PLAN for Broadband Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/323

Last Updated: September 7, 2026

PLAN for Broadband Act

S. 323, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$682,800 raised

25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Communications Commission" section, p. 888-890 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

By Senator Cruz from Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation filed written report. Report No. 119-123. Minority views filed.

May 31, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The PLAN for Broadband Act, S. 323, is a legislative attempt to synchronize federal broadband programs and streamline the deployment of high-speed internet access services across the United States. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I will dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation, innovation, and deregulation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to develop a National Strategy to Synchronize Federal Broadband Programs, which aims to provide high-speed, affordable broadband internet access service to all individuals in the United States. This strategy will be developed by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, in consultation with various covered agencies.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the development of a comprehensive strategy that lists all federal broadband programs, describes current coordination efforts, identifies gaps and limitations, and establishes clear roles and responsibilities for covered agencies. It also aims to reduce unnecessary barriers, eliminate unnecessary costs, and ease administrative burdens to participate in federal broadband programs.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

* Covered agencies: Federal Communications Commission, Department of Agriculture, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and others * Private sector companies: Telecommunication providers, internet service providers, and infrastructure developers * State and local governments: Entities responsible for implementing broadband programs at the state and local levels

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The PLAN for Broadband Act has significant implications for my business interests and the broader economy. A synchronized federal broadband strategy could lead to:

* Increased efficiency in broadband deployment, resulting in cost savings and improved services * Enhanced coordination among covered agencies, reducing bureaucratic hurdles and promoting innovation * Improved access to high-speed internet, driving economic growth, job creation, and increased productivity

However, I must emphasize that excessive regulation and government oversight can stifle innovation and hinder the growth of the broadband industry. As a thought leader in this space, I will continue to advocate for deregulation and private sector-led initiatives to drive progress in the broadband sector.

In conclusion, the PLAN for Broadband Act presents both opportunities and challenges for my business interests. While it has the potential to streamline broadband deployment and promote innovation, it also risks perpetuating inefficient government oversight and regulation. As a visionary entrepreneur, I will continue to monitor this legislation and advocate for policies that prioritize deregulation, private sector leadership, and wealth creation.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$682,800

21 donors

PACs

Organizations

$44,500

Committees

Individuals

$638,300

No PAC contributions found

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$25,000

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

1 transaction

$15,000

WT CONSULTANTS LLC

1 transaction

$2,500

WAYPOINT CONSULTING, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

HEDERMAN BROTHERS, LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

HALE, ROBERT T. JR.

2 transactions

$150,000

CHOUEST, GARY

1 transaction

$100,000

DUFF, THOMAS M.

2 transactions

$75,000

BLUE, J. NEAL

1 transaction

$50,000

GOLDING, STEPHEN D.

2 transactions

$50,000

ELLIOTT, MAC

1 transaction

$25,000

GOLDING, MELODY

1 transaction

$25,000

YATES, WILLIAM G. JR.

1 transaction

$25,000

ACKERMAN, FORREST

1 transaction

$25,000

VAN DEVENDER, WILLIAM J.

2 transactions

$25,000

TURNAGE, BEN O.

1 transaction

$19,900

MCRAE, DAVID

1 transaction

$18,400

GREEN, JOHNSON M.

1 transaction

$15,000

HURST, PAUL

1 transaction

$12,500

BARBOUR, HALEY

1 transaction

$12,500

CHOUEST AUSTIN, DIONNE

1 transaction

$10,000

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]

ID: L000570

Top Contributors

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

OTOE-MISSOURIA TRIBE

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Dec 7, 2023

LYTTON BAND OF POMO INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA

$3,300

Dec 5, 2023

TAOS PUEBLO GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

OrganizationTAOS, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

OHKAY OWINGEH TRIBE

OrganizationOHKAY OWINGEH, NM

$3,300

Dec 2, 2024

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

Apr 18, 2023

BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

OrganizationMESCALERO, NM

$3,300

Sep 25, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

Jun 25, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$2,000

Mar 21, 2024

Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT]

