Midterm Elections: What Democratic Control of Congress Means for Broadcasters

November 4, 2026

Democrats will take control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives when the 120th Congress convenes in January 2027. As a result, the party that controls the White House and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) will once again differ from the party controlling Congress. This alert considers what that change could mean for the broadcast industry.

The short answer is that a Democratic Congress cannot, on its own, redirect the FCC. Chairman Brendan Carr will still control the Commission’s agenda, and any legislation Democrats pass would face a potential Presidential veto. But Democratic control gives Congress meaningful leverage over FCC personnel, a platform to challenge the Commission’s approach to media ownership and content-related enforcement, and the authority to open investigations that could reach broadcasters both directly and indirectly.

In brief, Democratic control of Congress could affect the industry in the following ways, on which we elaborate in further detail below:

• FCC confirmations. Republicans may try to confirm Danielle Thumann Severs – who is scheduled to appear at a Senate Commerce Committee nominations hearing on November 10 – as the third Republican FCC Commissioner during the lame-duck session. Democrats will likely continue pushing to pair Thumann Severs’ confirmation with the reconfirmation of Commissioner Anna Gomez and/or the confirmation of at least one additional Democrat.
• Media ownership. The 2022 Quadrennial Review of media ownership rules remains pending. Although Congress is unlikely to change the anticipated deregulatory outcome, Democrats could try to bring a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution (which would be subject to Presidential veto) or use their investigative power to influence the final order. The FCC’s decision to repeal the national television ownership cap, which is not yet effective, could similarly be the subject of a CRA disapproval resolution.
• First Amendment, equal opportunities, and political advertising. Democrats have been highly critical of Chairman Carr’s actions on a variety of broadcast content-related issues, including the Disney/ABC license renewals, application of the political equal opportunities rule, and access to lowest unit charge for political ads. Democrats can be expected to flex their oversight muscles on these and other topics.
• Investigations. Democratic-led congressional committees are likely to take a close look at actions taken by the Trump Administration in the last two years (as Wiley’s Congressional Oversight and Investigations team discussed here) – and many broadcasters and other companies that engaged with the FCC or otherwise operate in the communications space may be swept in.

FCC Confirmations: A Push for Democratic Representation

The FCC currently has three sitting Commissioners (Chairman Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty, both Republicans, and Commissioner Gomez, the lone Democrat) and two vacancies. On August 7, 2026, President Trump nominated Danielle Thumann Severs, Chairman Carr’s senior counsel, to the seat vacated by former Commissioner Nathan Simington. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) has rescheduled a hearing on Thumann Severs’ nomination for November 10. If Thumann Severs is confirmed, all three of the Republican seats on the FCC will be filled.

Democratic control of the Senate could affect the two remaining seats on the Commission. Commissioner Gomez’s term expired on June 30, 2026, although she may remain in a holdover capacity until the end of the next session of Congress (through the end of 2027) or until a successor is confirmed.

Democrats had already signaled that they would not treat Thumann Severs’ nomination in isolation, and the midterm election results strengthen their hand. In an October 29 letter, 21 Democratic members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee urged Senate leaders to pair any new Republican nominee with Commissioner Gomez’s renomination to a full term, and civil rights groups have made a similar request of Senate Commerce Committee leadership. Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA) opposed Commissioner Trusty’s nomination when it was not paired with a Democratic nominee, and she has called for Commissioner Gomez’s renomination. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has argued that the Communications Act bars an all-Republican Commission. With Democrats now set to take the Senate majority, Senator Cantwell would be expected to chair the committee that controls the timing of hearings and votes on every FCC nominee. We therefore expect Democrats to insist on pairing Thumann Severs’ confirmation with Commissioner Gomez’s reconfirmation, with at least one additional Democratic nominee, or both.

Timing will matter. Republicans retain control of the Senate until January 3, 2027, and could try to confirm Thumann Severs during the lame-duck session, before Democrats take the gavel. The election results may increase the urgency of that effort for the White House and Senate Republican leaders. If her nomination is not confirmed before the 119th Congress adjourns, it may be returned to the President and need to be resubmitted, at which point it would go before a Democratic-led committee.

Democrats may also push to restore the FCC to its full five members once they control the Senate. Because the Communications Act limits any one party to three seats, a full Commission would consist of three Republicans and two Democrats. That would mean that, in addition to Thumann Severs, Democrats would seek Commissioner Gomez’s reconfirmation and confirmation of a second Democratic nominee.

That strategy carries a risk for Democrats, however. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s late-June decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which permits the President to remove Commissioners of agencies like the FCC without cause, Senate confirmation does not guarantee a Democratic Commissioner’s tenure. Once Thumann Severs is seated, Chairman Carr, Commissioner Trusty, and Thumann Severs would potentially form a functioning three-member quorum that could act without any Democrat. A bipartisan confirmation package therefore could, at least in theory, be followed by the removal of the Democratic Commissioners, leaving a three-member, all-Republican FCC. Whether the White House would nominate any Democrats at all remains an open question.

