The FCC voted 2-1 on 6 August 2026 to eliminate the national cap on the number of television stations a single company can own, removing a rule that had limited any one broadcaster's reach to 39% of U.S. TV households.

Chairman Brendan Carr and Republican commissioner Olivia Trusty voted to repeal the cap. Commissioner Anna Gomez, the panel's lone Democrat, voted against and called the move "unlawful on its face" (Variety).

The 39% audience-reach limit was not an FCC invention. Congress wrote it into law in 2012, which is the heart of Gomez's objection. She cited former FCC commissioner Mike O'Rielly, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz as all agreeing the FCC cannot change the cap without an act of Congress (Variety).

The rule has deep roots. Its origins trace back to radio station ownership regulations from the 1940s, later adapted for television (Variety).

The FCC's path to the vote was swift. On 15 July 2026, Carr confirmed the agency would move to scrap the cap in favour of a new case-by-case approach (Reuters). The commission released its Report and Order formally repealing the national television multiple ownership rule on 16 July 2026 (FCC). The final vote followed at the August 2026 open meeting.

Carr argued that repealing the cap would restore balance to broadcast airwaves and help local broadcasters compete with large national platforms (Variety). The logic: a broadcaster that can own more stations can negotiate harder against national streaming and cable companies for carriage fees and advertising.

The debate over the cap is not new. In 2017, then-chairman Ajit Pai proposed seeking public input on whether to modify, retain, or eliminate the 39% threshold (Reuters). The FCC later opened a formal notice of proposed rulemaking on the question (FCC). Nearly a decade passed between that opening salvo and this week's vote.

For viewers, the practical question is what happens to the local station they tune into each evening. Without a national cap, the largest station groups can buy more outlets across more markets. Stations that change hands may keep their network affiliations and familiar on-air talent, or they may not. Consolidation can mean shared newsrooms, syndicated programming replacing local production, and fewer independent voices in a given market. It can also mean better-resourced stations with more investment in local journalism.

What gives the dispute its edge is the legal question Gomez has framed. If Congress set the cap, can an FCC majority simply take it away? That challenge could land in court. Until a judge weighs in, the cap is gone.