ID: W000800

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

Jun 8, 2023

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,000

May 3, 2024

FIELD, MARSHALL

THE OLD MOUNTAIN COMPANY, INC. • EXECUTIVE

IndividualCHICAGO, IL

$3,300

May 18, 2023

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

RECHNITZ, JOAN

IndividualRED BANK, NJ

$3,300

Apr 22, 2024

GORDON, PATRICIA

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA

$3,300

May 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

STILLER, ROBERT

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPALM BEACH, FL

$3,300

Sep 22, 2024

KALKUT, CRAIG

WEST FRONT STRATEGIES • GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$2,500

May 3, 2023

SCHWARTZ, MARTIN

MINILEC SERVICE • CONSUMER ELECTRONICS

IndividualCARMEL, CA

$2,000

May 18, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 36 nodes and 40 connections

Total contributions: $40

Top Donors - Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.90
The bill directs the Assistant Secretary of Commerce to develop a National Strategy to Synchronize Federal Broadband Programs, which includes improving coordination, reducing barriers, and streamlining permitting processes for broadband infrastructure deployment. This benefits telecommunications companies (e.g., AT&T, Verizon, Comcast) by potentially reducing administrative burdens and improving access to federal funding and rights of way for broadband buildout. Sections 3 and 4 outline goals to
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.85
The bill aims to streamline permitting processes for broadband infrastructure deployment on federal property and improve coordination among federal agencies. This benefits construction and engineering firms (e.g., Bechtel, Fluor) involved in building broadband infrastructure by reducing delays and administrative burdens in obtaining permits, easements, and rights of way. Sections 3(a)(3) and 4(b)(5) specifically address synchronizing interagency coordination regarding the process for approving p

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Telecommunications$37,500
from 24 contributions
- ERGEN, CANTEY M. MRS.$6,600
- MURRAY, KEVIN MR.$6,600
- ERGEN, CHARLES MR.$6,600
- WATSON, DAVE MR.$3,300
- MURDOCK, DAN$2,500
Construction & Engineering$1,100
from 3 contributions
- JANOUSH, J. PAUL MR.$1,000
- KAUFMANN, MORRIS MR.$100

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 67%

Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on creating a National Strategy to synchronize federal broadband programs, reduce duplication, improve efficiency, and ensure funds are directed to underserved communities aligns closely with Project 2025's call for a national coordinating strategy, elimination of wasteful spending, and improved accountability in broadband initiatives."

Key themes:national broadband strategycoordination of federal programseliminating wasteful spendingtargeting underserved communitiesimproving administrative efficiency

