Featured Stories
SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against Investment Adviser Charged With Making Misrepresentations in SEC Filing
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Invesco Alpha Inc., No. 1:25-cv-03651-NYW-KAS (D. Colo. filed Nov. 13, 2025)
On September 9, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado entered a final judgment by default against purported investment adviser Invesco Alpha Inc. in connection with previously filed charges for making material misrepresentations and unsubstantiated statements in a form filed with the SEC.
The SEC's complaint, filed on November 13, 2025, alleged that
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Invesco Alpha Inc., No. 1:25-cv-03651-NYW-KAS (D. Colo. filed Nov. 13, 2025)
On September 9, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado entered a final judgment by default against purported investment adviser Invesco Alpha Inc. in connection with previously filed charges for making material misrepresentations and unsubstantiated statements in a form filed with the SEC.
The SEC's complaint, filed on November 13, 2025, alleged thatin its June 2024 Form ADV, Invesco Alpha represented that it is an Exempt Reporting Adviser (a category of private fund advisers that are not required to register with the SEC); that it operates from office space in the Denver area; that it manages $5 million in assets in the United States; that it advises a private fund; and that a separate registered investment adviser (RIA) reports information about the private fund on its own Form ADV. Contrary to Invesco Alpha's representations, the complaint alleged that the business occupant of the Denver-area office space had no knowledge of Invesco Alpha or its purported Chief Executive Officer, and the separate RIA had not reported information about the purported private fund. The complaint also alleged that the Commission had not found any reporting of information about the private fund on other filings with the SEC, and that a search of the Commission's public company database yielded no information on Invesco Alpha. Additionally, the SEC alleged that Invesco Alpha failed to respond to a request by Commission attorneys to provide records to substantiate the information on its Form ADV.
The final judgment permanently enjoins Invesco Alpha from future violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and permanently enjoins Invesco Alpha, its owners, and its executive officers from filing a Form ADV as an Exempt Reporting Adviser. In addition, the judgment orders Invesco Alpha to pay a civil penalty of $1,182,254.
The SEC's litigation was conducted by Alexandra Lavin, Xinyue Angela Lin, David London, Sarah McAteer, Ryan Murphy, Michele Perillo, and Dahlia Rin of the SEC's Boston Regional Office. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
* * *
Resources
* Order Granting Motion for Default Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/order26636.pdf)
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26636.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26636
SEC Charges Former Maryland Resident With Conducting an Alleged $1.5 Million Offering Fraud
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Adam B. Rundle, No. 1:26-cv-03590-ABA (D. Md. filed Sept. 10, 2026)
On September 10, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against Adam B. Rundle for engaging in an alleged offering fraud in which Rundle raised approximately $1.5 million by stealing the identity of a licensed securities professional and making material misrepresentations to induce an investor to purchase a security in the form of a purported Simple Agreement
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release:
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Adam B. Rundle, No. 1:26-cv-03590-ABA (D. Md. filed Sept. 10, 2026)
On September 10, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against Adam B. Rundle for engaging in an alleged offering fraud in which Rundle raised approximately $1.5 million by stealing the identity of a licensed securities professional and making material misrepresentations to induce an investor to purchase a security in the form of a purported Simple Agreementfor Future Equity ("SAFE") in Robinvest, LLC, a company Rundle created and controlled.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleges that from at least November 2021 to January 2024, Rundle defrauded the investor by impersonating a licensed securities professional, and falsely representing that the investor would be purchasing a SAFE that guaranteed the principal investment and a return of 4% compounded annually. The complaint further alleges that Rundle did not invest the funds as promised and misappropriated the entirety of the investor's funds. According to the complaint, Rundle admitted to his former business partners that he had stolen money from a customer, used the funds to buy cryptocurrency, and lost all of the money.
The SEC's complaint charges Rundle with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and disgorgement with prejudgment interest.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Paulina L. Jerez and Jacquelyn D. King, and supervised by Kingdon Kase, Brian R. Higgins and Scott A. Thompson, all of the SEC's Philadelphia Regional Office. The litigation against Rundle will be led by Judson T. Mihok and supervised by Gregory R. Bockin.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp26637.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26637
NRC Proposes Broad Overhaul of Nuclear Reactor Regulations
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
NRC Proposes Broad Overhaul of Nuclear Reactor Regulations
ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a broad overhaul of its regulations governing nuclear reactor licensing and oversight, eliminating outdated requirements, increasing regulatory flexibility and using more risk-informed approaches to support safe and efficient nuclear deployment.
