. They already happen in every license transfer and the treatment of these issues is instructive as to what stakeholders can expect from this Commission. What is notable about such reviews is the studied avoidance thus far of addressing the impact of the transaction at issue on retransmission consent fees on the merits every single time it is raised.37 The Media Bureau routinely summarily dismisses such issues as outside the scope of what it should be considering. For example, in the Nexstar Tegna decision, despite evidence that the transaction would result in millions of dollars in increased fees on consumers, the Media Bureau determined that it was inappropriate to consider the issue in that "case-by-case" review because "allegations regarding retransmission consent do not raise a substantial and material question of fact as to whether grant of the
37 Letter from Michael Nilsson, Counsel to the American Television Alliance, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MB Docket No. 17-318 (filed July 27, 2026) (citing the Media Bureau's declining to address restransmission consent issues in nine proceedings since Feb. 3, 2026, see DA 26-755; DA 26-612; DA 26-441; DA 26-427; DA 26-417; DA 26-304; DA 26-267; DA 26-177; and DA 26-108).
Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"38 Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of TEGNA Inc. to Nexstar Media Inc., MB Docket No. 25-331, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 26-267 at 31, para. 77 (Mar. 19, 2026) (Nexstar Tegna Order).
39 Nexstar Tegna Order at 32, para. 80 (2026) (". . . Petitioners' and Opposing Commenters' allegations regarding Nexstar's incentive and ability, post Transaction, to black out (or threaten to black out) its stations go to the functioning of the retransmission consent marketplace, and the Commission has not previously entertained general concerns about the retransmission consent marketplace in the context of individual transactions. Instead, the Commission has, in the past, considered issues related to retransmission consent--including leverage in retransmission consent negotiations--in rulemaking proceedings, and we believe that it is appropriate to continue that practice here.")
The order further noticeably maintains willful ignorance of other proposed changes to statutes as well as Commission rules and requirements for which broadcasters are currently advocating that will potentially impact the economics of local broadcasting. These include proposals in Congress to apply retransmission consent obligations to virtual MVPDs (e.g., DIRECTV, Hulu+ Live, Sling TV and YouTube TV) and to make changes to the Sports Broadcasting Act in response to streaming carriage of NFL games, as well as proposals at the Commission to mandate a hard cutover date for transition to the next generation TV broadcast standard and insert the Commission into negotiations between networks and their affiliates. In each of these proceedings, broadcasters are asserting preferential economic treatment is justified by the public good that local broadcasters provide in the form of public safety, local journalism, and cultural touchstones.
The Commission's decision to eliminate the national audience reach cap is not only a departure from decades of statutory and regulatory precedent, but a profound threat to the public interest. Congress has repeatedly and unequivocally asserted its authority over broadcast ownership limits, calibrating the cap to preserve localism, diversity, and competition in the media landscape. By removing this structural safeguard, the Commission disregards clear legislative intent and undermines the foundational principles that ensure communities retain access to independent local journalism, emergency information, and culturally significant programming. This action risks accelerating media consolidation, diminishing the diversity of voices available to the public, and eroding the civic infrastructure that broadcasting uniquely sustains.
Moreover, the Commission's rationale rests on a misreading of statutory language and a willful blindness to the historical record. Congress's repeated interventions in 1984, 1996, and 2004 demonstrate a consistent commitment to limiting national broadcast ownership and preventing excessive concentration of control. The statutory framework, including the prohibition on forbearance and the stand-alone divestiture requirement, leaves no ambiguity: only Congress has the authority to change the cap, and the Commission is expressly prohibited from doing so. By disregarding these constraints and dismissing the interconnected rules and market realities that define today's media ecosystem, the Commission abdicates its responsibility to uphold both the law and the public interest. Eliminating a statutory cap without addressing these interconnected issues is a bad strategy and an improvisation that will hasten the collapse this Commission claims it wants to prevent. I respectfully dissent.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.pdf
* * *
Commission Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule
Re: Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Report and Order (August 6, 2026).
The Commission's decision to eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and longstanding broadcast policy. Congress set this cap in federal law, and only ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following statement by Commissioner Anna M. Gomez: * * * Commission Repeals National Television Multiple Ownership Rule Re: Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Report and Order (August 6, 2026). The Commission's decision to eliminate the 39 percent national audience reach cap is unlawful on its face and a profound departure from both statutory boundaries and longstanding broadcast policy. Congress set this cap in federal law, and onlyCongress can change it. I cannot support an action that so plainly exceeds the Commission's authority while simultaneously overlooking the real-world consequences for the public we serve.
The national cap matters and Congress, not this Commission, controls its fate. Today's action undermines our core public interest principles of localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition while failing to consider or address the interconnected rules, market realities, and economic pressures that define today's media ecosystem.
Broadcast television remains one of the nation's most vital civic institutions precisely because it is free, universally accessible, and rooted in the communities it serves. Unlike subscription-based or algorithm-driven digital platforms, broadcasting is a public-facing technology designed from the outset to deliver content that strengthens civic infrastructure and supports democratic engagement. At its best, broadcasting is a glue that holds communities together by providing local journalism, emergency information, cultural touchstones, and live events that speak to who we are and what we value.
Local journalism sits at the center of this civic mission. It is the backbone of localism, supplying coverage of public safety issues, local government, community concerns, school board decisions, and regional sports, matters that national outlets neither cover nor understand with the nuance they require. Many national stories begin at the local level, and communities rely on reporters who know their neighborhoods, understand their residents, and can contextualize national issues through a local lens. This service cannot be replicated at a national scale. That is why the law has long afforded local broadcasters special treatment: because communities depend on them.
Broadcasting is also indispensable in emergencies. Over-the-air alerts save lives, and broadcasters' ability to reach virtually every household, even when broadband is down or mobile networks are congested, is a public-safety asset unmatched by any technology company. When a hurricane is approaching, when wildfires threaten communities, when a chemical spill forces evacuations, when seconds matter, broadcasters provide immediate, authoritative information.
Culturally, broadcasting binds the country together through shared experiences. National sporting events such as the Super Bowl, the Olympics, and the World Cup are not merely entertainment, they are common, unifying moments that cross political, geographic, and demographic lines. Regional and local sports carry similar importance, reflecting the identities of states, towns, and schools. Congress recognized the civic and cultural significance of sports broadcasting when it enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act, underscoring the public value of ensuring these shared experiences remain broadly accessible.
These public-interest benefits flow from what broadcasters do uniquely well, delivering time-sensitive live content. News, emergency alerts, and sports, all core to the public interest, depend on real-time distribution, consistency, and universal reach. And while news and emergency services are public goods, sports content serves the public interest and helps sustain the economic model that makes those public goods possible. Recent events underscore this synergy: the World Cup's unifying impact and strong ratings, the Olympics' broad national resonance, and football's extraordinary audience reach. Ninety-two of the top one hundred broadcasts in 2025 were football games. These are not just ratings milestones, they are reminders of broadcasting's unique role in our cultural fabric.
But today, the financial model that underpins broadcast journalism and emergency communications is under strain. Global digital platforms, which include some of the largest and most powerful corporations in history, are aggressively moving into sports, siphoning away a cornerstone of broadcast revenue at a moment when advertising markets are already tightening. It is difficult to overstate the significance of this shift. As Big Tech competes for sports rights, the economic viability of the broadcast model becomes more precarious. Broadcasters are being squeezed from both sides. Digital giants compete for their most valuable programming and advertising, while consolidation pressures at the national level threaten the local reporting and public-safety functions on which communities rely. But eliminating the cap does not free local broadcasters from that strain. It just changes who is doing the squeezing. A handful of station-group giants do not represent the wishes of local broadcasters. They are large national companies that own local stations and increasingly dictate what airs on them without much local input. Trading a squeeze from Big Tech for a squeeze from Big Media does nothing to protect the communities this cap was designed to serve.
Eliminating the national audience reach cap would accelerate these pressures precisely when communities need strong, independent local journalism and robust emergency communications the most. The cap has long served as a guardrail preserving localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition. Removing it now, without regard for the public policy consequences, risks undermining the very features of broadcasting that distinguish it from nationalized, centralized digital media systems. At a time when shared civic experiences are increasingly rare, weakening an institution that still produces them is not just unwise policy; it is a step in the wrong direction for our country.
