TAKE IT DOWN Act Passed by Congress, Heads to President's Desk

On April 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a 409-2 vote, the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act or the "TAKE IT DOWN Act" (S. 146). The bill, which passed by unanimous voice vote in the Senate on February 13, now goes to President Donald Trump's desk for signature. 

As described in a January 16 press release by the Senate and House bills' sponsors, the TAKE IT DOWN Act “makes it unlawful for a person to knowingly publish [non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)] on social media and other online platforms. NCII is defined to include realistic, computer-generated pornographic images and videos ["deep forgeries"] that depict identifiable, real people." The bill has separate provisions and corresponding criminal penalties applicable to minors and adults, and it specifies that a victim consenting to the creation of an authentic image does not mean that the victim has consented to its publication.

 

Additionally, the TAKE IT DOWN Act includes a notice-and-takedown provision that requires social media and other public websites or internet services to establish procedures for the removal of NCII in response to a valid request from a victim, within 48 hours. Under the bill, websites also are required to make reasonable efforts to remove copies of the unauthorized images. Websites that make good faith efforts to remove NCII or disable access to it receive immunity from legal claims relating to such removal or disabled access. However, a website’s failure to comply with the notice-and-takedown requirements constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Under the TAKE IT DOW ACT, the FTC has authority to enforce the notice-and-takedown requirements and impose penalties for non-compliance. 

 

The TAKE IT DOWN Act appears to be a commonsense measure, carefully written, and reasonably necessary to address a serious problem that is nationwide in scope. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill into law. Credit and congratulations are due to the bill's supporters and its sponsors.

 

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (S.146) is sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz and Amy Klobuchar. Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar and Madeleine Dean are sponsors of the House companion bill (H.R.633). Senator Cruz, who is Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, talked about the TAKE IT DOWN Act during his keynote address at the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference in Washington D.C. on March 25, 2025: 

NO FAKES Act to Combat "Deepfakes" is Reintroduced in Congress

On April 11, the "Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2025" or "NO FAKES Act" was re-introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 2794) and Senate (S. 1367). The House bill is sponsored by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar and the Senate bill is sponsored by Sen. Christopher Coons. The NO FAKES Act would bolster individuals' intellectual property rights in their likenesses and voices by recognizing a private right of action against unauthorized and harmful "deepfakes." The bill has bipartisan backing as well as the endorsement of a cross-section of the creative and tech industries. The NO FAKES Act is strong on the merits and the 119th Congress should give it due consideration. 

 

Although generative AI technologies offer potential benefits, they also may be abused. Public displays and dissemination of "deepfake" songs misappropriate the value of recording artists’ voices, damaging the artists economically. Also, generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and services on the Internet allow users to create "deepfake" explicit pictures and videos of individuals.

 

The NO FAKES Act would address those "deepfake" dangers in a targeted way by establishing a national uniform baseline of legal protection for an individual’s likeness and voice from unauthorized digital replicas. If passed by the 119th Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the Act would make civilly liable anyone who knowingly produces a digital replica without the consent of the rights owner. It also would make civilly liable anyone who knowingly publishes, reproduces, displays, distributes, transmits, or makes the digital replica available to the public without the rights owner's consent. Persons harmed under the Act would have a right to seek statutory or actual damages, recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. 

 

Recognizing the potential benefits of authorized digital replicas, the NO FAKES Act provides that individuals would have the right to license their personas for digital replication by third parties. Additionally, the Act is carefully written to address abuses and it includes safeguards for First Amendment-protected free speech and expression using generative AI tech. It bears emphasis that the NO FAKES Act is about private law – personal rights and intellectual property rights; it is not a federal criminal law bill.

 

A more detailed review of the same bill, previously introduced in the 118th Congress, is provided in my August 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The 'NO FAKES Act' Would Protect Americans' Rights Against Harmful Digital Replicas."

