We commend NDIA’s commitment and courage in bringing the case. This decision is a significant but incomplete victory for those of us committed to meaningful connectivity for all. Congress was right to recognize the historical disparities in access and adoption of critical connectivity tools—and to address these inequities with thoughtful planning and funding. We disagree with the court’s decision that considering the connectivity needs of racial or ethnic minorities constitutes an unconstitutional race-based classification. The court also found that terminating the entire program was not warranted. The Administration committed to restarting the program, and we call on Administrator Roth to act quickly. There has been far too much delay, which has meant fewer digital navigators supporting seniors, fewer skills programs for veterans or returning citizens, fewer devices for low-income families, fewer opportunities, and more Americans left behind.

While Chairman Brendan Carr's Federal Communications Commission continues to highlight efforts to strip and streamline regulations to get broadband deployed faster, some stakeholders are saying a proposed change to how pole attachments are regulated would do the opposite. In comments filed to the FCC, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) pushed back on questions the Commission posed in a June 11 public notice, seeking input "on the current status of reverse-preemption state regulation and jurisdiction over pole attachments, as well as the Commission's jurisdiction in the face of incomplete or inadequate state regulation." Reverse-preemption essentially allows a state to set the rules in some cases rather than the federal government. Usually the opposite is true, with federal rules taking precedence over state or local ones. The FCC's public notice asserts that, while 23 states and the District of Columbia have reverse-preempted the FCC's jurisdiction over pole attachments by certifying that they regulate pole attachments locally, "there have been recent reports of challenges to deployment stemming from state regulation of pole attachments, or the lack thereof, and the potential for noncompliance with the Commission's rules pertaining to reverse-preemption."

The Wireless Futures Program is a national initiative designed to connect employers across the wireless and digital infrastructure ecosystem with undergraduate and graduate students seeking paid internship and cooperative learning opportunities. Through a free, dedicated online portal, participating employers can promote internship opportunities, connect with qualified candidates, and help shape the future workforce that will power America’s communications networks. The Wireless Futures Program was created in response to a growing industry need for skilled talent and a stronger pipeline connecting students to careers in wireless infrastructure, engineering, technology, business, policy, and related disciplines. The program provides employers with access to a curated pool of students while increasing awareness of the diverse career opportunities available throughout the wireless ecosystem. At no cost, employers participating in the program can post paid internship and co-op opportunities, search student profiles, and engage with candidates representing a range of disciplines, including telecommunications engineering, structural engineering, spectrum management, business, finance, and telecom law and policy. The platform is designed to complement existing employer-run internship programs while also supporting companies looking to establish new pathways for emerging talent.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 240 national civil and human rights advocacy organizations, and the undersigned civil rights and civil society organizations write to you regarding the need for civil rights protections to be the foundation of any comprehensive artificial intelligence (AI) legislation. Specifically, we urge the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy (Commission) to support meaningful safeguards (mandatory bias testing, privacy and data protections, and strong enforcement and remedies), the codification of disparate impact liability, the exclusion of any preemption language, and policies that ensure workers and communities most affected by AI-driven economic disruption have equitable access to reskilling resources, workforce development programs, and pathways into the jobs AI will create.

Americans’ engagement with others is not one-dimensional. Rather than falling along a single spectrum, U.S. adults sort into four distinct groups that reflect different patterns of participation:

1. Mobilizers (9% of U.S. adults) are the most active across all the different areas. They volunteer, attend local government meetings, donate to political causes, follow the news closely and attend religious services at high rates. What sets them apart most clearly is their political action: They are by far the most likely to do things like volunteer for campaigns and contact elected officials.
2. Connectors (28%) are involved in many ways, centering on community life, charitable giving and religious attendance. They vote, participate in groups, attend religious services and donate to nonpolitical causes at high rates, similar to Mobilizers. But they are much less likely to take political action.
3. Spectators (31%) are much less likely than Mobilizers and Connectors to participate in civic or political activities, but they follow the news at similarly high rates. When they engage with news online, Spectators tend to do so by privately chatting about it or liking posts rather than publicly commenting or posting. They stand out for their internet use—56% say they use the internet “almost constantly.”
4. Outsiders (31%) participate at relatively low levels across the activities measured in this study, including following the news. Still, they are not universally disengaged: 41% say they voted in 2024, and 24% attend religious services at least monthly.