The proposed rule is part of the NRC's implementation of Executive Order 14300, which directs the agency to modernize its regulatory
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
NRC Proposes Broad Overhaul of Nuclear Reactor Regulations
ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a broad overhaul of its regulations governing nuclear reactor licensing and oversight, eliminating outdated requirements, increasing regulatory flexibility and using more risk-informed approaches to support safe and efficient nuclear deployment.
The proposed rule is part of the NRC's implementation of Executive Order 14300, which directs the agency to modernize its regulatoryframework. The changes would apply to both existing nuclear power plants and new reactor applicants and are intended to make NRC regulations more efficient, predictable and adaptable to evolving nuclear technologies while maintaining the agency's safety mission.
"This major modernization of the NRC's reactor regulations replaces outdated requirements with smarter, risk-informed approaches that reflect today's technologies, knowledge and operating experience," NRC Chairman Ho K. Nieh said. "The result is a regulatory framework that maintains strong safety margins while eliminating unnecessary constraints and providing the flexibility needed for America's long-term energy security."
The proposal would, among other things:
* Apply a more risk-informed, graded approach to earthquake design requirements;
* Remove the expiration date for standard design approvals;
* Add flexibility for licensing reactor control-room staff;
* Update how the NRC establishes new or revised requirements for existing facilities;
* Clarify and update defect and noncompliance reporting requirements;
* Update requirements for reporting nonemergency events at nuclear power plants;
* Align financial qualification requirements with the NRC's Part 53 framework;
* Reduce routine reporting and recordkeeping burden;
* Refine how new reactor applicants address issues affecting operating reactors generally; and
* Clarify requirements for plant decommissioning, including use of decommissioning trust funds.
Comments may be submitted for 30 days after the rule's publication in the Federal Register at regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2025-1138. The Federal Register notice has details on how to comment. NRC staff will hold a virtual public meeting during the comment period to explain the proposal and answer questions. The NRC will not accept comments during the meeting.
* * *
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created as an expert, technical agency to protect public health, safety, and security, and regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials, including enabling the deployment of nuclear power for the benefit of society. Among other responsibilities, the agency issues licenses, conducts inspections, initiates and enforces regulations, and plans for incident response. The NRC is collaborating with interagency partners to implement reforms outlined in new Executive Orders and the ADVANCE Act to streamline agency activities and enhance efficiency.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nrc.gov/sites/default/files/cdn/doc-collection-news/2026/26-077.pdf
FEC Issues Digest for Week of Sept. 7-11, 2026
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Advisory Opinions
Extension of Time
Advisory Opinion Request 2026-01 (https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2026-01/) (Placer County Republican Central Committee) On September 8, the requestor granted an extension of time.
* * *
Litigation
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 25-4072) On September 8, the Clerk of Court of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered Default
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:
* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Advisory Opinions
Extension of Time
Advisory Opinion Request 2026-01 (https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2026-01/) (Placer County Republican Central Committee) On September 8, the requestor granted an extension of time.
* * *
Litigation
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 25-4072) On September 8, the Clerk of Court of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered Defaultagainst the Commission.
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 26-2194) On September 9, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default against the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. FEC, et al. (Case No. 22-639) On September 4, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Order and Final Judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
* * *
Outreach
On September 10, Commissioner Shana M. Broussard presented at the Maryland Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' virtual Public Briefing on "Artificial Intelligence & the Maryland Voter."
* * *
Reports Due in 2026
The Commission has posted the 2026 Congressional Pre-Election Reporting Dates. Reporting schedules for all filers in 2026 are also available.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
September 16, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a webinar on Independent Expenditures and Pre-Election Communications.
September 30, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host FECFile and reporting webinars for candidate committees.
October 7, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host FECFile and reporting webinars for PACs and party committees.
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
September 20: September Monthly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Monthly Reporting schedule.
