There is hot change these days in Washington. As broadcasters watch all the political and policy developments, nobody is doing so more closely than Curtis LeGeyt.
The president/CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters spoke in January with Radio World Editor in Chief Paul McLane and contributor Randy Stine about the second Trump administration, the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, artificial intelligence and more.
Radio World: Your predecessor was a former Republican senator. You were once a counsel to a Democratic committee chair. Both of you charted courses for the NAB that were pragmatic and mostly apolitical. How are you going to maintain that approach under the second Trump administration, with Republicans controlling both houses and so much partisanship in the air?
Curtis LeGeyt: It’s really important in Washington to know who you are and whom you represent. Whether it’s a Republican or a Democratic administration, irrespective of who holds the gavels, the policymakers in Washington are supportive of broadcasters because of the work broadcasters do in local communities.
That work is non-partisan. It doesn’t register Democrat or Republican. It registers free and local. We’re going to continue to double down on that, especially in light of the way the media landscape has continued to fragment.
There’s an awareness on both sides of the need for trusted, fact-based information. That’s what we do best. We bring communities together rather than divide them.
In this moment, we have a new opportunity to tell our stories, to remind the new administration of our enduring value.
RW: You recently complimented Brendan Carr about his stance on “holding Big Tech accountable,” in your words. But this president and the new chairman have been very critical of how many media outlets covered the Trump and Harris campaigns, and there have been threatening comments about broadcast licenses and networks. You responded to the Trump lawsuit against CBS News and talked about attacks on the First Amendment. It feels like there could be a lot of contention between NAB members and this administration. What should we expect? How do you navigate that?
LeGeyt: We have a long history of work with Chairman Carr, and over the course of his time at the FCC, he has consistently shown an awareness of the role that local broadcasters play in the current ecosystem — the need to level the playing field to allow broadcasters to better compete with the tech platforms and the unique value of what we provide in local communities that no one else in media is doing. As a result, I’m very optimistic about our ability to work productively with Chairman Carr.
The broadcast industry is in dire need of modernization of any number of regulations, most importantly the ownership restrictions on local radio and television. That’s something we see eye-to-eye with Chairman Carr on; We look forward to working closely with him and this FCC on an agenda that will allow broadcasters to better compete and innovate.
RW: But wouldn’t you agree that the FCC is not supposed to mess with content? Doesn’t it feel like they’re starting to talk about that?
LeGeyt: There is certainly a lot of political rhetoric around the content of any number of media outlets, including broadcasters. And we certainly feel very strongly as an industry about the ability of our newsrooms to report the truth, and hold government to account without fear of retribution as a cornerstone of the First Amendment.
We are going to continue to defend that right with any administration, Republican or Democrat, and the FCC. But within the four corners of where the FCC has clear legal authority, modernizing regulations that are impeding broadcasters’ ability to do that journalistic work is my top priority.
RW: Do you expect a different outcome in the next quadrennial review around radio subcaps?
LeGeyt: Chairman Carr has shown a real recognition of the state of the audio marketplace and a willingness to take a fresh look at the ownership restrictions that govern local radio.
While I’m not going to predict any particular outcome, I can predict that we are going to have FCC leadership that is very open to understanding the realities of the current marketplace and modernizing regulations accordingly.
We’ve got our work to do in order to ensure that the FCC has the data it needs to make an informed decision on any modifications to its ownership rules. But we’re optimistic that we will have the opportunity for an informed conversation, both with the new chairman as well as all of the FCC commissioners and the Media Bureau.
RW: What about the AM radio bill? What went wrong at the end of last session?
LeGeyt: Obviously we’re disappointed that the bill didn’t get over the finish line. But we are encouraged by the amount of support for getting the bill passed, and we’re very, very confident about where we stand heading into this Congress.
We ended last year with 271 House co-sponsors and 63 Senate co-sponsors, and strong votes out of both the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee. The leads on the bills in those committees are back and control the gavels this time around as well. We are going to hit the ground running.
All of this is driven by the fact that more than 800,000 AM radio listeners from across the country have reached out to their members of Congress to tell them how important it is to get this bill passed to enable access to AM radio and the automobile so that that is where we’re going to focus on going forward.
These chambers are governing with very narrow majorities. It’s a high threshold to get any particular issue included in what has turned into a legislative process largely dictated by packages of bills rather than issue-specific bills getting time on the Senate or the House floor.
