American Broadband Deployment Act Supporters See 2026 Momentum; Opponents Skeptical

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., HR-2289's lead sponsor, told us last week that he’s not aware of House leadership plans to bring the measure up for floor votes soon, but he will “push even harder” for it to become a priority “once we get through the [FY 2026] appropriations process.” The Senate on Wednesday was still considering a House-passed minibus FY26 package (HR-6938) that includes funding for NTIA and other Commerce Department agencies (see 2601080070). Meanwhile, the lower chamber was on course Wednesday to pass a minibus (HR-7006) that would give the FCC $416.1 million for FY26. The current continuing resolution extending appropriations is set to expire Jan. 30.

“We would like to bring [HR-2289] up as soon as possible” this year, now that House Commerce has advanced the bill, Carter said. A final House vote “will probably be close [because of Democrats’ opposition], but it’s a good bill” that lawmakers will support once they learn more about its provisions. HR-2289 would, in part, set a 150-day shot clock for states and localities to approve new deployments and a 90-day window for modifications to existing infrastructure. It also waives some National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act review requirements for qualifying connectivity projects. Carter cited HR-2289 during the House Communications Subcommittee's FCC oversight hearing Wednesday (see 2601140064).

HR-2289 “stands a much better chance” of clearing both chambers than its previous iteration did during the last Congress, when Democrats controlled the Senate and the Biden administration didn’t support the proposal, Carter told us. GOP control of Congress and the White House means “there’s an atmosphere out there now [that favors] the reforms that need to be made” to permitting processes, particularly to aid rollout of the BEAD program. House Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said in a separate interview that he also expects the bill to clear the lower chamber, even with Democratic opposition.

Wireless Infrastructure Association CEO Patrick Halley is among many HR-2289 supporters who see increased Hill momentum for the measure. “I feel pretty confident that it's going to move forward, hopefully in the first part of 2026,” he told us. “There’s growing recognition that we have to have reasonable permitting policies in this country to ensure that broadband gets deployed.”

James Erwin, executive director of Americans for Tax Reform’s Digital Liberty project, said the “politics around permitting reform have changed,” given the shift to unified GOP control of the White House and Congress, even though Republicans’ majority in the House narrowed last week to 218-213.

Dueling Truths

Halley said he and other supporters “have to make sure that we're educating members of Congress that this is about advancing mobile broadband connectivity, and it's in partnership between industry and local government.” HR-2289 is “not at all about eliminating the role of local government,” Halley said, citing an argument that the National Association of Telecom Officers and Advisors and other groups of local officials have used in their opposition (see 2311060069).

Erwin said shot clocks for state and local governments to act on applications are “inherently reasonable, and very much include a role for local government. There's a perception that somehow [the bill] just completely cuts the local government out. And that could not be further from the truth.”

House Communications ranking member Doris Matsui, D-Calif., and other HR-2289 opponents remain highly skeptical that the dynamics have significantly shifted in the bill’s favor. 2026 is "an election year, and that’s not going to be a year" when controversial measures like HR-2289 are going to be successful, particularly in the closely divided House, Matsui told us. “This is the same old package [from the last Congress], and there's no way that we can work on this together” as is.

“We really have to look at permitting reform a different way” than the partisan lens Republicans used when they created their bill, Matsui said. “You still need to work on it in a way that makes sense.” She cited a set of six other connectivity permitting bills that House Commerce unanimously advanced along with HR-2289, including the Deploying Infrastructure With Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy Applications Act (HR-1665), which she co-sponsored with Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla.

NATOA Legislative Director Mike Lynch told us in late December that he was “encouraged” by the degree of Democratic opposition to HR-2289 during House Commerce’s Dec. 3 markup session, but he believes local government advocates will need to continue to push against the bill because there still wasn’t “enough healthy conversation” about its potential impact. He said he hoped some lawmakers would “have a chance to talk to their local governments” during Congress’ year-end recess to better understand why officials oppose the measure.

Congressional Democrats “aren’t going to allow their local communities to basically get stabbed in the back” by supporting HR-2289, said American Association for Public Broadband Executive Director Gigi Sohn. “Republicans shouldn’t either, but the broadband industry wants the shot clocks” and other provisions included in the legislative package. “I would love if, rather than trying to pass legislation bigfooting the local communities, industry would actually work with” localities on a compromise, as the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society and other groups recommended in 2024 (see 2409040040), Sohn said.