Most fundamentally, however, the Commission does not have the authority to raise or waive the 39 percent national audience reach limitation. Simply put, the 39 percent national audience reach limitation was established by a statute and only Congress has the authority to raise or eliminate it. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (2004 CAA) directed the Commission to set the national audience reach limitation at 39 percent, removed this limitation from the congressionally created review process, established an ongoing divesture requirement for any entity that exceeds the 39 percent limitation, and not only failed to provide the Commission with authority to modify, waive, or raise the limitation, it affirmatively stated that the Commission was prohibited from forbearing from enforcing the statutory provision./1 These steps were deliberate, explicit, and binding.
* * *
1. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, Sec. 629, 118 Stat. 3 (2004) (2004 CAA).
There are few, if any, issues with more history at the Federal Communications Commission than broadcast ownership limitations. The Commission has regulated broadcast ownership since 1941 to promote localism and competition, preserve diverse viewpoints, and avoid "concentration of control."/2 At the outset, ownership was limited to one television station within a given area and three "scattered" stations. The Commission later raised the ownership limitation to five stations in 1944 and seven in 1954. In 1984, the Commission increased the limitation to twelve stations and proposed phasing it out, but in direct response to such Commission action Congress quickly intervened to block the phase-out./3 And in response to Congress stepping in and directing the Commission to reconsider its action, the Commission proceeded more cautiously by maintaining the twelve-station limitation, and, for the first time, also adopted a percentage-based limitation./4 This limitation prohibited any single entity from acquiring
2. Kannon Shanmugam and William Marks, The FCC Lacks Statutory Authority to Revise the Telecommunications Act's 39% National Ownership Cap for Television at 3 (2025), https://americantelevisionalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/NationalOwnershipCapWhitePaper_12-15-25.pdf (quoting Broadcast Services Other Than Standard Broadcast, 6 Fed. Reg. 2282, 2282 (Apr. 30, 1941)).
3. See Second Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 98-396, Sec. 304, 98 Stat. 1369, 1423 (1984) (1984 SSAA).
4. In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.3555 [formerly Sections 73.35, 73.240 and 73.636] of the Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of AM, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 100 F.C.C.2d 74 (1984).
ownership interests in stations reaching more than 25 percent of the national audience. These actions ultimately set the stage for Congress to revisit the Commission's ownership limitations in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). In the 1996 Act, Congress again asserted its authority over broadcast ownership limits when it created an initial national audience reach limitation of 35 percent and simultaneously created a biennial review process that required the Commission to consider whether this congressionally created limitation, along with additional rules "adopted pursuant to [the 1996 Act]" and all of the Commission's other existing ownership rules, continued to be "necessary in the public interest."/5 In June of 2003, the Commission raised the national audience reach limitation to 45 percent as part of such required review.6 In direct response to this Commission action, in January of 2004, Congress stepped in yet again and in the 2004 CAA modified the relevant sections of the 1996 Act in several critical respects.7
5. Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq.) (1996 Act).
6. 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 et al., Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 13620, 13814 para. 499 (June 3, 2003) (2002 Biennial Review).
7. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
Specifically, Congress directed the Commission to set the national audience reach limitation to 39 percent in the Commission's rules by modifying the language in section 202(c)(1)(B) of the 1996 Act.8 It also changed the review process it had created by explicitly removing review of "the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B)"9 from the required, now quadrennial, review of the Commission's rules that were "adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules."10 The 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B), and its precursor 35 percent rule originally adopted in 1996, are the original and subsequently congressionally modified version of a rule that was "adopted pursuant to this section."/11
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.; 1996 Act Sec. 202(h).
11. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Fox I); see also Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, modified on reh'g, 293 F.3d 537, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2002).] (Fox II)
The changes to the text of the 1996 Act also prohibited the Commission from forbearing from the 39 percent national audience reach limitation./12 Forbearance is a term used specifically in the Communications Act to provide the Commission with the authority to not enforce statutory provisions./13 As used here, by stating forbearance authority "shall not apply" to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, the language makes clear two things. First, that Congress believed the limitation was statutory. Forbearance only applies to statutory provisions, it is not necessary for rules established by the Commission and use of the word would make no sense if Congress believed otherwise. Second, that forbearing from it was prohibited makes clear Congress's intent that the limitation was not to be changed.
12. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
13. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160. Congress provided the Commission with specific forbearance authority in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in response to the Supreme Court reversing a Commission decision not to enforce a statutory tariffing requirement because the Commission lacked forbearance authority. MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218, 114 S. Ct. 2223 (1994). See also Cary Adickman, Grin and Forbear It: Suffering Statutory Forbearance Under The Telecommunications Act Of 1996 at 5-8 (2013).
This interpretation of the meaning of the forbearance provision is consistent with the related actions in the 2004 CAA that demonstrate Congress's intent to establish a limitation that the Commission did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.did not have the authority to change. Congress lowered the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in direct response to the Commission's decision to raise it.
14. 2002 Biennial Review at 13814 para. 499 (2003); 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
15. 2004 CAA Sec. 629 (amending 1996 Act Sec. 202(h) "by striking ''biennially'' and inserting ''quadrennially'' and by adding the following new flush sentence at the end: ''This subsection does not apply to any rules relating to the 39 percent national audience reach limitation in subsection (c)(1)(B).")
16. Fox I at 1043; see also Fox II at 540.
17. 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
Notably, Congress took further consistent actions. It also created a stand-alone ongoing divestiture obligation that made it crystal clear that the directed rule change removed the Commission's authority to change it./18 Specifically, Congress established a statutory two-year timeline for entities that exceeded the limitation to come into compliance that was independent of the effective date of the 2004 CAA. The divestiture requirement is that any entity "that exceeds the 39% national audience reach limitation . . . through grant, transfer, or assignment of an additional license for commercial broadcast television station shall have not more than two years after exceeding such limitation to come into compliance with such limitation."/19 Importantly, this language refers specifically to a numerical limitation and then refers back to that specific limitation twice. It is not referencing the Commission's rule, it is speaking to the specific limitation that Congress had created with this action.
18. Id.
19. Id. (emphasis added).
Conspicuously, the language the 2004 CAA inserts into the 1996 Act speaks in terms of the specifically enumerated "39 percent national audience reach limitation." Neither the exclusion of the limitation from quadrennial review, the divestiture requirement nor the prohibition against forbearance refer to the national audience reach limitation "in the Commission's rules." Instead in each instance the statutory language states explicitly "the 39 percent national audience reach limitation," demonstrating that Congress intended this specific limitation to be set absent further action by Congress.
Further, knowledgeable republicans with direct experience shaping, and later interpreting, the national audience reach cap agree that today's action is plainly foreclosed by law. Former FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, who was personally involved in the negotiations that produced the 39 percent cap, has stated unequivocally that the Commission "does not have the authority to modify the national audience reach cap," explaining that Congress expressly codified the cap in statute, removed it from the Commission's periodic ownership review, and never revisited that limitation./20 Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who negotiated the final compromise with Senator Ted Stevens, has likewise emphasized that the 39 percent cap was deliberately enacted to prevent FCC revision absent a future act of Congress, underscoring that "regulatory agencies cannot defy or modify laws enacted by Congress" and reaffirming that the cap is "a statute, not a suggestion."/21 And while Senator Ted Cruz did not serve in Congress during those negotiations, his present role as Chair of the Senate Commerce
20Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No. 17-318, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 10785, 10808, para. 2 (2017).
21/ Tom Delay, I Helped Create The FCC's Ownership Cap. Here's How We Did It (Aug. 3, 2026) https://www.dailywire.com/news/tom-delay-i-helped-create-the-fccs-ownership-cap-heres-how-we-did-it.
Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today.Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today.Committee gives him direct oversight over this very issue. He has made clear that he is "skeptical a change can be made absent an act of Congress," signaling that Congress's intent remains unchanged today./22 Monty Tayloe, Howard Buskirk, Matt Daneman and Jimm Phillips, FCC to Vote on Eliminating National Cap at Aug. 6 Meeting (July 16, 2026), https://communicationsdaily.com/article/view?search_id=82641&id=2789159.