House Passes Bill for 6G Task Force and Report

On April 28, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, by a unanimous voice vote, H.R. 2449 – the "Future Uses of Technology Upholding Reliable and Enhanced Networks Act" or the "Future Networks Act." Sponsored by Rep. Doris Matsui and co-sponsored by Reps. Rick Allen and Tim Walberg, the Future Networks Act, if it were to be passed by Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump, would direct the FCC's Chairman to appoint a "6G Task Force" that would prepare and send to Congress a report on developing standards, uses, and related issues involving future 6G wireless networks. 

Under the bill, the members of the 6G Task Force would include representatives of the communications industry, public interest organizations or academic institutions, and representatives of federal, state, local, and tribal governments. The Future Networks Act requires that, within 180 days of the 6G Task Force being established, the group prepare a draft report on 6G wireless technology. The draft report would be published on the FCC's website and in the Federal Register for public comment Following the public comment period, and within 1 year of the 6G Task Force being established, the group would publish their final report and submit it to House and Senate Committees. 

The development of 6G technologies, standards, and spectrum policies no doubt will be a multi-faceted and complex undertaking. A future 6G report by the type of task force proposed in the Future Networks Act could serve as a valuable storehouse of knowledge for Congress, the FCC, and the Executive Branch and help pave the way for a successful eventual launch of 6G wireless networks. Now that the Future Networks Act has passed the House, the Senate should give the bill due consideration. 

 

In an April 2023 blog post, Free State Foundation President Randolph May identified the restoration of the FCC's authority to conduct competitive bidding spectrum license auctions as essential for future 6G network deployment. However, in the near term, there are many opportunities for expanding 5G networks by repurposing spectrum from government use to private use. Seizing those opportunities depends not only on a replenished spectrum pipeline but revival of the Commission's auction authority. The 119th Congress should restore the FCC’s authority on spectrum license auctions and encourage timely replenishment of the spectrum pipeline. 

House Committee Advances New Bill to Reauthorize and Strengthen NTIA

On April 11, the House Commerce Committee voted to approve the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act of 2025 – HR 2482, a bill introduced on March 31 by Representatives Bob Matsui and Doris Matsui. The bill would reauthorize the NTIA for the first time in over 30 years. Additionally, HR 2482 would elevate the position of NTIA Administrator from a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Commerce Department to a Deputy Under Secretary.  

Elevating the position of NTIA Administrator likely would give the officer more clout in undertaking important agency functions, such as coordinating spectrum use and planning among executive branch agencies. Federal government agencies occupy a significant amount of spectrum. Stronger leadership at NTIA could help further a more effective interagency spectrum coordination process for repurposing some of that spectrum for private commercial use. 

 

As recounted in a blog post from July 31, 2023, the House Commerce Committee passed an earlier version of the NTIA Reauthorization Act during the 118th Congress. The prompt passage of HR 2482 in the 119th Congress indicates that this bi-partisan legislation could become law this year. 

 

Credit is due to Reps. Latta and Matsui for their persistence on the NTIA Reauthorization Act. HR 2482 deserves a timely vote by the House of Representatives.   

House Committee Advances Bill for Vetting Recipients of High-Cost Broadband Subsidies

On April 8, the House Commerce Committee voted 50-1 to pass the Rural Broadband Act of 2025 – HR 2399. The bill would require the FCC to establish a vetting process for future applicants for future high-cost universal service program funding for deployment and supporting broadband Internet access services. The purpose of the vetting process is to ensure that subsidies go to entities that are capable of fulfilling their universal service obligations. 

The Rural Broadband Act has been introduced in prior Congresses. My blog post from February 16, 2023, describes a bit more about the bill as it was introduced in the 118th Congress by Senators Shelley Moore Capito and Amy Klobuchar. 

 

This bi-partisan legislation appears to be a reasonable measure to help prevent money collected from U.S. consumers via surcharges – effectively, "USF Taxes" – being misspent and wasted. The House of Representatives should give HR 2399 an up-or-down vote.

 

Meanwhile, the need for an overhaul of the Universal Service Fund is still pressing. As Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I explained in our August 2023 comments to the Universal Service Reform Working Group: "Reform of the USF subsidy system is urgently needed because the system is outdated and no longer fiscally sustainable." The existing universal service regime was established in a voice-centric 1990s context, with a broader contribution base and much smaller sized fund than today with a dwindled base and a bloated annual distribution amount of $7 billion to $8 billion. As a result, the USF Tax has continued to climb, and the most recent proposed quarterly contribution factor increase will raise the USF Tax to 36.6%.