Our hope will be that we can get standalone votes on both of these bills sooner rather than later this Congress. We’re going to be working every angle. We’ve gotten assurances from leadership on both sides of the Capitol, both Commerce Committees, that the AM for Every Vehicle Act is going to be a significant priority at the start of this Congress. I expect them to move through committee consideration quickly; then we will work to continue to increase the bipartisan support for the bill and get it over the finish [line]. [In early February the 2025 version passed the Senate Commerce Committee again.]
[Read more stories about the future of AM radio in cars]
RW: The AM bill shined a light on how much broadcasters are valued by members of Congress, but carmakers have a huge voice, too. We don’t imagine it’s going to be easier to slide across.
LeGeyt: I don’t think it’ll be easy, but let’s also talk about the silver lining, which is that we have been working to engage the automakers on the importance of radio in their business decisions over the course of the last several years.
The biggest challenge that radio has is that we are a fragmented industry. Speaking with one voice on the business side is difficult. This legislation allowed Washington to help supplement that voice, and it coalesced our industry around a cause. Make no mistake, every auto executive knows the importance of AM radio to legislators in Washington and to consumers in a way they didn’t 24 months ago. As we’re looking at the long game and ensuring radio’s prominent place in the dashboard of the future, this legislative activity is going to be helpful, not just for AM radio, but for FM as well.
RW: As one of the final acts under Chairwoman Rosenworcel, the FCC released its latest communications marketplace assessment. I imagine you are encouraged by comments from Chairman Carr and Commissioner Symington, who basically scoffed at it and said, “Yeah, we’ll have an opportunity to look at this differently in a few months.” They seem clearly in line with your thinking that broadcasting’s marketplace is broader than it has been defined in the past.
LeGeyt: There’s no doubt that the marketplace is very different, certainly than how the 2018 quadrennial order reflected it.
If I were to sit down at my dinner and have a conversation with my family about the various ways in which they’re consuming audio, I wouldn’t have to do a whole lot of technical work to convince my parents or my kids that there’s a lot of competition for audio attention, beyond just local radio broadcast.
Yet the FCC seems stuck in the past on the way that they have examined the marketplace. We’ve been extremely encouraged by the openness of Chairman Carr and Commissioner Simington to looking at the marketplace more holistically. But we’ve also had great conversations over the years with Commissioner Starks and Gomez.
This is a rapidly evolving marketplace, and we look forward to working with all four commissioners to talk about modernization of regulations that can help our stations better serve their communities and compete, especially with tech platforms that aren’t confined by the same restrictions on scale.
RW: If there is a delay in having a fifth commissioner confirmed, what would the impact be? Going back a term, there was quite a gap.
LeGeyt: I wish I had that crystal ball that could tell me the exact timing of a fifth commissioner. [Subsequent to this interview, Olivia Trusty was nominated, but the timing of a confirmation vote was not known.]
Lacking that, there are meaningful steps that this FCC can take to modernize ownership regulations and remove some of the obstacles that have prevented stations from innovating and hyper serving local communities.
We know the FCC processes and NPRMs can be voted on, asking questions around a lot of these issues, without a fifth commissioner. We’re going to make our case to the seated commissioners on the need for the FCC to move quickly to update ownership rules in particular. It is not partisan to acknowledge that there’s been tremendous change in the media marketplace since these ownership rules came into effect.
RW: You’ve cited support for the Local Radio Freedom Act opposing any radio performance royalty.
LeGeyt: That’s going to continue to be a priority, because maintaining that firewall in opposition to any new performance royalty on broadcasters is existential.
That shouldn’t be mistaken to mean we aren’t willing to be at the table for conversations around a holistic solution that would enable broadcasters to better innovate in a more economical fashion, as listeners are migrating over to streaming.
But the bills that have been proposed by the music industry that are a one-sided new royalty on broadcasters will stifle our ability to serve local communities.
RW: You have fought vocally against FM geotargeting and the idea of boosters being allowed to have very localized content for three minutes an hour. The FCC allowed this unanimously, which doesn’t seem to give you a whole lot of reason to think you could claw it back. Are you holding to those pretty dire predictions you made, about the impact on advertising rates as well as interference?
LeGeyt: Listen, I’m grateful for the fact that the FCC heeded our call and slowed down that proceeding, because at the outset, it was moving very quickly with a lot of unsettled questions.
Nothing that the FCC did mandates the use of the technology. I’m sure that there are going to be certain stations that are going to take a look at what competitive advantage they might be able to find through geotargeting.
Based on what I’ve heard from the majority of my members, I’m not sure there is a lot of interest in that; but time will tell. We are always for new technologies that will allow our stations to innovate, better serve listeners [and] better serve their business partners. If geotargeting can be a part of that solution … I’m not convinced, but if it can be, I’m eager to see it.
