As Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, we write regarding the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) ongoing management of the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP), particularly its reported delay in obligating program funds appropriated by Congress. The TBCP is the first NTIA program to recognize Tribes’ sovereignty to determine broadband infrastructure needs on their own lands and is an effective tool for connecting Tribal homes and community facilities to reliable and affordable broadband. So we are concerned that the agency is reportedly applying additional, unnecessary standards and requirements to applications, resulting in uncertainty that threatens the success of existing and planned projects. 

1. As TBCP Round 1 awards approach the four-year performance period, what technical assistance is NTIA providing to grantees to ensure program compliance and timely expenditure of funds?  Please also identify the legal and programmatic criteria NTIA uses to determine TBCP Round 1 compliance, including how NTIA weighs factors such as time elapsed, expenditures, and NEPA status.

2. Please provide a status update on all remaining TBCP awards, including awards that have been approved at the staff level and await administrative review, awards that have been approved but are not yet obligated, awards for which obligation decisions have been made, and awards for which public announcement of an award has been made.  Please also organize your reply by award type, including “use and adoption,” “infrastructure” and “equitable distribution,” and include the names of awardees and award amounts.

3. Please clarify when NTIA will award and obligate TBCP Round 2 funding, including for awards already announced and its estimate for awards in Fiscal Year 2026. 

4. Has or will the NTIA impose new guidance, requirements, or performance criteria on TBCP Round 1 or Round 2 projects?

5. Is NTIA screening or reviewing project applications using any percentile-based cost metrics, including evaluating TBCP projects based on whether they are within the 65^th or 85^th percentile of state BEAD costs?
   
   1. If yes, what is the statutory basis for this new requirement?
   2. Did NTIA conduct Tribal consultation prior to imposing any new requirement?
   3. Has NTIA informed Tribal applicants of the imposition of these metrics?

6. NTIA’s June 6, 2025, BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice permitted providers to exclude hard-to-serve and high-cost locations in project areas. It also stopped approval for non-deployment activities and reimbursements to states for new costs associated with previously approved non-deployment activities.
   
   1. How many locations associated with a pending TBCP award or applications were included in state Final Proposals?  Of those, how many are in hard-to-serve and high-cost locations?
   2. Of the previously approved non-deployment activities, how many benefit locations associated with a pending TBCP award or application?  What is the status of those pending TBCP awards or applications?

7. NTIA’s August 26, 2025, BEAD notice provides a conditional, limited programmatic waiver to the deadline requirements for the Final Proposal Tribal consent submission, and identified 32 states where the Tribal consent requirement applies.
   
   1. Of the unserved and underserved locations within Tribal boundaries with Tribal consent, how many had a pending TBCP award or application? 
   2. What is the status of those TBCP awards or applications?

Executives at Calix confirmed receipt of the company's first Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment order but stopped short of projecting how much business the long-delayed federal broadband program is expected to bring in the coming year. In a question-and-answer session with investors after delivering the company's financial results for Q3—which saw Calix grow revenue for the fifth consecutive quarter, to $265 million—executives said the company got its "first BEAD order" in Q3 and expects to see "some" BEAD revenue in 2026. But it's still too early to say what the BEAD picture will actually look like next year: "While we did receive our first order during the quarter, it's still too early to determine the demand dynamics for next year, other than there will be some amount versus last quarter I thought there'd be, like, none," said Calix CFO Cory Sindelar.

The privacy changes web browsers will be required to make under a new California law could set the de facto standard for the entire country, changing how Americans control their data when using the internet, according to experts. Assembly Bill 566, recently signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, requires companies that make web browsers to offer users an opt-out “signal” that automatically tells websites not to share or sell their personal information as they browse. It will likely be easier for companies to roll out the service for the entire country, rather than for users only in California. “It’s such a trivial implementation,” said Emory Roane, associate director of policy at Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, an organization that pushed for the legislation. “It’s really not that difficult technically.” Under the law, browsers like Google’s Chrome and Microsoft’s Edge will have until the beginning of 2027 to create a way for consumers to select the signal. Combined with recent changes from other states, the new law could be a tipping point in how web traffic is treated in the United States. “We expect it to have a national impact,” Roane said.

Republicans and Democrats are now about equally likely to express concern over the increased use of artificial intelligence, but they differ widely in their trust in the United States to regulate the technology. Today, nearly identical shares of Republicans and Democrats say they are more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI in daily life—50 percent and 51 percent, respectively, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults conducted in June. (In this analysis, Republicans and Democrats include independents who lean toward each party.) Republicans and Democrats similarly report feeling equally concerned and excited about the increased use of AI, while about one-in-ten in each group are more excited than concerned.

Efforts to regulate Artificial Intelligence at the state level are proliferating like mushrooms after it rains. Unfortunately, given the lack of a clear statement by Congress that the federal government can preempt such state AI laws, current legal options to stop the proliferation of state AI regulation are shaky at best. Grasping for straws, the Trump AI Action Plan offers the following legal strategy to stop the legislative proliferation: the Federal Communications Commission should “evaluate whether state AI regulations interfere with the agency’s ability to carry out its obligations and authorities under the Communications Act of 1934.” As detailed below, given the plain language of the Communications Act as well as the present state of the caselaw, it is highly unlikely the FCC will succeed in these efforts. Thus, to prevent AI being subject to a patchwork of state laws, Congress should move expeditiously to enact a cohesive federal AI framework that can preempt such laws.