 

Notably, the constitutionality of the contribution mechanism of the USF was the subject of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on March 26 of this year. Regardless of the Court's verdict on the constitutionality of the USF's contribution system, economic realities require reforms. One possible reform is switching from the USF Tax to appropriations by Congress. Another reform option is expanding the contribution base to major Internet websites that benefit the most from universal broadband connectivity. Those ideas were among the many topics discussed at the Free State Foundation's Seventeenth Annual Policy Conference – #FSFConf17 – held on March 25, 2025, in Washington D.C. Video of the conference panels, keynote addresses, and keynote conversations are available online.

Senators Reintroduce Bill for Faster Broadband Permitting on Federal Land

According to reports, on March 5, Senators John Thune, Ben Ray Luján, and John Barrasso reintroduced the Accelerating Broadband Permits Act. The bill's purpose is to improve executive agencies' processing of permit applications to construct communications facilities on federal land. 

As explained in my blog post from August 7, 2024, executive agencies with supervision over federal lands have been found by have problems processing permit applications within the MOBILE NOW Act's 270-day deadline. The Accelerating Broadband Permits Act is intended to help identify instances where the agencies are at risk of missing deadlines deadline and ensure they meet them.

 

The Accelerating Broadband Permits Act isn't a big, wasteful spending bill. It is an agency accountability bill that could help accelerate broadband network on land held in trust or owned by the federal government. Senators Thune, Luján, and Barrasso deserve credit for bringing this bill back. Hopefully, the Act fares better in the 119th Congress and receives timely consideration.

 

(At the time of this blog post, no bill number or link to the bill are available on the Senate's website.) 

Bill Would Fill the Gap in Copyright Protections for Music on AMFM Radio

On January 31, Sen. Marsha Blackburn filed the American Music Fairness Act. If it were to become law, the bill would secure full public performance rights in copyright owners' music sound recordings. The bill is backed by a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, including Senators Alex Padilla, Thom Tillis, and Corey Booker. An announcement for the bill states that Rep. Darrell Issa will be introducing companion legislation in the House. In the 119th Congress, both chambers should give the American Music Fairness Act the timely consideration it deserves. 

Copyright law contains a gap in its protection of the property rights of sound recording owners. Currently, terrestrial commercial AM/FM radio stations are allowed to broadcast copyrighted music sound recordings to attract listening audiences and earn money from airing ads around those recorded songs – all without obtaining a license or compensating the recordings' owners. 

 

The American Music Fairness Act would fix the issue. Under the Act, AM/FM stations would be required to pay royalties to owners of sound recordings – just like satellite radio and Internet radio stations pay public performance royalties to sound recording owners. 

 

Importantly, the American Music Fairness Act would set low, set flat royalty rates for smaller stations. For instance, the bill would establish a rate of $10 per year for non-profit and commercial stations that generate less than $100,000 in revenue each year. An annual rate of $500 would apply to stations that generate revenues over $100,000 but less than $1.5 million each year. 

 

Another merit of the Act is that it would enable sound recording owners to receive public performance royalties from foreign radio stations. The U.S.’s lack of full public performance rights has enabled foreign stations to lawfully withhold royalties from American copyright owners. But if the Act becomes law, foreign trade agreement provisions would kick in and compel those stations to finally pay American sound recording owners for the use of their copyrighted property. 

 

Previously, the American Music Fairness Act has been falsely attacked as a tax bill. In reality, the Act is a pro-property rights bill. No intellectually honest person can claim one private party's obligation to pay another private party for the use of private property is a government tax. Copyright royalties are not taxes. (The obvious differences between payments for the right to make copies, publicly display, or publicly perform another's copyrighted property and payments of taxes or fees to the government are addressed in more detail in my blog post from September 2022.) 