Today's order eliminating the 39 percent audience reach limitation ignores or summarily dismisses inconvenient facts and legal findings from its description of the relevant history. The Commission concludes that Congress's statutory action in the 2004 CAA changing the language in the 1996 Act directing the Commission to set the limitation at 39 percent was a mere temporary action in response to the Commission raising it too quickly. The Commission bases its analysis on the fact that the 2004 CAA did not change the language in the 1996 Act that directed the Commission to "modify its rules," the Commission's general rulemaking authority and language in appellate decisions predating the 2004 CAA./23 Specifically, that "had the Congress wished to insulate the [national ownership reach limitation] from review under Sec. 202(h), it need only have enshrined the 35% cap in the statute itself."/24 Upon close examination, the analysis falls apart. The order relies in large part on its analysis of the D.C. Circuit opinions in the Fox litigation./25 The order is correct that the D.C. Circuit found that Congress had directed the Commission to review the national ownership reach limitation and that the Commission was required to revisit the 35 percent limitation because it was only a starting point./26 The order fails to acknowledge, however, that the reason that the 35 percent limitation was only a starting point and the Commission was required to review it was that the statute required a biennial review of rules adopted pursuant to that section of the 1996 Act. The decision specifically noted that the rule in question, the national audience reach limitation, was a rule adopted pursuant to the 1996 Act./27 When Congress removed the 39 percent national audience reach limitation from the required, now quadrennial, review, it removed the statutory requirement on which the court relied in making its determination.
23/ Amendment of Section 73.3555(e) of the Commission's Rules, National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, MB Docket No 17-318, at 45-46, paras. 84-85 (August 6, 2026) (National Television Multiple Ownership Rule).
24/ Fox II at 540.
25/ National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 47-48, paras. 87-88.
26/ Fox I at 1043.
27/ Id.
The Commission's reliance on Fox II is equally unpersuasive. It relies on the court's statement that "had Congress wished to take away the Commission's ability to alter the cap, 'it need only have enshrined the 35% cap in the statute itself.'"28 While it is an accurate recitation of the court's decision, it completely ignores that in the 2004 CAA Congress, in fact, took action to enshrine the 39 percent national audience reach limitation by statute. As explained above, Congress (1) directed the Commission's rules be changed to reflect the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, (2) directed the removal of the 39 percent national audience reach limitation from the review process for congressionally established broadcast ownership rules that served as the basis for the decision in Fox I, (3) directed that the Commission should not forbear from the 39 percent national audience reach limitation, and (4) established an ongoing two-year deadline by which any broadcasters that exceeded the 39 percent
28 National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 47 para. 87 (citing Fox II at 570).
national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.national audience reach limitation had to divest stations to come into compliance.29 2004 CAA Sec. 629 (divesture requirement does not apply when the national audience reach limitation is exceeded through population growth). See also 47 CFR Sec. 202(c)(3).
The Commission's assertion that national ownership limitations have always been rules set by the agency with longstanding Congressional deference is contrary to history. Congress legislated on national television broadcast ownership limitations three separate times over the course of 20 years in 1984, 1996, and 2004.30 What is clear is that Congress kept the Commission on a very short leash with regard to these limitations.
30 1984 SSAA Sec. 304; 1996 Act Sec. 202; 2004 CAA Sec. 629.
The public-interest harms that will arise from this unauthorized rule change compound the statutory deficiency. This decision ignores the harms to the media ecosystem that will likely arise as a consequence of raising the national audience reach limitation. These harms include the negative impact on local journalism, consumers paying higher fees to their cable and satellite providers, known as Multichannel Video Program Distributors (MVPDs), and the MVPDs' loss of customers as increased costs result in more consumers cutting the cord. These are not speculative harms. When the Media Bureau waived the cap to clear the way for the Nexstar-TEGNA merger, a federal judge halted the transaction, finding that the states and DIRECTV are likely to succeed in proving it violates antitrust law. A court has already signaled that this kind of consolidation may harm competition and consumers, a signal that this Commission should take seriously before eliminating the cap altogether. Broadcasting does not need to look outside the world of journalism for a second warning. Over roughly the same period that the largest newspaper chains grew their share of the industry from one-third to 70 percent, the country lost more than 3,300 newspapers. Consolidation did not save that industry. It concentrated what remained of it while the industry itself collapsed.
I am cognizant of the economic challenges facing broadcasters today and I remain open to discussing solutions that address these challenges by taking actions that are within our authority and address the issues in a holistic manner. Local journalists do important work and local broadcasters are provided with valuable rights precisely because the public values local journalism. However, the Commission is not doing its job when it modifies its rules to protect the profit margins of corporate behemoths without ensuring that they will continue to provide claimed public interest benefits to consumers.
The Commission concludes that consolidation will allow economies of scale to support more local news and that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem. The claim that media consolidation will lead to more local news is belied by history as submitted by DIRECTV.31 In short, history shows that media consolidation leads to commonly owned stations sharing "common news website[s] and content, common news leadership, and common news talent."32 These assertions are validated by academic research that studied how broadcaster consolidation impacts the rate of news duplication, where station pairs connected through a service agreement, duopoly, or common ownership with one content originating station and one non-originating member had at least 50 percent of the content of their transcripts matched exactly.33
31/ See DIRECTV Letter in MB Docket No. 17-318 at pp. 7-8, filed February 25, 2026; see also DIRECTV Reply to Opposition in MB Docket No. 25-331, at pp. 21-27, filed January 26, 2026.
32/ Id.
33/ Danilo Yanich and Benjamin E. Bagozzi, "Reusing the News: Duplication of Local Content," at 28-29, University of Delaware, (May 2025).
Further, the assertion that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem because local broadcasters compete with national digital media platforms for advertisers and audience share is an oversimplification that ignores both the public interest and the complexity of the broadcast ecosystem. The complex and longstanding regulatory structure underlying broadcasting is designed, on the one hand, to ensure a diversity of viewpoints are represented by precluding one entity from dominating the voices available in a community and, on the other hand, to support a balance of negotiating power between large broadcasting networks that produce news and entertainment content targeting a national audience and locally licensed broadcasting stations that produce news and entertainment content that is targeted locally. Those advocating for lifting the national audience reach limitation assert it is necessary to preserve local broadcasting from the dominance of national networks. The assertion that the creation of large national ownership groups will result in more locally generated news content to serve local communities is both nonsensical and contrary to the evidence.
The structure is further complicated by the impact of consolidation on broadcasters' negotiations with MVPDs for retransmission consent payments for the distribution of the broadcasters' content. These payments are an important and significant source of support for free over-the-air programming. The MVPD community asserts that increasing or waiving the national audience reach limitation to allow consolidation into larger broadcast ownership groups will result in increased retransmission consent fees that will be paid by consumers. This assertion is supported by the public statements of Nexstar, the broadcast ownership group granted a waiver of this limitation by the Media Bureau earlier this year, which asserted such consolidation would cause Nexstar to achieve hundreds of millions of dollars in "economic synergies," which includes significantly increased retransmission consent fees.34 This is further supported by Nexstar's actions after the transaction closed, where it asserted in court filings that it was required by its contracts to raise retransmission consent rates for acquired entities./35
34/ Press Release, Nexstar Media Group, Inc., Nexstar Media Group, Inc. Enters into Definitive Agreement To Acquire TEGNA Inc. for $6.2 Billion in Accretive Transaction (Aug. 19, 2025), https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar-media-group-inc-enters-into-definitive-agreement-to-acquire-tegna-inc-for-6-2-billion-in-accretive-transaction/.
35 Todd Spangler, Nexstar and Tegna Claim They Can't Fully Comply With Court Order Halting Merger Because Certain Actions 'Cannot Be Undone' (Apr. 1, 2026) https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/nexstar-tegna-merger-tro-court-order-reply-1236704471/.
