The Trump administration’s dismantling of a popular broadband grant program has been greeted with disgust and anger by those doing the heavy lifting to bridge the country’s digital divide, leaving many states' planned broadband expansions in limbo, and affordable broadband advocates contemplating potential legal action.  

The unprecedented choice to destroy digital skills training and broadband adoption programs created by an act of Congress is seeing escalating pushback by a growing coalition of frustrated lawmakers and state broadband offices.

Last week, President Trump announced via a Truth Social post that he was ending the Digital Equity Act, falsely claiming that the program was “unconstitutional” and “racist.”

“No more woke handouts based on race!” the President said. “The Digital Equity Program is a RACIST and ILLEGAL $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR giveaway. I am ending this IMMEDIATELY, and saving Taxpayers BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!"

Image

But the popular program was perfectly legal, barely focused on race, and was proving to be of broad benefit to countless Americans – including many of the President’s own supporters in long-neglected rural counties.

The $2.75 billion Digital Equity Act was passed by Congress as part of the 2021 infrastructure bill. It mandated the creation of three different grant programs intended to shore up equitable, widespread access to affordable Internet, while providing the tools and digital literacy education needed to help neglected U.S. communities get online.

A legal challenge to the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to kill a law passed by Congress seems all but certain.

The $42.5 billion federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant program is facing what appears to be a significant overhaul as the new administration aims to alter, among other things, one of program’s key tenets: a preference for building fiber networks.

Meanwhile, a new ILSR policy brief – “BEAD Should Continue to Prioritize Fiber Internet Network Investments” – makes the case for why “these changes would repeat past policy mistakes and waste billions of dollars while delivering subpar Internet access to rural families at much higher prices.”

The brief then describes why fiber networks should continue to be prioritized:

“In designing BEAD, Congress recognized that it was foolish to spend thousands of dollars per home every 5-10 years to deliver obsolete connections and chose instead to build fiber optic networks that will last generations – ultimately both saving taxpayer dollars and delivering an equitable Internet access option to millions of rural homes.”

And while the policy brief points to important long-term consequences that should be considered to ensure rule changes don’t squander a “generational investment” by building “something more temporary and inferior to the services found on every street in urban and suburban areas,” the brief does not argue that other technologies should not be a part of the mix.

“To be clear, BEAD’s priority for fiber does not bar the use of other technologies when appropriate. In cases where the cost of fiber is simply too great, other technologies are on the table – likely wireless options of both terrestrial and low-earth orbit,” the brief says.

With the incoming Trump administration and the ascendance of GOP leaders taking aim at key aspects of broadband expansion initiatives embedded in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, industry insiders expect the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program to likely get a major facelift in the coming months.

GOP Senate leaders have signaled they will push for BEAD to be scaled back or reconfigured.

One way they may do that is to remove the law’s preference for funding fiber network deployments and create a path for subsidizing Musk’s satellite Internet company, arguing that Starlink would be a more cost-effective solution to bring broadband to rural America.

Late last week, in fact, NTIA released its “Final Guidance for BEAD Funding of Alternative Broadband Technology.” And while the updated guidelines still considers fiber deployments as “priority broadband projects,” the agency administering the BEAD program now explicitly says that states can award “LEO Capacity Subgrants.”

States wary about the restrictions and delays with looming federal broadband grants are poised to put significant taxpayer resources into Starlink and other low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations. The problem: such services often aren’t affordable, raise environmental questions, and may struggle to keep pace with consumer capacity demand.

Back in March, Maine unveiled a $5.4 million initiative to offer Starlink Low Earth Orbit (LEO) terminals to 9,000 state residents outside the reach of broadband from existing terrestrial providers.

An estimated 9,000 locations in the state (1.5 percent of residents) have no access to broadband, mostly peppered across rural Oxford, Penobscot, and Aroostook counties.

While well intentioned, the state’s initiative immediately sparked a debate about whether Starlink is the best use of taxpayer resources.

Starlink May Be Part of Solution

LEO satellite broadband has understandable allure for state broadband offices tasked with showing the federal government they have a solution for every premise – household and business – in the state. Depending on geography and state, some of these locations may require $100,000 for a terrestrial wireline connection.

Many of these unserved locations may be inhabited for a few weeks a year by the family of billionaires or 52 weeks a year by a family barely able to afford the fuel to live there. Spending $100,000 on that household may mean tens of other households see no improvement or have to settle for worse technology. And depending on who you ask, NTIA either demands that the state actually connect that household or simply have a feasible plan to achieve that connection.