— 855 — Federal Communications Commission so a new Administration should redouble efforts to require timely reviews and final actions by agencies with jurisdiction over federal lands, including the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. l Advance America’s space leadership. One of the most significant technological developments of the past few years has been the emergence of a new generation of low-earth orbit satellites like StarLink and Kuiper. This technology can beam a reliable, high-speed Internet signal to nearly any part of the globe at a fraction of the cost of other technologies. This has the potential to significantly accelerate efforts to end the digital divide and disrupt the federal regulatory and subsidy regime that applies to communications networks. The FCC should expedite its work to support this new technology by acting more quickly in its review and approval of applications to launch new satellites. Otherwise, the U.S. risks ceding space leadership to entities based in countries with more friendly regulatory environments. Holding Government Accountable. Federal technology and telecommunica- tions programs have been plagued by a troubling lack of accountability and good governance. They would benefit from stronger oversight and a fresh look at elim- inating outdated regulations that are doing more harm than good. l End wasteful broadband spending policies. Many of the broadband spending policies being pursued by the current Administration are poised to waste taxpayer money while leaving rural communities and unconnected Americans behind. At the same time, the dramatic recent increases in funding through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act mean that the federal government has more than enough resources to meet its broadband connectivity goals. Congress should therefore hold the agencies accountable so that taxpayer money is used effectively to promote broadband connectivity across the nation. To that end, the next Administration should instruct the various departments and agencies that are administering broadband infrastructure funds to direct those resources to communities without adequate Internet infrastructure instead of to places that already enjoy broadband connectivity. Take, for example, the final rules that the Treasury Department adopted in 2022 that govern the expenditure of $350 billion in ARPA funds. Rather than directing those dollars to the rural and other communities that have no Internet infrastructure, the current — 856 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Administration gave the green light for recipients to spend those funds to overbuild existing high-speed networks in communities that already have multiple broadband providers. A new Administration should eliminate government-funded overbuilding of existing networks. l Adopt a national coordinating strategy. Hundreds of billions of infrastructure dollars have been appropriated by Congress or budgeted by agencies over the past couple of years that can be used to end the digital divide. Yet, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy”; instead, “[f]ederal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies,” risking overbuilding as well as wasteful duplication.26 Many of these programs remain plagued by inefficiency, further contributing to waste of limited taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the federal government is failing to put appropriate guardrails in place to govern the expenditure of billions in broadband funds. This is the regulatory equivalent of turning the spigot on full blast and then walking away from the hose. There is a worrisome lack of adequate tracking, measurement, and accountability standards governing all of this broadband spending. As a result, we are likely to see headline levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. A new Administration needs to bring fresh oversight to this spending and put a national strategy in place to ensure that the federal government adopts a coordinated approach to its various broadband initiatives. Similarly, the next Administration should ask the FCC to launch a review of its existing broadband programs, including the different components of the USF, with the goal of avoiding duplication, improving efficiency of existing programs, and saving taxpayer money. l Correct the FCC’s regulatory trajectory and encourage competition to improve connectivity. The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that Congress create the FCC in February 1934 for the purposes of establishing “a single Government agency charged with broad authority” over the field of communications.27 Congress subsequently established the FCC through the Communications Act of 1934. Congress has passed a number of additional statutes—some broad, some

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 67%

Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill directly implements Project 2025's call for a national coordinating strategy to synchronize federal broadband programs, improve efficiency, and reduce duplication, though it does not explicitly address overbuilding prohibitions or FCC regulatory reforms."

Key themes:national broadband strategyinteragency coordinationefficiency and waste reductionfederal program oversightadministrative burden reduction

— 856 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Administration gave the green light for recipients to spend those funds to overbuild existing high-speed networks in communities that already have multiple broadband providers. A new Administration should eliminate government-funded overbuilding of existing networks. l Adopt a national coordinating strategy. Hundreds of billions of infrastructure dollars have been appropriated by Congress or budgeted by agencies over the past couple of years that can be used to end the digital divide. Yet, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by a national strategy”; instead, “[f]ederal broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping, with more than 100 programs administered by 15 agencies,” risking overbuilding as well as wasteful duplication.26 Many of these programs remain plagued by inefficiency, further contributing to waste of limited taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the federal government is failing to put appropriate guardrails in place to govern the expenditure of billions in broadband funds. This is the regulatory equivalent of turning the spigot on full blast and then walking away from the hose. There is a worrisome lack of adequate tracking, measurement, and accountability standards governing all of this broadband spending. As a result, we are likely to see headline levels of waste, fraud, and abuse. A new Administration needs to bring fresh oversight to this spending and put a national strategy in place to ensure that the federal government adopts a coordinated approach to its various broadband initiatives. Similarly, the next Administration should ask the FCC to launch a review of its existing broadband programs, including the different components of the USF, with the goal of avoiding duplication, improving efficiency of existing programs, and saving taxpayer money. l Correct the FCC’s regulatory trajectory and encourage competition to improve connectivity. The FCC is a New Deal–era agency. Its history of regulation tends to reflect the view that the federal government should impose heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt recommended that Congress create the FCC in February 1934 for the purposes of establishing “a single Government agency charged with broad authority” over the field of communications.27 Congress subsequently established the FCC through the Communications Act of 1934. Congress has passed a number of additional statutes—some broad, some — 857 — Federal Communications Commission narrow—that pertain to the FCC’s authority, including most significantly the Telecommunications Act of 1996,28 which opened up markets for greater competition and largely deregulated industry segments. Technological change in the connectivity sector is occurring rapidly. We are now seeing an unprecedented level of convergence, innovation, and competition in the market for connectivity. On the one hand, traditional cable providers like Charter are now offering mobile wireless services to consumers in direct competition with traditional wireless companies like Verizon. On the other hand, a new generation of low-earth orbit satellite services like StarLink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper stand to offer high- speed home broadband in competition with legacy providers. Furthermore, broadcasters are offering high-speed downloads directly to consumers over spectrum that previously provided only TV service. These rapidly evolving market conditions counsel in favor of eliminating many of the heavy-handed FCC regulations that were adopted in an era when every technology operated in a silo. These include many of the FCC’s media ownership rules, which can have the effect of restricting investment and competition because those regulations assume a far more limited set of competitors for advertising dollars than exist today, as well as its universal service requirements. Ultimately, FCC reliance on competition and innovation is vital if the agency is to deliver optimal outcomes for the American public. The FCC should engage in a serious top-to-bottom review of its regulations and take steps to rescind any that are overly cumbersome or outdated. The Commission should focus its efforts on creating a market-friendly regulatory environment that fosters innovation and competition from a wide range of actors, including cable-based, broadband-based, and satellite- based Internet providers. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume. While this chapter identifies certain issues on which the contributors did not all agree, the author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 67%