 

The American Music Fairness Act was introduced in both the House and Senate in prior Congresses, and the House Judiciary Committee passed it in December 2022. Sen. Blackburn and her colleagues deserve thanks for reintroducing the American Music Fairness Act in the 119th Congress and giving sound recording owners another chance at being fully secured in their rights. Hopefully, the Senate will take up the bill for due deliberation.

 

Additional background on the American Music Fairness Act can be found in my 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "American Music Fairness Act Would Secure Copyrights in Sound Recordings," as well as in my April 2021 Perspectives, "Congress Should Secure Full Copyright Protections for Music Sound Recordings."

Spectrum Pipeline and FCC Auction Bill Introduced in House

In welcome news, on January 23, Rep. Rick Allen W. Allen announced the introduction in the House of Representatives of the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2025. The Act, if it were to become law, would require the NTIA to identify at least 2,500 megahertz (MHz) of mid-band spectrum for reallocation from federal government use to non-federal or shared use in 5 years of the bill's enactment, including at least 1,250 MHz within the next 2 years.  

Additionally, the Act renews the FCC's authority to conduct spectrum license auctions and issue licenses to bid winners. The Commission's authority lapsed in March 2023. Under the Act, the Commission would be required to auction at least 1,250 MHz of spectrum for full-power commercial wireless service within 6 years, and at least 600 MHz of that spectrum must be auctioned within 3 years. 

 

Notably, the Act also requires the FCC to allocate at least 125 MHz of spectrum for unlicensed use, such as WiFi. 

 

At the January 23 hearing on wireless technology held by the House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology, there appeared to be bipartisan unanimity on the conclusion that more spectrum needs to be put into use for licensed and unlicensed use and that the FCC's lapsed spectrum license auction authority should be restored promptly. 

The Commission's 2024 Communications Marketplace Competition Report includes a chart by CTIA that shows the dramatic rise in mobile data traffic, and an unmistakable upward trend that will continue as more and more connected devices go into use and as data usage per subscriber continues to go up: 

Additionally, the 2024 report observes that "[a] large proportion of mobile data traffic is delivered on an unlicensed basis through Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and similar protocols." Furthermore: "Telecom Advisory Services asserts that the economic benefits associated with Wi-Fi in the United States will rapidly grow to $2.4 trillion in 2027, including an estimated $514 billion in consumer benefit, $624 billion in producer surplus, and $1,286 billion in GDP." And "[a]ccording to LightReading, the average Verizon subscriber offloads approximately 78% of their data onto Wi-Fi, for example, while Comcast subscribers offload approximately 94%." For other highlights from the report, see my Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The FCC's 2024 Communications Marketplace Report: Time for a Broader View of Competing Broadband Services," published January 24, 2025. 

 

Also important is the NERA study published on January 23 that estimates the tremendous economic value created through the allocation of spectrum for licensed use. For more on that, see my January 23 blog post, "Report: Putting Mid-Band Spectrum into Licensed Use Adds Billions to Economy."

 

The Spectrum Pipeline Act that Rep. Allen introduced is a companion to the similarly-titled bill from March 2024 that Senators Ted Cruz and John Thune sponsored. As Free State Foundation President Randolph May stated in a March 11, 2024, Media Advisory regarding the Senate bill from the last Congress: 

No doubt there may be different views regarding the specific dates and amounts identified for reallocation contained in the bill. But there should be widespread agreement that it provides a good basis for moving forward promptly to develop a bipartisan, bicameral plan to address the nation's now-lagging spectrum efforts.

Everything President May said then applies with equal measure to the Spectrum Pipeline Act of 2025. Several months later, no substantial progress has been made on the wireless spectrum front. Timely action by Congress is even more important to get the desired result from having more spectrum in use. Rep. Allen deserves credit for filing the bill and undertaking efforts to make that happen. 

House Hearing Should Prompt Action on Wireless Spectrum, FCC Auctions

On January 23, the House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology will hold a hearing titled "Strengthening American Leadership in Wireless Technology." The hearing will feature witness testimony addressing spectrum management, licensed versus unlicensed spectrum, spectrum auction authority, international harmonization, and radio access networks (RANs).