A paired confirmation would restore a more traditional Commission with dissenting voices, but it would not change the Republican majority. Thus, while the makeup of the FCC makes for an interesting Washington parlor game, it may not change many policy outcomes.

Media Ownership: A Different Process, But a Similar Result

The FCC has not yet adopted an order resolving its 2022 Quadrennial Review of the broadcast ownership rules (notwithstanding a requirement to conduct another Quadrennial Review in 2026). In September 2025, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on whether to retain, modify, or eliminate the Local Radio Ownership Rule, the Local Television Ownership Rule, and the Dual Network Rule. That proceeding followed the Eighth Circuit’s July 2025 decision in Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri v. FCC, which vacated the Top Four Prohibition and emphasized the deregulatory nature of Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Separately, in August 2026, the Commission voted 2-1 to eliminate the national television ownership (audience reach) cap, an action that has already drawn petitions for stay at the agency and promises of court challenges.

We do not expect Congress to change the general outcome of the Quadrennial Review or the national cap proceeding. The incoming Democratic majority will, however, have several tools to make the deregulatory process more difficult for the FCC and could cause the FCC to narrow its approach:

• Congressional Review Act. Once the FCC adopts an order and submits it to Congress, Democrats can introduce a joint resolution of disapproval. In the Senate, a CRA resolution can be discharged from committee and considered on an expedited basis by simple majority, without the threat of a filibuster. To take effect, however, the resolution must pass both chambers and be signed by the President (or be enacted over his veto by a two-thirds vote in each chamber), which is not realistic given the President’s support for ownership deregulation. The principal value to Democrats would be forcing recorded votes. Notably, if a resolution were ever enacted, the FCC would be barred from reissuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization.
• Oversight hearings. Democratic chairs of the House Energy and Commerce and Senate Commerce Committees will be able to call Chairman Carr and his colleagues to testify and press them on the effect of further media consolidation on local news, competition, and retransmission consent costs – concerns some public interest groups and the pay-TV lobby have already raised.
• Legislation and appropriations. Democrats can introduce bills to restore or codify ownership limits (including a national audience reach cap) or seek to attach riders to FCC-related funding measures. We would expect those efforts to be largely symbolic and unlikely to survive a veto.

The shift to a Democrat-controlled Congress is thus relatively unlikely to have a consequential impact on the ownership rules, although the FCC’s deregulatory actions in this area will ultimately be judged by the courts. Companies planning transactions that depend on relaxed ownership limits should assume that any order will be challenged and that congressional scrutiny may accompany the approval process.

First Amendment, Equal Opportunities, and Political Advertising: Loud Hearings, Limited Near-Term Change

Democrats are also likely to use their new oversight authority to challenge recent FCC actions that touch on programming and political broadcasting. Three matters are likely to feature prominently:

• Disney’s licenses. In April 2026, the FCC ordered the filing of early renewal applications for the licenses of Disney’s eight ABC-owned television stations, more than two years before their renewal cycle was scheduled to begin in October 2028, citing the agency’s investigation of Disney’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. ABC filed the applications under protest and, in August, sued the FCC and Chairman Carr in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging First Amendment retaliation. The FCC has moved to dismiss, maintaining that the proceeding concerns alleged unlawful discrimination and not programming.
• Equal opportunities. Earlier this year, Chairman Carr announced that the FCC would no longer grant blanket bona fide news exemptions to television programs that interview political candidates, and the FCC has been examining whether ABC’s The View qualifies for the exemption. Disney has challenged that approach, arguing among other things that the FCC’s approach impermissibly treats television talk programs differently from radio talk shows.
• Lowest unit charge (LUC). A March 30, 2026 Media Bureau Public Notice stated that LUC rates apply to authorized committees, including joint fundraising committees, and to candidate-party coordinated advertisements. The Fourth Circuit set the guidance aside in August, but the Supreme Court stayed that decision on September 4 on procedural grounds. As a result, the Bureau’s guidance remains in effect while two applications for review remain pending before the full Commission. In a separate action, the Republican National Committee, the Republican Party of Texas, and four candidates filed a lawsuit against the FCC and others, arguing that the LUC statute is unconstitutional because it favors candidate speech over political party speech. This case could impact the LUC going forward.

We expect Democratic Members of Congress to press Chairman Carr on the legal basis for, and the process behind, each of the actions described above, and to request related internal communications, including communications with the White House. Some of those hearings could be contentious.

But hearings and letters do not change the legal status of any of the FCC’s actions. The Commission remains under Republican control, and legislation to restrict early license renewals, codify the talk-show exemption, or narrow the LUC guidance would face a Presidential veto. These issues will continue to be resolved primarily by the FCC and the courts. That said, a congressional record can matter: Testimony and documents obtained through oversight may be cited in litigation, including in Disney’s case.