Pages: 888-890AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on synchronizing federal broadband programs, improving coordination, reducing waste, and directing funding to underserved areas aligns closely with Project 2025’s goals of ending wasteful broadband spending, ensuring accountability, and prioritizing resources for communities lacking adequate internet infrastructure."

Key themes:broadband program coordinationefficient use of federal fundingtargeting unserved/underserved communitiesreducing administrative burdenscross-agency accountability

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate

Vector: 68%

Pages: 885-887AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FCC section emphasize improving federal coordination and streamlining processes to expand broadband access and support economic growth, but the bill lacks the specific spectrum, anti-China, and wireless-focused elements central to the Project 2025 proposal."

Key themes:broadband coordinationfederal agency collaborationinfrastructure permitting streamliningeconomic growth through connectivityreducing administrative burdens

— 853 — Federal Communications Commission are doing this is by giving Beijing access to their high-powered cloud computing services. Therefore, it is time for an Administration to put in place a comprehensive plan that aims to stop U.S. entities from directly or indirectly contributing to China’s malign AI goals. Unleashing Economic Prosperity. The FCC needs to advance a pro-growth agenda that gives every American a fair shot at next-generation connectivity. This is vital for economic opportunity and prosperous communities. The current Administration has appropriated a lot of money for broadband infrastructure proj- ects, but it has failed to pair that spending with reforms that free more airwaves for wireless connectivity or streamline the permitting processes for broadband builds. That failure is holding back America’s hardworking telecommunications crews and leaving Americans stuck waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide. It is time for a return to the successful spectrum and infrastructure policies that prevailed during the Trump Administration—policies that enabled the U.S. to lead the world in 5G. l Refill America’s spectrum pipeline. From 2017 through 2020, the FCC took unprecedented steps to free the airwaves needed to power 5G and other next-generation wireless services. This work not only helped to secure America’s wireless leadership and bolster competition, but also enabled the private sector to create jobs and grow the economy. Recently, the FCC has failed to match the pace and cadence of those spectrum actions. Therefore, the FCC and a new Administration should work together to develop a national spectrum strategy that both identifies the specific airwaves that the FCC can free for commercial wireless services and sets an aggressive timeline for agency action. l Facilitate coordination on spectrum issues. Wireless services now play a central role in advancing America’s economic and national security interests. Over the past few years, this dynamic has led to an increasing number of headline-level disputes between the commercial wireless sector and federal agencies. These disputes are often framed in zero-sum terms as commercial wireless and federal agency stakeholders argue over the appropriate types and amount of airwaves that the government should allocate for various purposes. On the one hand, America’s global economic leadership depends on its ability to free spectrum that will power the U.S. commercial wireless industry. On the other hand, we must ensure that America’s national security and other federal agencies have access to the spectrum resources that they need to carry out their vital missions. — 854 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It is clear that the current process is not delivering optimal outcomes. In December 2021 and January 2022, for instance, the lack of interagency coordination and communication about mid-band 5G spectrum allocation between the FCC and the Federal Aviation Authority led to significant challenges for the U.S. aviation industry. Over the past two years, the FCC has failed to move spectrum into the commercial marketplace at the same pace and cadence that it did in the recent past. Creating better mechanisms to improve communication and cooperation between different federal agencies could enable a more effective and coordinated U.S. government telecommunications strategy. The White House should work with Congress to establish a spectrum coordination process that will work for both commercial and federal users. l Modernize infrastructure rules. By 2016, the construction of new cell sites—the building blocks for 5G—had essentially flatlined in America. Because of outdated permitting rules, it cost too much and took too long to build wireless infrastructure, so the FCC went to work. The agency updated the environmental and historic preservation rules that needlessly drove up the cost and slowed down the timeline for adding small cells. The FCC put in place guardrails to address outlier fees and delays imposed at the state and local levels on those same small-cell projects. It modernized the permitting process in several additional ways as well. Those FCC reforms delivered results. They allowed America’s private sector to bring thousands of families across the digital divide and to keep Americans connected during the pandemic. In fact, infrastructure builds accelerated at a record pace after those reforms. In 2019, for instance, U.S. providers built over 46,000 new cell sites—a sixty-fivefold increase over 2016 levels. The FCC has not engaged in any similar infrastructure reforms in recent years, and there is much more that needs to be done. For instance, the FCC’s prior reforms focused on streamlining the rules for small wireless facilities. The FCC should now explore similar action for the deployment of other wired infrastructure by imposing limits on the fees that local and state governments can charge for reviewing those wireline applications and time restrictions on the government’s decision-making process. The next Administration should also work to address the delays that continue to persist when it comes to building Internet infrastructure on federal lands. This is an area where the FCC itself has very little jurisdiction,

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Moderate

Vector: 67%

Pages: 879-881AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving coordination and efficiency of federal broadband programs, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of promoting economic prosperity through infrastructure development, but does not address the FCC's specific priorities of reining in Big Tech, national security, or accountability reforms outlined in the policy."

Key themes:broadband accesseconomic prosperityfederal program coordinationFCC role in infrastructure

— 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute. — 848 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise As one of the FCC’s previous General Counsels noted, the FCC has authority to take this action because Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act.16 The FCC’s Section 230 reforms should track the positions outlined in a July 2020 Petition for Rulemaking filed at the FCC near the end of the Trump Administration.17 Any new presidential Administration should consider filing a similar or new petition. As Justice Clarence Thomas has made clear, courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute.18 They have done so in a way that nullifies the limits Congress placed on the types of actions that Internet companies can take while continuing to benefit from Section 230. One way to start correcting this error is for the FCC to remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate. At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections. Such clarifications might also include drawing out the traditional legal distinction between distributor and publisher liability; Section 230 did not do away with the former, nor does it collapse into the latter. l Impose transparency rules on Big Tech. Today, Big Tech offers a black box. After Google manipulates search results, a small business can see its web traffic drop precipitously overnight for no apparent reason, potentially flipping its outlook from black to red. On Facebook, social media posts are left up or taken down, accounts suspended or permanently banned, without any apparent consistency. Out of the blue, YouTube can demonetize individuals who have risked their capital and invested their labor to build online businesses. At present, the FCC requires broadband providers to comply with a transparency rule that can provide a good baseline for Big Tech. Under the FCC’s rule, broadband providers must provide detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content. The FCC could take a similar approach to

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Wicker, Roger F.

Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization Act of 2026

119/s/3791

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027

119/s/4784

TORNADO Act

119/s/258