FCC Leaders Past And Present Discuss AI Governance, USF Reform, And The Future Of U.S. Communications Policy At MMTC Symposium

At the Multicultural Media Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) Former FCC Leadership Symposium, hosted at the Washington, DC office of Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a distinguished panel of former Federal Communications Commission leaders convened to assess the critical policy questions facing U.S. communications regulation. The symposium featured keynote remarks by sitting FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty and a panel discussion moderated by former FCC Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Deborah Taylor Tate, with panelists former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, former Commissioner and Acting Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn, and former Commissioners Robert McDowell and Michael O'Rielly. The discussion ranged across AI governance and privacy regulation, Universal Service Fund (USF) reform and broadband affordability, spectrum policy, network resilience, and the institutional future of the FCC itself. Below, we summarize key themes and their implications for practitioners and clients.

Commissioner Olivia Trusty’s Remarks and Priorities

Commissioner Trusty, marking one year since her swearing-in, emphasized three interconnected priorities: (1) achieving universal connectivity, (2) strengthening network security and resilience, and (3) advancing U.S. leadership in next-generation technologies. She emphasized that these goals are mutually reinforcing—connectivity is less meaningful without secure and resilient networks; security depends on innovation to outpace threats; and U.S. technology leadership depends on connected communities and sustained investment.

She described the current period as a “golden age of communications,” citing the rapid pace of innovation in AI, satellite and wireless technologies, and cloud-based platforms. Her forward-looking policy agenda includes making spectrum available for 6G and next-generation networks (enabling integrated sensing and autonomous applications), modernizing satellite licensing policy (including direct-to-device connectivity and orbital data centers), creating a national AI policy framework that provides regulatory certainty, and ensuring that networks use trusted and secure components. She noted her extensive domestic and international engagement and framed the coming years as requiring “confidence, humility, and urgency” from regulators.

Artificial Intelligence and Privacy Regulation

AI, which Adelstein described as the elephant in every boardroom, dominated much of the panel. McDowell observed that direct federal authority over AI remains extremely limited. He claimed that the FCC’s primary lever is conditioning license grants on AI-related compliance, a relatively limited regulatory hook that would not support broad regulation of AI. McDowell argued that Congress should enact comprehensive AI and privacy legislation, noting that in the absence of federal action, states have filled the vacuum with a “patchwork quilt” of regulation that is confusing for consumers and difficult for businesses to navigate. At the same time, he acknowledged that the prospects for passing a comprehensive law in Congress are dim.

O’Rielly echoed McDowell’s concerns about the state legislative patchwork, expressing support for federal preemption of state AI and privacy regulation and opining that roughly 18 state privacy statutes have not demonstrably improved privacy protection. O’Rielly noted that AI regulation currently resides with the Executive branch and the Department of Commerce and predicted that the FCC is unlikely to have primary AI regulator added to its portfolio.

Clyburn shared McDowell’s pessimism about a comprehensive AI law, joking that the word “comprehensive” was “banned from this discussion.” She pushed back on the issue of preemption, however, insisting that any federal preemption of state AI regulation must be paired with a coherent national AI framework. She raised concerns about algorithmic bias and profiling, emphasizing the vulnerability of underserved and rural communities in AI-driven systems affecting critical areas such as health care premiums. Clyburn suggested that even without legislation, governance principles could emerge through federal government contracts, executive action, and sector-specific frameworks covering defense, critical infrastructure, and supply chain security, a sentiment that was echoed by McDowell.

Hundt suggested that the next U.S. President will be compelled to address how best to regulate AI and address its implications for the broader economy. He noted Americans’ widespread fear about AI and warned about the potential societal, workforce, and democratic implications. O’Rielly was more sanguine about AI’s societal impact, attributing much of the fear to poor marketing while emphasizing that AI is already interwoven into Americans’ daily lives.

Universal Service Fund (USF) Reform and Broadband Affordability

The panel also examined the future of the USF against a backdrop of significant change: the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) has ended, Lifeline is under review, and the Commission has opened an inquiry into the scope of E-Rate. Tate underscored the programs' documented reach, noting the millions of Lifeline subscribers, tens of millions of students, and thousands of rural health-care facilities that rely on USF support.

McDowell questioned whether emerging technologies—particularly satellite broadband services like Starlink and future entrants such as Amazon Leo—might reduce the need for traditional subsidized fiber deployment by lowering the cost of reaching unserved areas. O’Rielly argued that existing high-cost and E-Rate programs are inefficient and contain outdated legacy sub-programs, and questioned the need for continued E-Rate funding for schools that restrict in-building technology use. He supported the ACP as a better-targeted mechanism, but asserted that it became unsustainable because eligibility swept in 25 to 50 percent of the US population—suggesting a program serving roughly 10 percent might be more sustainable.

Clyburn cautioned against eliminating programs without a “glide path” that protects vulnerable populations, arguing that lessons from ACP should inform a better-designed universal service framework rather than justify wholesale elimination. Hundt framed affordability within a broader context, noting that a majority of Americans report being unable to afford necessities like health care, transportation, and broadband service, and argued that connectivity should be treated as an essential utility.

Key Takeaways for Practitioners and Clients

• Federal AI or privacy legislation remains unlikely in the near term. Companies should continue to build compliance programs capable of addressing a growing patchwork of state privacy and AI statutes, supplemented by sector-specific federal requirements imposed through agency conditions, procurement rules, and executive action.
• AI governance will likely continue to emerge through multiple channels. Prepare for the possibility of regulatory obligations attached to FCC license conditions, government contracts, and supply chain security requirements—not through a single comprehensive federal AI statute. Practitioners should monitor developments across agencies, not only the FCC, especially if there are changes in the political party controlling Congress or the Executive branch.
• USF reform is structurally overdue but politically uncertain. Providers and program beneficiaries should anticipate continued instability in federal broadband subsidy programs, with the potential for narrower eligibility criteria and a greater emphasis on alternative delivery technologies such as satellite and terrestrial wireless.
• Network security and resilience are top FCC priorities. Commissioner Trusty’s emphasis on trusted network components and her international engagement signal that supply chain security, trusted vendor requirements, and infrastructure resilience will remain areas of active regulatory focus.
• Spectrum and next-generation technology policy is accelerating. Companies in the wireless and satellite ecosystem should track the FCC’s spectrum [and new technology?] proceedings and push for policies and practices that will help achieve Commissioner Trusty’s articulated priority of positioning the United States for the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.