The Commission's response in this decision to stakeholder concerns about increases in retransmission consent fees that are likely to result from eliminating the national reach limitation is jaw-dropping when considered together with its prior statements on the subject of retransmission consent fees. Specifically, in the order adopted today the Commission states that the impact of eliminating the 39 percent national audience reach limitation on retransmission consent fees is not appropriate for consideration in this proceeding and should instead be considered as part of the case-by-case reviews in individual transactions or in a separate rulemaking proceeding.36
36 National Television Multiple Ownership Rule at 34-36, paras. 67-68.
There is nothing new about case-by-case reviews. They already happen in every license transfer and the treatment of these issues is instructive as to what stakeholders can expect from this Commission. What is notable about such reviews is the studied avoidance thus far of addressing the impact of the transaction at issue on retransmission consent fees on the merits every single time it is raised.37 The Media Bureau routinely summarily dismisses such issues as outside the scope of what it should be considering. For example, in the Nexstar Tegna decision, despite evidence that the transaction would result in millions of dollars in increased fees on consumers, the Media Bureau determined that it was inappropriate to consider the issue in that "case-by-case" review because "allegations regarding retransmission consent do not raise a substantial and material question of fact as to whether grant of the
37 Letter from Michael Nilsson, Counsel to the American Television Alliance, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MB Docket No. 17-318 (filed July 27, 2026) (citing the Media Bureau's declining to address restransmission consent issues in nine proceedings since Feb. 3, 2026, see DA 26-755; DA 26-612; DA 26-441; DA 26-427; DA 26-417; DA 26-304; DA 26-267; DA 26-177; and DA 26-108).
Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"Applications would serve the public interest"38 Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of TEGNA Inc. to Nexstar Media Inc., MB Docket No. 25-331, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 26-267 at 31, para. 77 (Mar. 19, 2026) (Nexstar Tegna Order).
39 Nexstar Tegna Order at 32, para. 80 (2026) (". . . Petitioners' and Opposing Commenters' allegations regarding Nexstar's incentive and ability, post Transaction, to black out (or threaten to black out) its stations go to the functioning of the retransmission consent marketplace, and the Commission has not previously entertained general concerns about the retransmission consent marketplace in the context of individual transactions. Instead, the Commission has, in the past, considered issues related to retransmission consent--including leverage in retransmission consent negotiations--in rulemaking proceedings, and we believe that it is appropriate to continue that practice here.")
The order further noticeably maintains willful ignorance of other proposed changes to statutes as well as Commission rules and requirements for which broadcasters are currently advocating that will potentially impact the economics of local broadcasting. These include proposals in Congress to apply retransmission consent obligations to virtual MVPDs (e.g., DIRECTV, Hulu+ Live, Sling TV and YouTube TV) and to make changes to the Sports Broadcasting Act in response to streaming carriage of NFL games, as well as proposals at the Commission to mandate a hard cutover date for transition to the next generation TV broadcast standard and insert the Commission into negotiations between networks and their affiliates. In each of these proceedings, broadcasters are asserting preferential economic treatment is justified by the public good that local broadcasters provide in the form of public safety, local journalism, and cultural touchstones.
The Commission's decision to eliminate the national audience reach cap is not only a departure from decades of statutory and regulatory precedent, but a profound threat to the public interest. Congress has repeatedly and unequivocally asserted its authority over broadcast ownership limits, calibrating the cap to preserve localism, diversity, and competition in the media landscape. By removing this structural safeguard, the Commission disregards clear legislative intent and undermines the foundational principles that ensure communities retain access to independent local journalism, emergency information, and culturally significant programming. This action risks accelerating media consolidation, diminishing the diversity of voices available to the public, and eroding the civic infrastructure that broadcasting uniquely sustains.
Moreover, the Commission's rationale rests on a misreading of statutory language and a willful blindness to the historical record. Congress's repeated interventions in 1984, 1996, and 2004 demonstrate a consistent commitment to limiting national broadcast ownership and preventing excessive concentration of control. The statutory framework, including the prohibition on forbearance and the stand-alone divestiture requirement, leaves no ambiguity: only Congress has the authority to change the cap, and the Commission is expressly prohibited from doing so. By disregarding these constraints and dismissing the interconnected rules and market realities that define today's media ecosystem, the Commission abdicates its responsibility to uphold both the law and the public interest. Eliminating a statutory cap without addressing these interconnected issues is a bad strategy and an improvisation that will hasten the collapse this Commission claims it wants to prevent. I respectfully dissent.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-53A3.pdf
Coast Guard suspends search of missing medical transport aircraft off Nantucket
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard issued the following news release:
* * *
Coast Guard suspends search of missing medical transport aircraft off Nantucket
*
BOSTON-The Coast Guard has suspended its search Sunday, Oct. 4, 2026 for the six passengers aboard the missing medical transport aircraft off the coast of Nantucket.
At approximately 2 a.m., Saturday, the Federal Aviation Administration notified the Coast Guard that contact had been lost with the Gulfstream G100 aircraft while it was traveling from Bermuda to Boston.
There were six passengers aboard ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard issued the following news release: * * * Coast Guard suspends search of missing medical transport aircraft off Nantucket * BOSTON-The Coast Guard has suspended its search Sunday, Oct. 4, 2026 for the six passengers aboard the missing medical transport aircraft off the coast of Nantucket. At approximately 2 a.m., Saturday, the Federal Aviation Administration notified the Coast Guard that contact had been lost with the Gulfstream G100 aircraft while it was traveling from Bermuda to Boston. There were six passengers aboardthe aircraft, including four Canadian nationals and two Bermuda nationals. Next of kin have been notified.
Coast Guard and partner agency assets searched 4445 miles over approximately 66 hours.
"Suspending a search is not an easy decision," said Rear Adm. Matthew Lake, Commander of the Northeast District, "We express our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones affected by the tragedy and our gratitude for our partner agencies who helped support search efforts."
Agencies participating in the search include:
* An HC-144 Ocean Sentry airplane crew from Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod
* An HC-130 Hercules crew from Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod
* An MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter crew from Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod
* 47-foot Motor Lifeboat crews from Coast Guard Station Brant Point
* The crew of the Coast Guard Cutter William Sparling, a Boston-based Fast Response Cutter
* Two HH-60 helicopter crews from the New York Air National Guard's 106th Rescue Wing
* An HC-130 aircraft from the New York Air National Guard's 106th Rescue Wing
A future investigation into the cause of the incident will be coordinated by the appropriate investigative authorities.
-USCG-
***
Original text here: https://www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releases/Article/4618760/coast-guard-suspends-search-of-missing-medical-transport-aircraft-off-nantucket/
* * *
Coast Guard suspends search of missing medical transport aircraft off Nantucket
*
BOSTON-The Coast Guard has suspended its search Sunday, Oct. 4, 2026 for the six passengers aboard the missing medical transport aircraft off the coast of Nantucket.
At approximately 2 a.m., Saturday, the Federal Aviation Administration notified the Coast Guard that contact had been lost with the Gulfstream G100 aircraft while it was traveling from Bermuda to Boston.
There were six passengers aboard ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard issued the following news release: * * * Coast Guard suspends search of missing medical transport aircraft off Nantucket * BOSTON-The Coast Guard has suspended its search Sunday, Oct. 4, 2026 for the six passengers aboard the missing medical transport aircraft off the coast of Nantucket. At approximately 2 a.m., Saturday, the Federal Aviation Administration notified the Coast Guard that contact had been lost with the Gulfstream G100 aircraft while it was traveling from Bermuda to Boston. There were six passengers aboardthe aircraft, including four Canadian nationals and two Bermuda nationals. Next of kin have been notified.
Coast Guard and partner agency assets searched 4445 miles over approximately 66 hours.
"Suspending a search is not an easy decision," said Rear Adm. Matthew Lake, Commander of the Northeast District, "We express our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones affected by the tragedy and our gratitude for our partner agencies who helped support search efforts."
Agencies participating in the search include:
* An HC-144 Ocean Sentry airplane crew from Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod
* An HC-130 Hercules crew from Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod
* An MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter crew from Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod
* 47-foot Motor Lifeboat crews from Coast Guard Station Brant Point
* The crew of the Coast Guard Cutter William Sparling, a Boston-based Fast Response Cutter
* Two HH-60 helicopter crews from the New York Air National Guard's 106th Rescue Wing
* An HC-130 aircraft from the New York Air National Guard's 106th Rescue Wing
A future investigation into the cause of the incident will be coordinated by the appropriate investigative authorities.