Every few years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) tells Congress and the public what it intends to do with its authority. The agency's strategic plan is not a rulemaking and creates no legal obligations, but it is the framework around which the FCC builds its annual performance plan and budget request to Congress. The strategic plan also serves as the yardstick against which the agency's own annual performance reports—and outside overseers like the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)—measure whether the FCC did what it said it would do. The FCC's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2026–2030, issued July 6, 2026, deserves a close read alongside the plan it replaces—the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2022–2026, which has been pulled down from the FCC's website. Read side by side, the two documents describe two very different agencies. The 2022 plan, created when Jessica Rosenworcel served as FCC Chairwoman, organized the FCC around bringing "affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband to 100 percent of the country," with universal service, equity, and consumer protection as pillars. The 2026 plan organizes the FCC around Chairman Brendan Carr's "Build America Agenda," with spectrum auctions, deregulation, and national security as pillars—and with affordability, low-income Americans, and digital equity almost entirely absent from the text. For state broadband officials administering federally funded deployment programs, the new plan signals how the FCC intends to use its maps, its coordination role, and its permitting authority over the next five years. For digital equity practitioners, the plan confirms that the FCC no longer organizes itself around affordability and retains an adoption metric without any strategy behind it. For researchers and policymakers, the plan's performance metrics—far more specific and quantified than in the prior plan—will define what "success" means in the agency's own annual reporting through 2030. And for anyone tracking the constitutional status of independent agencies, the new plan contains a quiet but significant change in how the FCC describes itself.

The Federal Communications Commission anticipates rechartering of the Consumer Protection and Accessibility Advisory Committee (Committee) and solicits nominations for membership. The FCC has consulted with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Service Administration, and intends to recharter the Committee for a period of two (2) years. The renewed charter will become effective on or before October 9, 2026. Nominations for membership are due by September 14, 2026. The Committee’s mission is to make recommendations to the FCC regarding topics of particular interest to consumers that will be specified by the FCC relating to disability access and consumer protection issues. In addition, this Committee is intended to provide an effective means for stakeholders with interests in this area, including consumers, to exchange ideas, which will in turn enhance the FCC’s ability to effectively address issues affecting disability access and consumers in general. The FCC seeks nominations from interested nonprofit organizations, corporations, trade associations, government agencies, or other entities from both the public and private sectors, who wish to be considered for Committee membership for a two-year term of service. Selections will be made based on factors such as expertise and viewpoints that are necessary to effectively address the topics before the Committee. All nominations must be received by the Commission by no later than September 14, 2026.

The European Commission issued two sets of binding specification measures to Google under the Digital Markets Act. The aim of the first specification measures is to ensure that competitors' Artificial Intelligence (AI) services can compete with Google's own AI services, such as Gemini, by having equal access to features on Google's Android devices.  Currently, on Android phones, competitors' AI assistants only have restricted access to key functionalities of the Google Android operating system. Without this access, alternative AI assistants are not competing on an equal footing with Google's own AI services that have full access. Third-party AI assistants are therefore limited in how they can offer their innovative services, making them less attractive to 60% of EU users who have an Android device. This decision will ensure that users can activate their preferred AI assistant via voice commands, similar to the “Hey Google” command. Users will be able to use third-party AI assistants to perform actions in apps on their behalf. For instance, they will be able to delegate tasks such as booking a taxi, receive suggestions for relevant replies in chat apps, or ask the AI assistant about a recently visited place. Importantly, the measures incorporate robust safeguards to ensure that the privacy of users, device integrity and security are protected.
The aim of the second specification measures is to rebalance the playing field by giving third-party search engines access to search data that only Google Search can collect at scale. The second decision specifies how Google should share search data with other search engines. Data sharing is crucial for the development and optimisation of third-party search engines. It helps to create a more level playing field with Google Search, and fosters innovative search services, which includes privacy-focused alternatives. The decision provides guidance on several key aspects which have made Google's data sharing offer ineffective so far. For example, it specifies that AI chatbots offering search functionalities are eligible to receive shared data, and that, subject to anonymisation, Google should share the same data that it collects to optimise its own search services. The decision ensures anonymisation of search data. Lastly, the measures lay out a fair formula to calculate the price of the shared data, and a transparent process for accessing the data.