* * *
Additional research materials
Contribution Limits: In addition to the current limits, the Commission has posted an archive of contribution limits that were in effect going back to the 1975-1976 election cycles.
Federal election results are available. The data was compiled from the official vote totals published by state election offices.
FEC Notify: Want to be notified by email when campaign finance reports are received by the agency? Sign up here.
The Combined Federal State Disclosure and Election Directory is available. This publication identifies the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbying, personal finances, public financing, candidates on the ballot, election results, spending on state initiatives, and other financial filings.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Tax Checkoff Chart provides information on balance of the Fund, monthly deposits into the Fund reported by the Department of the Treasury, payments from the Fund as certified by the FEC, and participation rates of taxpayers as reported by the Internal Revenue Service. For more information on the Presidential Public Funding Program, see the Public Funding of Presidential Elections page.
The FEC Record is available as a continuously updated online news source.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/week-of-september-7-11-2026/
FDIC: Joint Statement on Community Banks' Engagement With Core Service Providers
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following joint statement on Sept. 11, 2026:
* * *
Joint Statement on Community Banks' Engagement with Core Service Providers
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), (collectively, the agencies) are issuing this statement to provide clarity on their risk-based supervision of certain services provided to community banking organizations (CBOs).
The agencies believe there is a need for additional
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following joint statement on Sept. 11, 2026:
* * *
Joint Statement on Community Banks' Engagement with Core Service Providers
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), (collectively, the agencies) are issuing this statement to provide clarity on their risk-based supervision of certain services provided to community banking organizations (CBOs).
The agencies believe there is a need for additionalclarification regarding a subset of CBOs' third-party relationships, based on the agencies' supervision of CBOs and their service providers, and reinforced by the agencies' outreach to CBOs and other relevant stakeholders.1 This subset consists of third parties that provide the critical systems applications and infrastructure that support the operation and essential functions of one or more of a CBO's lines of business, including, for example, through the provision of transaction processing, account management, payments processing, customer relationship management, compliance and reporting, online banking, and other material functions. For purposes of this statement, the agencies refer to these entities broadly as core providers. These relationships are essential to the safe and sound operations of CBOs, yet certain core provider business practices and market dynamics may pose obstacles to a CBO's ability to efficiently and effectively identify, assess, and address the attendant risks.
As such, the agencies are issuing this statement to address (1) select aspects of how CBOs engage with core providers, (2) the extent to which the agencies will take these aspects into consideration when determining the level of supervisory oversight of core provider services, and (3) the agencies' supervisory and enforcement authorities where a core provider engages or causes a CBO to engage in unsafe or unsound practices or violations of law or regulation.
Background
CBOs are vital to the strength of the U.S. economy. To support their role, the agencies are committed to prioritizing reforms targeted at reducing the supervisory and regulatory burden for CBOs and tailoring supervisory and regulatory frameworks to better fit their business models and unique risks. These reforms will better position CBOs to serve their communities and drive economic growth.
Most CBOs rely on core providers to support their ability to operate effectively and compete in today's rapidly evolving marketplace. The agencies recognize the significant benefits these relationships offer. Core providers represent CBOs' most material, complex, and highest-risk third-party relationships. A core processing platform's availability, integrity, and security are vital to nearly all banking operations. Beyond the core processing platform, these providers often deliver additional services such as payment processing, card programs, loan management systems, or online banking. While use of core providers can create operational efficiencies, it also creates heightened risk, especially if the core provider experiences financial distress, operational failures, or security compromises.
The agencies are also aware that a significant percentage of the core provider market is represented by just a few large providers, which limits CBOs' negotiating power. Given these constraints, CBOs report they often experience challenges obtaining reasonable due diligence information, negotiating contract terms, or conducting effective ongoing monitoring. These challenges may make it difficult for CBOs to hold core providers accountable for delivering quality services.
Risk-Based Supervision of Core Providers
Each banking organization is responsible for operating in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. An important aspect of this responsibility is adopting third-party risk management practices that are commensurate with the organization's size, complexity, and risk profile and with the nature of its third-party relationships.