-USCG-
***
Original text here: https://www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releases/Article/4618760/coast-guard-suspends-search-of-missing-medical-transport-aircraft-off-nantucket/
Census Bureau Issues Tip Sheet No. 20 - Oct. 2, 2026
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The U.S. Census Bureau issued the following tip sheet on Oct. 2, 2026:
* * *
Upcoming
Online Product Calendar
The U.S. Census Bureau provides anticipated release dates for its regular and recurring statistical products through its online product calendar. This calendar is regularly updated to reflect the most current information.
Data.census.gov Users Needed for Survey
The U.S. Census Bureau's Center for Enterprise Dissemination Services and Consumer Innovation is looking for participants for an upcoming Usability Testing study. A wide range of data users with varying ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The U.S. Census Bureau issued the following tip sheet on Oct. 2, 2026: * * * Upcoming Online Product Calendar The U.S. Census Bureau provides anticipated release dates for its regular and recurring statistical products through its online product calendar. This calendar is regularly updated to reflect the most current information. Data.census.gov Users Needed for Survey The U.S. Census Bureau's Center for Enterprise Dissemination Services and Consumer Innovation is looking for participants for an upcoming Usability Testing study. A wide range of data users with varyingbackgrounds are needed to learn how users interact with the website. Participants should have past or current experience using or analyzing data and have used data from data.census.gov, or other statistical sites for research and to make decisions. Visit census.gov to complete the eligibility survey. Email for more information.
Economic
Legacy USA Trade Online Tool Decommissioned, New USA Trade Online Tool Available
As of June 30, the legacy USA Trade Online platform has been decommissioned and replaced with the new USA Trade Online: Reimagined platform. The new version features the same international trade data as the legacy version while improving user experience with a modern, more intuitive interface and streamlined design.
Business Trends and Outlook Survey
The Business Trends and Outlook Survey (BTOS) measures business conditions on an ongoing basis. BTOS experimental data products are representative of all employer businesses other than farms in the U.S. economy. The data allow greater insight into the state of the economy by providing continuous, timely information for key economic measures. Data are released biweekly and are available by sector, state, employment size and the 25 most populous metropolitan statistical areas.
Federal Register Notices
The U.S. Census Bureau publishes updates in the Federal Register to keep the public informed about surveys, censuses and related activities. Some notices include a comment period during which the public can provide feedback. For more information on Census Bureau Federal Register notices (FRNs), check out Collections of Information and Federal Register Notices.
Current FRNs include:
* Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) (Comment period ends October 6).
* Business Trends and Outlook Survey (Comment period ends October 9).
* State and Local Government Finance Collections, and Public Employment & Payroll Collections (Comment period ends October 19).
* Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions (Comment period ends November 2).
* Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement (Comment period ends November 16).
* Proposed Data Sharing Activity (Comment period ends November 23).
* * *
Recently Released
(Released since Sept. 18, 2026)
Economic
2024 Nonemployer Statistics
Sept. 29 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the 2024 Nonemployer Statistics (NES) on September 29. NES provides annual subnational economic data for businesses that have no paid employees, are subject to federal income tax, and have receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more for the Construction sector). The data consist of the number of nonemployer establishments and receipts by legal form of organization (U.S. and state only) and by receipt size class (U.S. only). Statistics are available for 18 industry sectors at varying levels of industry detail and at the national, state, metropolitan/micropolitan statistical areas, combined statistical areas, and county geography levels.
2024 Nonemployer Statistics for the Marine Economy
Sept. 29 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the 2024 Nonemployer Statistics for the Marine Economy. Nonemployer Statistics (NES) estimates of the Marine Economy in the United States are provided by non-standard state- and county-equivalent geographies, comprised of selected coastal regions across each state, and by the Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW) sectors, defined by the Office for Coastal Management at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
2024 Annual Integrated Economic Survey Nonemployer Statistics
Sept. 29 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the 2024 Annual Integrated Economic Survey Nonemployer Statistics. The Annual Integrated Economic Survey Nonemployer Statistics (AIES-NES) provides national level data on sales, value of shipments, or revenue for employer and nonemployer businesses for industries that are comparable between both the AIES and NES, using the 2017 NAICS vintage, to produce a more complete view of the economy.
Census Bureau Celebrates 15th Anniversary of Manufacturing Day
Sept. 28 -- The U.S. Census Bureau is set to hold a series of events to recognize the manufacturing sector's importance and vast contribution to the nation's economy. The celebration kicks off Sept. 28 and continues through Manufacturing Day, which takes place every year on the first Friday in October. Since its inception in 2011, this event highlights the achievements and opportunities within the modern manufacturing sector, inspiring interest in manufacturing careers.
Census Bureau Releases Quarterly Survey of Public Pensions
Sept. 24 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the Quarterly Survey of Public Pensions (QSPP) for the second quarter of 2026. The QSPP provides data on the financial holdings of the 100 largest defined-benefit public pension systems. Defined-benefit plans provide a specified benefit in retirement.
2026 Annual Government Organization and Structure
Sept. 24 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the 2026 Annual Government Organization counts. The release includes three data tables: Government Units by State, Local Governments by Type and State, and Special District Governments by Function and State. Also set to be released is the annual Government Organization Public Use File for state and local government units, which is a listing of independent governments, dependent school systems and public pension systems.
Visualizing the U.S. Economy: AIES Data Visualization Refreshed with 2024 Data
Sept. 24 -- This week, the U.S. Census Bureau launched a refreshed visualization featuring select statistics and year-to-year trends from the 2024 Annual Integrated Economic Survey (AIES). It highlights revenue, operating expenses, annual payroll, first-quarter payroll and number of employees for select sectors by region.
Blogs
Remembering Vincent Barabba
Sept. 28 -- Written by: George M. Cook, Performing the Duties of the Director -- I am saddened to share the news of the passing of former Census Bureau Director Vincent Barabba, who had just celebrated his 92nd birthday earlier this month. Barabba was born in 1934 in Chicago, Illinois. After earning his undergraduate degree from Woodbury Business College in 1954, he enlisted in the Air Force and served from 1954 until 1958. After his stint in the military, he attended California State University, Northridge, and eventually earned his M.B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1964.
America Counts: Stories Behind the Numbers
America Counts tells the stories behind the numbers in a fresh and inviting way. We feature stories on various topics such as families, housing, employment, business, education, the economy, emergency preparedness and the population.
* U.S. Parents Gave $26.6 Billion to Their Adult Children in 2024 (Sept. 30)
* American Manufacturing: A History in Census Data (Sept. 28)
* Beyond Diplomas: Nondegree Credentials Linked to Higher Earnings (Sept. 22)
* Calm Atlantic Hurricane Season Could Mean Active One in the Pacific (Sept. 17)
Stats for Stories
Stats for Stories provides links to timely story ideas highlighting the U.S. Census Bureau's newsworthy statistics that relate to current events, observances, holidays and anniversaries. The story ideas are intended to assist the media in story mining and producing content for their respective audiences.
* National Manufacturing Day: October 2, 2026
* Patriot Day and National Day of Service and Remembrance
* National Preparedness Month: September 2026
Resources
Emergency Management/Disaster Resources
When major disasters strike, visit our Emergency Management webpage for demographic and economic data on impacted areas. Each disaster will include data from our key emergency management tools: OnTheMap for Emergency Management, Community Resilience Estimates, Census Business Builder: Regional Analyst Edition and other useful resources.
Learn What Surveys Are Being Conducted in Your Community
Discover which of the U.S. Census Bureau's annual surveys are being conducted in your community. In a variety of surveys and censuses, evolving from the first census in 1790, the Census Bureau provides official information about America's people, businesses, industries and institutions. Learn more about surveys currently being conducted in each Census Bureau region:
* Atlanta
* Chicago
* Denver
* Los Angeles
* New York
* Philadelphia
* All Surveys
Data Tools
The U.S. Census Bureau's interactive applications are used to access statistics from our annual surveys and programs. A complete list can be accessed on the Census Bureau's Data Tools and Apps webpage.