The LUC dispute may draw less attention than the Disney and equal opportunities matters because it does not divide cleanly along party lines; candidates and party committees on both sides have competing interests in how the LUC is applied. Whatever Congress does, stations should continue to follow the Bureau’s guidance while it remains in effect, preserve documentation supporting their LUC and equal opportunities decisions, and be prepared for the possibility that the guidance changes before the 2028 election cycle.

Investigations: Broadcasters Should Prepare to Be Swept In

For regulated companies, the most significant change may come from the investigative powers of the new Democratic majorities. We expect House and Senate committees to take a close look at the dealings of the Trump Administration over the last two years, including its interactions with the FCC and the media industry. Likely areas of interest include:

• Communications between the White House or other political appointees and the FCC about specific broadcasters, programs, or personalities;
• The FCC’s use of investigations, news distortion complaints, DEI-related inquiries, and early license renewals, and their effect on speech;
• Transaction reviews, including conditions attached to approvals (such as commitments concerning DEI programs and news operations) and how those conditions were negotiated; and
• Corporate and executive donations to, or sponsorships of, projects associated with the President, and financial or other support for projects and ventures associated with other Administration officials and members of the Trump family, and whether any of that support was solicited, coordinated with, or followed by favorable treatment in a pending or anticipated regulatory matter.

As Wiley previously detailed, regulated communications companies, including broadcasters, are likely to be swept into congressional oversight requests – not necessarily because of any perceived wrongdoing, but as custodians of relevant communications given their proximity to FCC proceedings, transactions, and other decisions. Congressional committees typically begin with voluntary requests for documents and information, and some can escalate to subpoenas and public hearings. In addition to these investigative tools, Congress has been increasingly requesting closed-door testimony from parties to help build their records. One of these tools – called a transcribed interview (TI) – is a unique congressional oversight proceeding where a witness answers a committee’s questions on the record, behind closed doors, memorialized by a court reporter. While participation is voluntary, individuals who receive a TI request should take these proceedings seriously – statements made during TIs have resulted in criminal charges for a witness’s alleged false statements to Congress.

Responding to a congressional inquiry differs from responding to an FCC inquiry in important ways. For instance, congressional committees generally take the position that they are not bound by common-law privileges such as the attorney-client privilege, and any material provided to a committee may become public.

Inquiries into matters unrelated to FCC activity may be among the most difficult for companies to navigate. Congress may examine contributions, sponsorships, business arrangements, and other forms of support that a company viewed as ordinary civic, philanthropic, or commercial activity for any link to the timing or outcome of a regulatory decision – even if it has nothing to do with the FCC. Committees may seek information not only from the company, but also from its executives, directors, and major investors, as well as the recipients of the support. Companies with pending or anticipated FCC matters, including transactions, should be prepared to explain why they extended financial support and who at the company was involved in the decision-making process.

Companies should also consider the following steps now:

• Assess preservation obligations. Review letters or other oversight requests received from congressional Democrats and evaluate document preservation obligations. Preservation notices could cover communications with the FCC, the White House, and Members of Congress and their staff, including text messages, ephemeral messaging platforms, and other informal channels.
• Review prior commitments and filings. Revisit representations and undertakings made in FCC filings and transaction approvals to confirm they continue to reflect the most up-to-date information, remain consistent, and are being honored.
• Identify non-FCC support and relationships. Work with counsel to identify corporate and executive contributions, sponsorships, and other support for projects associated with the President, Administration officials, or Trump family members or their businesses. Assess how those items comport with relevant approval processes, company policies, and applicable disclosure or reporting obligations.
• Prepare a response protocol. Identify a response team with a designated lead who receives and escalates congressional inquiries, and engage counsel to evaluate the company’s risk profile and develop a response strategy that protects sensitive or privileged information.
• Assume visibility. Treat emails, texts, and presentations concerning FCC matters as potentially public.
• Consider disclosure and diligence. Public companies and investors should evaluate whether heightened congressional scrutiny of a company or a counterparty warrants risk-factor updates or additional diligence in pending transactions.

Looking Ahead

• Lame-duck session (now through January 3, 2027). Watch for any effort by Senate Republicans to vote on Thumann Severs’ nomination before the majority changes, and for Democratic efforts to tie it to Commissioner Gomez’s renomination.
• January through spring 2027. The new Congress will organize its committees and name its chairs. We expect early requests for FCC oversight hearings and the first letters to the FCC and to broadcasters.
• Throughout 2027. Watch for an FCC order resolving the Quadrennial Review and any CRA activity that follows, as well as developments in the court challenges to the national cap elimination and in Disney’s suit against the FCC.

***

Wiley’s Telecom, Media & Technology attorneys are monitoring how Democratic control of Congress will affect broadcasters. We have extensive experience counseling broadcasters on FCC compliance, transactions, and enforcement, and advocating for their interests before the Commission and Congress. Working with our colleagues on the Congressional Oversight and Investigations team, we also assist clients in preparing for and responding to congressional inquiries. If you have any questions, please contact one of the attorneys listed on this alert or the Wiley attorney who routinely handles your FCC matters.