As part of standard supervisory processes, the agencies examine a banking organization for its management of third-party risk and its operations involving third parties. The agencies also conduct risk-based examinations of certain third parties' provision of services, including those of certain core providers.2 These supervisory activities are prioritized based on the risks that core providers pose to their client banking organizations and may include joint examinations with other financial regulators and targeted or full-scope examinations of varying frequency.3
Based on the agencies' supervisory experience and stakeholders' input, the agencies have determined that core provider business practices that unreasonably limit CBOs' ability to conduct due diligence and ongoing monitoring or to negotiate contract terms that address their business needs are associated with greater risks to the CBOs and a reduced ability of CBOs to identify, assess, and address such risks. Accordingly, the agencies will consider the following factors when making supervisory allocation decisions relevant to core providers who provide services to CBOs (e.g., decisions regarding the nature, extent, and frequency of supervisory activities applicable to core providers; the contents of examination reports provided to core providers' client financial institutions; and whether to add a core provider to the agencies' service provider examination program):
* Transparency: As part of safe and sound third-party risk management, banking organizations collect information from their third-party service providers through due diligence, contractual mechanisms, and ongoing oversight, tailored to the banking organization's size, complexity, and risk profile, as well as the nature of its third-party relationships. CBOs that are unable to collect this information are more likely to face challenges effectively and efficiently managing their third-party risks, which, given the criticality of core providers, may be more difficult to mitigate, compared to other less critical third parties. These informational gaps also may present challenges for the agencies' supervision of these CBOs.
As such, the agencies will take into consideration the level of a core provider's transparency with CBOs in making supervisory allocation decisions regarding core provider examinations.4 This will be determined through an assessment of a core provider's (1) willingness to provide reasonably relevant and timely due diligence information necessary for a CBO to decide whether to enter into a core provider relationship and engage in ongoing monitoring thereafter,5 (2) contractual provisions that limit a CBO's reasonable attempts to compare the core provider's offerings with those of other providers, (3) use of, transparency regarding, and compliance with service level agreements using measurable performance standards that reflect a CBO's individual needs and risk profile, along with provisions that enable a CBO to monitor and enforce the agreements, (4) transparency and timely disclosure regarding operational issues and security incidents impacting the delivery of services,6 and (5) use of complex billing practices that are difficult to reconcile to the services CBOs are receiving.
* Contract Features: As part of effective management of third-party risks, a CBO may determine that it either needs to exit a relationship with a core provider that does not meet its needs or has failed to perform adequately or seek supplemental services from alternative providers. However, core provider contract provisions may act as obstacles to a CBO seeking such an exit or supplemental services. As a result, CBOs may be forced to acquiesce to suboptimal core provider relationships wherein CBO needs are less likely to be adequately met and CBOs may have a limited ability to manage third-party risk.
In making supervisory resource allocation decisions, the agencies will take into consideration a core provider's business practices and use of contract terms that make it difficult for CBOs to manage their core provider relationships in a manner that aligns with the CBO's business needs, such as by seeking an alternative core provider or supplementary services. Such contract terms and practices include, for example, (1) opaque pricing structures and practices, (2) opaque billing practices, including extensive "back billing" windows during which the core provider may issue retroactive charges for items missing from prior invoices, (3) unsupported or contractually undefined core deconversion fees, especially in instances in which the core provider breached contractual terms, provided inadequate services as measured by service level agreements, or violated or may have caused the CBO to violate any laws or regulations, and (4) excessive limitations on the ability of unaffiliated service providers to integrate with the core platform.
* Technology: Core providers that fail to invest in maintaining up-to-date technological solutions may be more likely to experience data breaches or service outages or disruptions, which CBOs have limited ability to oversee or mitigate.
As such, the agencies will take into consideration a core provider's technology investments and capabilities in making supervisory allocation decisions. This includes, for example, (1) the number and severity of computer security incidents,7 (2) appropriate management of end-of-support and end-of-life assets that enable client CBOs to transition to updated platforms, and (3) lack of demonstrated operational resilience capabilities.
Supervisory and Enforcement Actions
The agencies monitor services that core providers deliver to CBOs to identify issues related to safety and soundness or violations of law. When such issues are identified, the agencies may bring the appropriate actions against core providers and/or the CBO pursuant to their statutory authorities.8 This does not eliminate or reduce a CBO's responsibility for ensuring activities are consistent with safe and sound banking practices and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, regardless of whether they are outsourced to a third party.