Training Opportunities
U.S. Census Bureau Training Opportunities
Webinars are available on a regular basis to help the public access and use Census Bureau statistics. These free sessions, which are 60 to 90 minutes each, show users how to navigate Census Bureau databases and mapping tools and find demographic and economic statistics at the local or national level. Descriptions of upcoming sessions are available on our Census Academy webpage. Login details are provided at least one week before a webinar.
Archived Training Resources
Visit the U.S. Census Bureau's Educational Resource Library for previously recorded, free training available at your convenience. The library includes presentations, recorded webinars, tutorials and other helpful materials.
* * *
Original text and links presented by source here:
* * *
Upcoming
Online Product Calendar
The U.S. Census Bureau provides anticipated release dates for its regular and recurring statistical products through its online product calendar. This calendar is regularly updated to reflect the most current information.
Data.census.gov Users Needed for Survey
The U.S. Census Bureau's Center for Enterprise Dissemination Services and Consumer Innovation is looking for participants for an upcoming Usability Testing study. A wide range of data users with varying ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 -- The U.S. Census Bureau issued the following tip sheet on Oct. 2, 2026: * * * Upcoming Online Product Calendar The U.S. Census Bureau provides anticipated release dates for its regular and recurring statistical products through its online product calendar. This calendar is regularly updated to reflect the most current information. Data.census.gov Users Needed for Survey The U.S. Census Bureau's Center for Enterprise Dissemination Services and Consumer Innovation is looking for participants for an upcoming Usability Testing study. A wide range of data users with varyingbackgrounds are needed to learn how users interact with the website. Participants should have past or current experience using or analyzing data and have used data from data.census.gov, or other statistical sites for research and to make decisions. Visit census.gov to complete the eligibility survey. Email for more information.
Economic
Legacy USA Trade Online Tool Decommissioned, New USA Trade Online Tool Available
As of June 30, the legacy USA Trade Online platform has been decommissioned and replaced with the new USA Trade Online: Reimagined platform. The new version features the same international trade data as the legacy version while improving user experience with a modern, more intuitive interface and streamlined design.
Business Trends and Outlook Survey
The Business Trends and Outlook Survey (BTOS) measures business conditions on an ongoing basis. BTOS experimental data products are representative of all employer businesses other than farms in the U.S. economy. The data allow greater insight into the state of the economy by providing continuous, timely information for key economic measures. Data are released biweekly and are available by sector, state, employment size and the 25 most populous metropolitan statistical areas.
Federal Register Notices
The U.S. Census Bureau publishes updates in the Federal Register to keep the public informed about surveys, censuses and related activities. Some notices include a comment period during which the public can provide feedback. For more information on Census Bureau Federal Register notices (FRNs), check out Collections of Information and Federal Register Notices.
Current FRNs include:
* Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) (Comment period ends October 6).
* Business Trends and Outlook Survey (Comment period ends October 9).
* State and Local Government Finance Collections, and Public Employment & Payroll Collections (Comment period ends October 19).
* Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions (Comment period ends November 2).
* Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement (Comment period ends November 16).
* Proposed Data Sharing Activity (Comment period ends November 23).
* * *
Recently Released
(Released since Sept. 18, 2026)
Economic
2024 Nonemployer Statistics
Sept. 29 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the 2024 Nonemployer Statistics (NES) on September 29. NES provides annual subnational economic data for businesses that have no paid employees, are subject to federal income tax, and have receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more for the Construction sector). The data consist of the number of nonemployer establishments and receipts by legal form of organization (U.S. and state only) and by receipt size class (U.S. only). Statistics are available for 18 industry sectors at varying levels of industry detail and at the national, state, metropolitan/micropolitan statistical areas, combined statistical areas, and county geography levels.
2024 Nonemployer Statistics for the Marine Economy
Sept. 29 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the 2024 Nonemployer Statistics for the Marine Economy. Nonemployer Statistics (NES) estimates of the Marine Economy in the United States are provided by non-standard state- and county-equivalent geographies, comprised of selected coastal regions across each state, and by the Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW) sectors, defined by the Office for Coastal Management at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
2024 Annual Integrated Economic Survey Nonemployer Statistics
Sept. 29 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the 2024 Annual Integrated Economic Survey Nonemployer Statistics. The Annual Integrated Economic Survey Nonemployer Statistics (AIES-NES) provides national level data on sales, value of shipments, or revenue for employer and nonemployer businesses for industries that are comparable between both the AIES and NES, using the 2017 NAICS vintage, to produce a more complete view of the economy.
Census Bureau Celebrates 15th Anniversary of Manufacturing Day
Sept. 28 -- The U.S. Census Bureau is set to hold a series of events to recognize the manufacturing sector's importance and vast contribution to the nation's economy. The celebration kicks off Sept. 28 and continues through Manufacturing Day, which takes place every year on the first Friday in October. Since its inception in 2011, this event highlights the achievements and opportunities within the modern manufacturing sector, inspiring interest in manufacturing careers.
Census Bureau Releases Quarterly Survey of Public Pensions
Sept. 24 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the Quarterly Survey of Public Pensions (QSPP) for the second quarter of 2026. The QSPP provides data on the financial holdings of the 100 largest defined-benefit public pension systems. Defined-benefit plans provide a specified benefit in retirement.
2026 Annual Government Organization and Structure
Sept. 24 -- The U.S. Census Bureau released the 2026 Annual Government Organization counts. The release includes three data tables: Government Units by State, Local Governments by Type and State, and Special District Governments by Function and State. Also set to be released is the annual Government Organization Public Use File for state and local government units, which is a listing of independent governments, dependent school systems and public pension systems.
Visualizing the U.S. Economy: AIES Data Visualization Refreshed with 2024 Data
Sept. 24 -- This week, the U.S. Census Bureau launched a refreshed visualization featuring select statistics and year-to-year trends from the 2024 Annual Integrated Economic Survey (AIES). It highlights revenue, operating expenses, annual payroll, first-quarter payroll and number of employees for select sectors by region.
Blogs
Remembering Vincent Barabba
Sept. 28 -- Written by: George M. Cook, Performing the Duties of the Director -- I am saddened to share the news of the passing of former Census Bureau Director Vincent Barabba, who had just celebrated his 92nd birthday earlier this month. Barabba was born in 1934 in Chicago, Illinois. After earning his undergraduate degree from Woodbury Business College in 1954, he enlisted in the Air Force and served from 1954 until 1958. After his stint in the military, he attended California State University, Northridge, and eventually earned his M.B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1964.
America Counts: Stories Behind the Numbers
America Counts tells the stories behind the numbers in a fresh and inviting way. We feature stories on various topics such as families, housing, employment, business, education, the economy, emergency preparedness and the population.
* U.S. Parents Gave $26.6 Billion to Their Adult Children in 2024 (Sept. 30)
* American Manufacturing: A History in Census Data (Sept. 28)
* Beyond Diplomas: Nondegree Credentials Linked to Higher Earnings (Sept. 22)
* Calm Atlantic Hurricane Season Could Mean Active One in the Pacific (Sept. 17)
Stats for Stories
Stats for Stories provides links to timely story ideas highlighting the U.S. Census Bureau's newsworthy statistics that relate to current events, observances, holidays and anniversaries. The story ideas are intended to assist the media in story mining and producing content for their respective audiences.
* National Manufacturing Day: October 2, 2026
* Patriot Day and National Day of Service and Remembrance
* National Preparedness Month: September 2026
Resources
Emergency Management/Disaster Resources
When major disasters strike, visit our Emergency Management webpage for demographic and economic data on impacted areas. Each disaster will include data from our key emergency management tools: OnTheMap for Emergency Management, Community Resilience Estimates, Census Business Builder: Regional Analyst Edition and other useful resources.
Learn What Surveys Are Being Conducted in Your Community
Discover which of the U.S. Census Bureau's annual surveys are being conducted in your community. In a variety of surveys and censuses, evolving from the first census in 1790, the Census Bureau provides official information about America's people, businesses, industries and institutions. Learn more about surveys currently being conducted in each Census Bureau region:
* Atlanta
* Chicago
* Denver
* Los Angeles
* New York
* Philadelphia
* All Surveys
Data Tools
The U.S. Census Bureau's interactive applications are used to access statistics from our annual surveys and programs. A complete list can be accessed on the Census Bureau's Data Tools and Apps webpage.