The hearing is important because next-generation wireless networks are vital to our nation's economic vitality and competitive. Also, the hearing is timely because there is an urgent need for more spectrum dedicated to commercial wireless use, particularly licensed spectrum and especially spectrum in the mid-band range (1 GHz to 7 GHz).

 

Wireless device connections and mobile data usage are rising sharply each year, with demand rising ever-higher in the years to come. Unfortunately, the U.S. supply of licensed spectrum is likely to fall short absent the reallocation of additional spectrum from government occupancy to private commercial use. At this moment, there is no spectrum waiting in the wings to be repurposed for commercial use, despite federal agencies using or at least occupying significant amounts of spectrum resources. To make matters more difficult, the FCC's general authority to conduct spectrum license auctions and issues licenses to auction bid winners lapsed in 2023. 

 

The 119th Congress and the Trump Administration should take decisive action to replenish the stock of mid-band spectrum and revive the Commission's auction authority. The first Trump Administration's National Spectrum Strategy stalled out, and the Biden Administration's National Spectrum has been criticized for its painful slowness and overstudying instead of producing results. Whatever has come before now, every available good option for fast-tracking and getting more spectrum into private use should be pursued and a re-stocked spectrum pipeline made into reality. 

 

The House Subcommittee's January 23 spectrum hearing memo is available here. Hopefully, the hearing will lead to prompt concrete action in the 119th Congress on spectrum and other important wireless policy issues. 

President Trump Designates Brendan Carr as New FCC Chairman

As noted in a statement released by the FCC, today, January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an order designating Brendan Carr as the new Chairman of the Commission. Congratulations to Chairman Carr, and best wishes for success in steering the agency into new direction for federal communications policy. 

Chairman Carr has many times been a speaker at prior Free State Foundation Annual Conferences, including #FSF16 – FSF's 16th Annual Conference held in Washington, D.C. on March 12, 2024, where then-Commissioner Carr was part of the keynote conversation, "TMT with Mike O'Rielly."

Also, as widely reported on January 16, President Trump intends to nominate Olivia Trusty to fill the vacant position member position on the Commission. Thus, congratulations also are due to Ms. Trusty. Members of the Senate should promptly conduct a committee hearing on her nomination and bring her nomination to a vote.  

Senator Cruz to Intro Resolution to Repeal FCC's Off-Premises Wi-Fi Subsidies

On January 16, Broadband Breakfast reported that Sen. Ted Cruz intends to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval in the Senate to overturn the FCC's July 2024 order granting subsidies for schools and libraries to loan out Wi-Fi hotspots for off-premises use. 

The expected joint resolution of disapproval will be filed under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which provides a fast-track mechanism for Congress to repeal new agency rules. If passed by 119th Congress, the CRA joint resolution would go to the desk of President-elect Donald Trump for signature. Background on the CRA is provided in FSF Board of Academic Advisors' Member Daniel Lyons' June 2018 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "The Congressional Review Act and the Toxic Politics of Net Neutrality."

The FCC's July 2024 order for subsidizing off-premises Wi-Fi is a good candidate for repeal under the CRA. As explained in my August 2024 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "FCC Lacks Authority to Subsidize Wi-Fi Use Away from Schools and Libraries":

Section 254(h) of the Communications Act, on which the Commission relies, authorizes universal service subsidies only to or for "schools," "classrooms," and "libraries." Subsidies for off-premises Wi-Fi use – potentially anywhere in the world – are not included in the statute. The Commission's decision to spend taxpayer dollars without an overall budget cap for off-premises Wi-Fi use is unlawful. 

Thus, a joint resolution of disapproval to repeal the Commission's order is a rule of law measure. 

 

Additionally, Sen. Cruz and others have raised reasonable concerns about the Commission's order causing wasteful taxpayer expenditures and child Internet use in environments without adult supervision. The agency's approved subsidies would come from the E-Rate program, which is funded by universal service surcharges imposed on consumer bills for voice services. 

 

Thanks go to Sen. Cruz for his willingness to take action for government agency accountability, fiscal responsibility, and child safety.