Among other bases for bringing appropriate actions against core providers, the agencies may have a reasonable basis to determine that certain core providers qualify as "institution-affiliated parties" (IAP) under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act9--specifically, as "persons . . . who participate[] in the conduct of the affairs of an insured depository institution."10 This determination reflects the operational reality of the CBO-core provider relationship. While CBOs contract with core providers for services, many of the services provided by core providers address unique features of a CBO, are integral to the functioning of the institution and its delivery of banking products and services, and directly impact the customer banking experience. Many CBOs are wholly reliant on core providers for their back-end operations, as well as some of their customer interfaces and other functions.
In these arrangements, core providers undertake the most central operational aspects of banking for the CBO, and CBOs often could not provide their services otherwise. Because core providers are integral to carrying out the business of banking and the functions of CBOs, they may be held liable for the practices or violations of a CBO as an institution-affiliated party.
* * *
1/ See, e.g., OCC, Request for Information Regarding Community Banks' Engagement With Core Service Providers and Other Essential Third-Party Service Providers (PDF), 90 FR 54882 (Nov. 28, 2025).
2/ See 12 U.S.C. 1464(d)(7)(D) and 1867(c)(1).
3/ See FFIEC, IT Examination Handbook: Supervision of Technology Service Providers (Oct. 2012).
4/ Any such consideration will balance a core provider's reasonable bases for limiting disclosure of certain information, including as it relates to confidentiality, information security, or other legal or risk-based needs, against the potential risk management benefits to a CBO in seeking to collect the information.
5/ Examples may include, as appropriate to the nature of the third-party relationship, SSAE 18 SOC Reports (Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements 18 System and Organization Controls Reports), audit reports, security program reports, including penetration testing reports, and industry standard assessments (e.g., Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and International Organization for Standardization (ISO)).
6/ This includes, among other things, mandatory computer security incident notifications. See 12 CFR part 53; part 225, subpart N; and part 304, subpart C.
7/ See supra note 6.
8/ See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 1818 and 1867.
9/ 12 U.S.C. 1813(u).
10/ 12 U.S.C. 1813(u)(3).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/speeches/2026/joint-statement-community-banks-engagement-core-service-providers
FCC Media Bureau Reminds United States-based Foreign Media Outlets of Next Semi-Annual Disclosure Deadline
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. DA 26-969):
* * *
Section 1085 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA) amended the Communications Act of 1934 (the Communications Act) to add section 722, which requires all "United States-based foreign media outlets" to submit to the Commission a report containing: 1) the name of such outlet; and 2) a description of the relationship of such outlet to the foreign principal of such outlet, including a description of the legal structure
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (Docket No. DA 26-969):
* * *
Section 1085 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA) amended the Communications Act of 1934 (the Communications Act) to add section 722, which requires all "United States-based foreign media outlets" to submit to the Commission a report containing: 1) the name of such outlet; and 2) a description of the relationship of such outlet to the foreign principal of such outlet, including a description of the legal structureof such relationship and any funding that such outlet receives from such principal./1 The report is to be submitted no later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the NDAA and no less frequently than every 6 months thereafter./2 As the previous report was due on April 11, 2026, the deadline for outlets to submit the next NDAA report to the Commission is October 11, 2026.