Training Opportunities
U.S. Census Bureau Training Opportunities
Webinars are available on a regular basis to help the public access and use Census Bureau statistics. These free sessions, which are 60 to 90 minutes each, show users how to navigate Census Bureau databases and mapping tools and find demographic and economic statistics at the local or national level. Descriptions of upcoming sessions are available on our Census Academy webpage. Login details are provided at least one week before a webinar.
Archived Training Resources
Visit the U.S. Census Bureau's Educational Resource Library for previously recorded, free training available at your convenience. The library includes presentations, recorded webinars, tutorials and other helpful materials.
* * *
Original text and links presented by source here:
CISA Launches Cybersecurity Awareness Month: Securing the Next 250
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued the following news release:
* * *
CISA Launches Cybersecurity Awareness Month: Securing the Next 250
SI and Other Technological Advancements Make Cybersecurity More Important than Ever
October 01, 2026
WASHINGTON - The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) kicks off Cybersecurity Awareness Month today. CISA updated our Cybersecurity Awareness Month page with additional information, tips, and resources, including for business and government organizations--if ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued the following news release: * * * CISA Launches Cybersecurity Awareness Month: Securing the Next 250 SI and Other Technological Advancements Make Cybersecurity More Important than Ever October 01, 2026 WASHINGTON - The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) kicks off Cybersecurity Awareness Month today. CISA updated our Cybersecurity Awareness Month page with additional information, tips, and resources, including for business and government organizations--ifyou haven't done so yet, be sure to check out this year's toolkit.
This year's theme is Securing the Next 250, highlighting the need for everyone to play their part in strengthening the country's infrastructure against cyber threats. At a time when nation-state backed cyber threats continue to increase and super intelligence is transforming both threats and security, it is more important than ever that those that own and operate the nation's critical infrastructure take steps to protect it.
"Whenever critical infrastructure is disrupted, so are the businesses and communities that depend on vital services," said Acting CISA Director Nick Andersen. "That's why CISA is prioritizing the security and resilience of critical infrastructure, and state, local, tribal, and territorial government (SLTT), whose systems and services sustain us every day. This includes things like clean water, secure transportation, quality healthcare, secure financial transactions, rapid communications, and more. However great or small--every organization that touches critical infrastructure is vital to ensuring uninterrupted services to America's communities."
Business and government organizations that own, operate, or support critical infrastructure should take core actions to help secure the systems and services that make America a great place to live and do business.
The following four practices are foundational and should be as automatic as buckling a seatbelt:
* Teach employees to avoid phishing scams. Recognizing and reporting suspicious emails and links may prevent cyber intrusions.
* Require strong passwords. Long, random, unique passwords make accounts harder to breach.
* Require multifactor authentication. Adds an extra layer of protection if a password is compromised.
* Update software. Keeps systems protected against known vulnerabilities.
Take the Next Steps to Level Up Your Defenses
* Use logging on your systems: Log activity so your team can monitor signs that threat actors may be trying to access your systems. Learn how to monitor key information to protect your business.
* Back up data: Incidents happen, but when you back up critical information, recovery is faster and less stressful. Put a backup plan in place that aligns with your organization's recovery point objective to protect your systems and keep things running smoothly.
* Encrypt data: Encrypting your data and devices strengthens your defense against attacks. Even if criminals gain access to your files, information stays locked and unreadable. Make encryption part of your security strategy
* Get a .gov domain: Government entities, including SLTT governments, can get a .gov domain for additional security - check out get.gov for more information.
* Report cyber incidents to CISA at cisa.gov/report
* Have an incident response plan and use it: Organizations should develop, maintain, update, and regularly exercise IR plans for common threat scenarios such as ransomware attacks. Ensure drills are realistic and include all relevant stakeholders, such as organizational leadership and legal counsel, in addition to technical personnel. IR plans should be reviewed and drilled on an annual basis at a minimum.
* Be prepared for system disruptions: Organizations should develop and execute plans to recover and restore service to critical assets or systems that might be impacted by a cybersecurity incident. Consider including the ability to execute mission essential functions without access to critical assets or even internet access (e.g., shift to paper-based operations, radio communications, etc.)
And for those who own or operate critical infrastructure, we invite you to join us in practicing the 3Rs of Cybersecurity: Reduce, Replace, Recover:
* Reduce attack surfaces
* Replace end-of-support devices
* Recover quickly to sustain operations
As Cybersecurity Awareness Month 2026 begins, let's remember that safeguarding our nation's critical infrastructure is a shared responsibility. Whether you're a business leader, government official, or an employee on the front lines, your actions matter. By embracing foundational cybersecurity practices and preparing for the unexpected, we can build a more resilient America--one where essential services remain secure and communities thrive. Together, let's secure the next 250 and beyond.
* * *
About CISA
As the nation's cyber defense agency and national coordinator for critical infrastructure security, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency leads the national effort to manage, uncover, and reduce risk to our digital and physical infrastructure Americans rely on every hour of every day.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/cisa-launches-cybersecurity-awareness-month-securing-next-250
* * *
CISA Launches Cybersecurity Awareness Month: Securing the Next 250
SI and Other Technological Advancements Make Cybersecurity More Important than Ever
October 01, 2026
WASHINGTON - The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) kicks off Cybersecurity Awareness Month today. CISA updated our Cybersecurity Awareness Month page with additional information, tips, and resources, including for business and government organizations--if ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued the following news release: * * * CISA Launches Cybersecurity Awareness Month: Securing the Next 250 SI and Other Technological Advancements Make Cybersecurity More Important than Ever October 01, 2026 WASHINGTON - The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) kicks off Cybersecurity Awareness Month today. CISA updated our Cybersecurity Awareness Month page with additional information, tips, and resources, including for business and government organizations--ifyou haven't done so yet, be sure to check out this year's toolkit.
This year's theme is Securing the Next 250, highlighting the need for everyone to play their part in strengthening the country's infrastructure against cyber threats. At a time when nation-state backed cyber threats continue to increase and super intelligence is transforming both threats and security, it is more important than ever that those that own and operate the nation's critical infrastructure take steps to protect it.
"Whenever critical infrastructure is disrupted, so are the businesses and communities that depend on vital services," said Acting CISA Director Nick Andersen. "That's why CISA is prioritizing the security and resilience of critical infrastructure, and state, local, tribal, and territorial government (SLTT), whose systems and services sustain us every day. This includes things like clean water, secure transportation, quality healthcare, secure financial transactions, rapid communications, and more. However great or small--every organization that touches critical infrastructure is vital to ensuring uninterrupted services to America's communities."
Business and government organizations that own, operate, or support critical infrastructure should take core actions to help secure the systems and services that make America a great place to live and do business.
The following four practices are foundational and should be as automatic as buckling a seatbelt:
* Teach employees to avoid phishing scams. Recognizing and reporting suspicious emails and links may prevent cyber intrusions.
* Require strong passwords. Long, random, unique passwords make accounts harder to breach.
* Require multifactor authentication. Adds an extra layer of protection if a password is compromised.
* Update software. Keeps systems protected against known vulnerabilities.
Take the Next Steps to Level Up Your Defenses
* Use logging on your systems: Log activity so your team can monitor signs that threat actors may be trying to access your systems. Learn how to monitor key information to protect your business.
* Back up data: Incidents happen, but when you back up critical information, recovery is faster and less stressful. Put a backup plan in place that aligns with your organization's recovery point objective to protect your systems and keep things running smoothly.
* Encrypt data: Encrypting your data and devices strengthens your defense against attacks. Even if criminals gain access to your files, information stays locked and unreadable. Make encryption part of your security strategy
* Get a .gov domain: Government entities, including SLTT governments, can get a .gov domain for additional security - check out get.gov for more information.
* Report cyber incidents to CISA at cisa.gov/report
* Have an incident response plan and use it: Organizations should develop, maintain, update, and regularly exercise IR plans for common threat scenarios such as ransomware attacks. Ensure drills are realistic and include all relevant stakeholders, such as organizational leadership and legal counsel, in addition to technical personnel. IR plans should be reviewed and drilled on an annual basis at a minimum.