The Commission has established an e-mail inbox, at ndaareport@fcc.gov, that outlets should use to submit the reports. Respondents should format the reports as Adobe(R) Acrobat(R) (PDF) or Microsoft(R) Word documents and attach them to the e-mail. The e-mail submitting the report should include a subject or caption referring to the NDAA disclosure requirement and the name of the outlet. Respondents are reminded that the contents of the reports are subject to the provisions of the United States Code governing statements or representations made before the Commission./3
For purposes of this disclosure requirement, the NDAA provides that the term "United States-based foreign media outlet" means an entity that (A) produces or distributes video programming (as defined in section 602 of the Communications Act) that is transmitted, or intended for transmission, by a multichannel video programming distributor (as defined in such section) to consumers in the United States; and (B) would be an agent of a foreign principal for purposes of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) (22 U.S.C. Sec. 611 et seq.) but for section 1(d) of FARA (22 U.S.C. Sec. 611(d))./4 The Communications Act defines the term "video programming" as "programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station."/5 The term "multichannel video programming distributor" means "a person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming."/6
The NDAA provides that the term "foreign principal" has the meaning given such term in Section 1(b)(1) of FARA (22 U.S.C. Sec. 611(b)(1))./7 Section 1(b)(1) of FARA provides that "a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party" are included in the definition of a "foreign principal."/8 Section 1(c) of FARA provides that, except "as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the term 'agent of a foreign principal' means (1) any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person--(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or (iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States; and (2) any person who agrees, consents, assumes or purports to act as, or who is or holds himself out to be, whether or not pursuant to contractual relationship, an agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause (1) of this subsection."/9
Section 1(d) of FARA states that the "term 'agent of a foreign principal' does not include any news or press service or association organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or any newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication for which there is on file with the United States Postal Service information in compliance with section 3611 of Title 39, published in the United States, solely by virtue of any bona fide news or journalistic activities, including the solicitation or acceptance of advertisements, subscriptions, or other compensation therefor, so long as it is at least 80 per centum beneficially owned by, and its officers and directors, if any, are citizens of the United States, and such news or press service or association, newspaper, magazine, periodical, or other publication, is not owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized, or financed, and none of its policies are determined by any foreign principal defined in subsection (b) of section 611, or by any agent of a foreign principal required to register under this subchapter."/10
Consistent with the requirements of the NDAA, the Commission will transmit to Congress a report that summarizes the contents of the reports submitted by United States-based foreign media outlets within 90 days from the date of enactment, and not less frequently than every 6 months thereafter./11 As the Commission transmitted the previous report on or before May 11, 2026, the Commission will transmit the next report on or before November 11, 2026. In addition, the Commission will make publicly available on its website each report submitted by a United States-based foreign media outlet no later than the earlier of (1) 30 days after the outlet submits its report to the Commission or (2) the date on which the Commission transmits its report to Congress./12 These reports and the Commission's report to Congress can be found on the website of the Media Bureau: https://www.fcc.gov/united-states-based-foreignmedia-outlets.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-232, Sec.1085(a) (2018) (NDAA).
2/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 624(a).
3/ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001.
4/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 624(d)(2).
5/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 522(20).
6/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 522(13).
7/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 624(d)(1).
8/ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 624(d)(1); 22 U.S.C. Sec. 611(b)(1). We note that the Department of Justice has adopted regulations implementing the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, including definitions of statutory terms. See 5 CFR Sec.Sec. 5.1, et seq.; id. Sec. 5.100.
9/ 22 U.S.C. Sec. 611(c).
10/ 22 U.S.C. Sec. 611(d).
11/ NDAA, Sec.1085(b) (codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 624(b)).
12/ NDAA, Sec.1085(c) (codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 624(c)).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-969A1.pdf
FCC Issues Daily Digest for Sept. 10
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 174) on Sept. 10, 2026:
* * *
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY:
ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED SEPTEMBER 10, 2026, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 174:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-1-260910-01. Released: 2026-09-10. APPLICATIONS. MB. DOC-424890A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424890A1.pdf) DOC-424890A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424890A1.txt)
Released: 2026-09-10. PSHSB ANNOUNCES REGION 37 (SOUTH CAROLINA) RPCS