* Be prepared for system disruptions: Organizations should develop and execute plans to recover and restore service to critical assets or systems that might be impacted by a cybersecurity incident. Consider including the ability to execute mission essential functions without access to critical assets or even internet access (e.g., shift to paper-based operations, radio communications, etc.)
And for those who own or operate critical infrastructure, we invite you to join us in practicing the 3Rs of Cybersecurity: Reduce, Replace, Recover:
* Reduce attack surfaces
* Replace end-of-support devices
* Recover quickly to sustain operations
As Cybersecurity Awareness Month 2026 begins, let's remember that safeguarding our nation's critical infrastructure is a shared responsibility. Whether you're a business leader, government official, or an employee on the front lines, your actions matter. By embracing foundational cybersecurity practices and preparing for the unexpected, we can build a more resilient America--one where essential services remain secure and communities thrive. Together, let's secure the next 250 and beyond.
* * *
About CISA
As the nation's cyber defense agency and national coordinator for critical infrastructure security, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency leads the national effort to manage, uncover, and reduce risk to our digital and physical infrastructure Americans rely on every hour of every day.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/cisa-launches-cybersecurity-awareness-month-securing-next-250
Bureau of Transportation Statistics: September 2026 U.S. Transportation Sector Unemployment Rises Above the September 2025 Level
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics issued the following news:
* * *
September 2026 U.S. Transportation Sector Unemployment (4.7%) Rises Above the September 2025 Level (4.3%)
October 2, 2026
The unemployment rate in the U.S. transportation sector was 4.7% (not seasonally adjusted) in September 2026 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data have been updated on the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' (BTS) Unemployment in Transportation dashboard. In September 2026, the transportation sector unemployment rate rose ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics issued the following news: * * * September 2026 U.S. Transportation Sector Unemployment (4.7%) Rises Above the September 2025 Level (4.3%) October 2, 2026 The unemployment rate in the U.S. transportation sector was 4.7% (not seasonally adjusted) in September 2026 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data have been updated on the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' (BTS) Unemployment in Transportation dashboard. In September 2026, the transportation sector unemployment rate rose0.4 percentage points from 4.3% in September 2025. Unemployment in the transportation sector reached its highest level during the COVID-19 pandemic (15.7%) in May 2020 and July 2020.
Unemployment in the transportation sector was higher than the overall unemployment. BLS reports that the U.S. unemployment rate, not seasonally adjusted, in September 2026 was 4.0% or 0.7 percentage points below the transportation sector rate. Seasonally adjusted, the U.S. unemployment rate in September 2026 was 4.2%.
Seasonally adjusted, employment in the transportation and warehousing sector rose to 6,608,700 in September 2026 -- up 0.1% from the previous month but down 0.1% from September 2025. By mode (seasonally adjusted):
* Air transportation rose to 568,500 in September 2026 -- up 0.2% from the previous month but down 0.3% from September 2025.
* Truck transportation rose to 1,473,100 in September 2026 -- up 0.2% from the previous month and up 0.1% from September 2025.
* Transit and ground passenger transportation rose to 500,800 in September 2026 -- up 0.6% from the previous month and up 2.3% from September 2025.
* Rail transportation fell to 148,900 in September 2026 -- down 0.2% from the
previous month and down 3.1% from September 2025.
* Water transportation rose to 70,900 in September 2026 -- up 0.3% from the previous month and up 0.1% from September 2025.
* Pipeline transportation fell to 56,600 in September 2026 -- down 0.4% from the previous month but up 0.2% from September 2025.
* Warehousing and storage fell to 1,831,800 in September 2026 -- down 0.2% from the previous month and down 1.2% from September 2025.
Charts updated this month by section include:
Unemployment in the Transportation and Warehousing Sector and in Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
* Total Unemployment in Transportation
Monthly Employment in the Transportation and Warehousing Sector, Establishment Data
* Monthly Employment in the Transportation and Warehousing Sector
* Monthly Employment in the Transportation and Warehousing Sector by Mode
Visit Transportation Economic Trends for more topics.
The unemployment rate is the total number of unemployed persons, expressed as a percentage of the civilian labor force. The civilian labor force includes all persons aged 16 and older who are employed and unemployed; meaning they are either currently working or actively looking for work. Unemployed persons include those who actively sought a job within the last four weeks. People waiting to start a new job who have not actively sought a job in the last four weeks are not counted as employed or unemployed; they are considered to be out of the labor force.
An unemployed person's industry is the industry for the last job they held in the workforce, which may or may not reflect their current job search field or industry.
To receive updates from BTS directly to your email, subscribe to our GovDelivery service.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/september-2026-us-transportation-sector-unemployment-47-rises-above-september-2025-level
* * *
September 2026 U.S. Transportation Sector Unemployment (4.7%) Rises Above the September 2025 Level (4.3%)
October 2, 2026
The unemployment rate in the U.S. transportation sector was 4.7% (not seasonally adjusted) in September 2026 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data have been updated on the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' (BTS) Unemployment in Transportation dashboard. In September 2026, the transportation sector unemployment rate rose ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics issued the following news: * * * September 2026 U.S. Transportation Sector Unemployment (4.7%) Rises Above the September 2025 Level (4.3%) October 2, 2026 The unemployment rate in the U.S. transportation sector was 4.7% (not seasonally adjusted) in September 2026 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data have been updated on the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' (BTS) Unemployment in Transportation dashboard. In September 2026, the transportation sector unemployment rate rose0.4 percentage points from 4.3% in September 2025. Unemployment in the transportation sector reached its highest level during the COVID-19 pandemic (15.7%) in May 2020 and July 2020.
Unemployment in the transportation sector was higher than the overall unemployment. BLS reports that the U.S. unemployment rate, not seasonally adjusted, in September 2026 was 4.0% or 0.7 percentage points below the transportation sector rate. Seasonally adjusted, the U.S. unemployment rate in September 2026 was 4.2%.
Seasonally adjusted, employment in the transportation and warehousing sector rose to 6,608,700 in September 2026 -- up 0.1% from the previous month but down 0.1% from September 2025. By mode (seasonally adjusted):
* Air transportation rose to 568,500 in September 2026 -- up 0.2% from the previous month but down 0.3% from September 2025.
* Truck transportation rose to 1,473,100 in September 2026 -- up 0.2% from the previous month and up 0.1% from September 2025.
* Transit and ground passenger transportation rose to 500,800 in September 2026 -- up 0.6% from the previous month and up 2.3% from September 2025.
* Rail transportation fell to 148,900 in September 2026 -- down 0.2% from the
previous month and down 3.1% from September 2025.
* Water transportation rose to 70,900 in September 2026 -- up 0.3% from the previous month and up 0.1% from September 2025.
* Pipeline transportation fell to 56,600 in September 2026 -- down 0.4% from the previous month but up 0.2% from September 2025.
* Warehousing and storage fell to 1,831,800 in September 2026 -- down 0.2% from the previous month and down 1.2% from September 2025.
Charts updated this month by section include:
Unemployment in the Transportation and Warehousing Sector and in Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
* Total Unemployment in Transportation
Monthly Employment in the Transportation and Warehousing Sector, Establishment Data
* Monthly Employment in the Transportation and Warehousing Sector
* Monthly Employment in the Transportation and Warehousing Sector by Mode
Visit Transportation Economic Trends for more topics.
The unemployment rate is the total number of unemployed persons, expressed as a percentage of the civilian labor force. The civilian labor force includes all persons aged 16 and older who are employed and unemployed; meaning they are either currently working or actively looking for work. Unemployed persons include those who actively sought a job within the last four weeks. People waiting to start a new job who have not actively sought a job in the last four weeks are not counted as employed or unemployed; they are considered to be out of the labor force.
An unemployed person's industry is the industry for the last job they held in the workforce, which may or may not reflect their current job search field or industry.
To receive updates from BTS directly to your email, subscribe to our GovDelivery service.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/september-2026-us-transportation-sector-unemployment-47-rises-above-september-2025-level