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following Daily Digest (Vol. 45, No. 174) on Sept. 10, 2026:
* * *
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE DATED AND RELEASED TODAY:
ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED SEPTEMBER 10, 2026, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 174:
PUBLIC NOTICES
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-1-260910-01. Released: 2026-09-10. APPLICATIONS. MB. DOC-424890A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424890A1.pdf) DOC-424890A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424890A1.txt)
Released: 2026-09-10. PSHSB ANNOUNCES REGION 37 (SOUTH CAROLINA) RPCSTO HOLD 800 MHZ AND 700 MHZ MEETINGS. (DA No. 26-960). (Dkt No 23-237 02-378). Announces Region 37 (South Carolina) RPC Meeting for 800 MHZ and 700 MHZ . PSHSB. Contact: Diana Coho (717) 338-2848 . News Media Contact: John Evanoff (202) 418-0848. DA-26-960A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-960A1.docx) DA-26-960A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-960A1.pdf) DA-26-960A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-960A1.txt)
Released: 2026-09-10. PSHSB ANNOUNCES REGION 1 (ALABAMA) RPCS TO HOLD 700 MHZ AND 800 MHZ MEETINGS. (DA No. 26-961). (Dkt No 23-237 02-378). Announces Region 1 (Alabama) RPC Meeting for 700 MHZ and 800 MHZ. PSHSB. Contact: Diana Coho (717) 338-2848. News Media Contact: John Evanoff (202) 418-0848. DA-26-961A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-961A1.docx) DA-26-961A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-961A1.pdf) DA-26-961A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-961A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-2-260910-01. Released: 2026-09-10. ACTIONS. MB. DOC-424891A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424891A1.pdf) DOC-424891A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424891A1.txt)
Report No: REPORT NO. PN-3-260910-01. Released: 2026-09-10. PLEADINGS. MB. DOC-424892A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424892A1.pdf) DOC-424892A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424892A1.txt)
* * *
SPEECHES
TRUSTY CONNECTING COUNTRY ROADS EVENT REMARKS, ARMSTRONG, W. VA. OMR OCOT. Trusty Connecting Country Roads Event Remarks, Armstrong, W. VA.. DOC-424898A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424898A1.docx) DOC-424898A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424898A1.pdf) DOC-424898A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424898A1.txt)
* * *
TEXTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, TOWN OF COULEE CITY, STATIONS K10RA-D, K11WY-D, AND K12RD-D COULEE CITY, WASHINGTON. Issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order to Town of Coulee City for violations of the Commission's rules.. Action by: Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. Adopted: 2026-09-10 by MO&O. (DA No. 26-959). MB. DA-26-959A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-959A1.docx) DA-26-959A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-959A1.pdf) DA-26-959A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-959A1.txt)
* * *
ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED SEPTEMBER 9, 2026, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 173:
NEWS RELEASES
FCC ANNOUNCES TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER OPEN MEETING. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr announced that the items below are tentatively on the agenda for the September Open Commission Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 30, 2026.. by News Release. News Media Contact: MediaRelations@fcc.gov (202) 418-0500. OMR OCHBC. DOC-424838A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424838A1.docx) DOC-424838A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424838A1.pdf) DOC-424838A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424838A1.txt)
* * *
PUBLIC NOTICES
Released: 2026-09-09. FCC'S PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU ANNOUNCES CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN ROUTERS AND ADVANCED ROBOTIC DEVICES FROM FCC COVERED LIST. (DA No. 26-957). (Dkt No 18-89 21-232 21-233). PSHSB. Contact: Matthew Chai, (202) 418-1112, Matthew.chai@fcc.gov. Action by: Chief, PSHSB. DA-26-957A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-957A1.docx) DA-26-957A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-957A1.pdf) DA-26-957A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-957A1.txt)
Released: 2026-09-09. WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON NECA 2027 MODIFICATION OF THE AVERAGE SCHEDULE COMPANY UNIVERSAL SERVICE HIGH COST LOOP SUPPORT FORMULA. (DA No. 26-958). (Dkt No 05-337 10-90). WCB. News Media Contact: Gilbert Smith, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at Gilbert.Smith@fcc.gov, (202) 418-7400. DA-26-958A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-958A1.docx) DA-26-958A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-958A1.pdf) DA-26-958A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-958A1.txt)
Released: 2026-09-09. OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY ESTABLISHES ET DOCKET NO. 26-245. (DA No. 26-953). (Dkt No 26-245). OET. DA-26-953A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-953A1.docx) DA-26-953A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-953A1.pdf) DA-26-953A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-953A1.txt)
* * *
TEXTS
HURRICANE LOWELL COMMUNICATIONS STATUS REPORT - SEPTEMBER 9, 2026. Hurricane Lowell communications status report for September 9, 2026.. Action by: PSHSB. by REPORT. OMR PSHSB. DOC-424888A1.docx (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424888A1.docx) DOC-424888A1.pdf (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424888A1.pdf) DOC-424888A1.txt (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-424888A1.txt)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/daily-digest/2026/09/10