RW: Radio and TV cannot carry cannabis advertising. There has been some congressional action in the past; the Safe Advertising Act comes to mind in the Senate. That would be valuable dollars for radio to tap into. Could 2025 see a breakthrough?
LeGeyt: The previous administration was focused on rescheduling cannabis, which does have some impact here, on the legal implications of advertising — in terms of federal legislation that addresses ancillary business issues [such as] banking or advertising.
These laws need to be updated to provide a safe harbor. It’s too early to tell in this Congress whether there’s going to be the bipartisan consensus necessary to act. These issues are not going to be legislated as a one-off. If there’s going to be cannabis legislation moving through the Senate, for example, it is likely to be multifaceted, and the politics are complicated around that.
We’ll be at the table arguing for the importance of advertising in terms of allowing consumers to be educated in the choices that they are making [and] the benefits to the public.
RW: We’ve seen the FCC carrying out the will of Congress by doing heightened enforcement and sweeps in certain markets against radio pirates. But many broadcasters are cynical that it even matters, as long as there is no visible Justice Department enforcement and the government doesn’t collect the fines. Is there anything that should be done differently by any of these federal actors that can actually make a difference?
LeGeyt: I’m optimistic that the FCC as well as the Justice Department will enforce the laws. We were very gratified by the attention that the previous FCC put on these issues and the tools that Congress has provided to go police this. We’ll be working closely with the new FCC to ensure that they’re using the resources at their disposal to ensure that our stations are protected.
RW: You put a spotlight on AI at the NAB Show last year. So many in our industry are both fascinated and threatened by it. Where do we stand now, and are we making progress toward creating guardrails, if, in fact, guardrails are needed?
LeGeyt: AI is going to be an area where you see an even more expanded focus at the NAB Show in April. So many areas of every station’s business are being impacted by these new technologies. We want to give our radio members the opportunity to experience these innovations hands-on and get an understanding of how we can better use some of these technologies to service our communities.
No doubt, there are significant concerns around our ability to safeguard our content, as it is being used to train some of these new large learning models that are potential competitors. We’ve got to protect the integrity of our local personalities, those voices that you know. Our competitive advantage is the trusted relationship that our listeners have with their local personalities in every community.
I worry that the increased prevalence of deep fakes risks undermining that competitive advantage. We’re going to continue to dialogue with policymakers about steps to ensure we’re fairly compensated for our content.
Congress has had a hard time staying on top of this constant evolution in technology, but we are going to be at the table. There’s a bipartisan awareness of the need to put some guardrails around this. But it’s also a narrowly divided Congress. We also will be working these issues heavily in the states, some of which may be better equipped to deal with the challenges for the industry.
I see this across the country, at a federal and state level, as a major ongoing focus for this association. Broadcasters need to embrace the technology where it will help increase our reach, but we’ve got to protect our stations against threats that will undermine our ability to have a business.
[Read more Radio World stories about artificial intelligence]
RW: Two of the NAB Show’s new leaders, Karen Chupka and Sean Perkins, have recent experience at the Consumer Technology Association and the CES show. What do they bring to the table?
LeGeyt: They bring fresh perspectives and an eye towards growth opportunities.
The NAB Show continues to do a tremendous job servicing our core constituency, local radio and television station groups and traditional media, with the latest technologies. We do that through our more than 1,000 exhibitors as well as an array of programming.
But the media ecosystem expands well beyond that, and we need to capture it. Whether you are a brand that is engaging directly with a consumer through a YouTube channel or a business that’s engaging with a would-be customer through Instagram, you are in media; and there is a want to be educated on the latest tools to better engage your audiences, as well as to network and understand the best means for distribution, monetization, increased traffic.
We want the NAB Show to be the hub to all of that. What Karen and her leadership brings to our team is a real push to think outside of the box as to this broader lens of what industries are in media today, and how we capture their needs.
We’re already making significant headway, whether it’s in AI, sports or the creator economy, to broaden our tent. I see that continuing under Karen’s leadership. But it’s important to note that we had a tremendous and experienced team in place, which Karen was fortunate to inherit. She’s building on top of that with new talent that brings some new and diverse perspectives.
RW: What would you consider to be your biggest win of the past year?
LeGeyt: Meaningful policy-making in Washington is a multi-Congress process. If you look at every signature legislative victory that we’ve had as an industry over the course of the past three decades, none of them went from fresh introduction to passage in a calendar year.
With that context, what the industry accomplished on the AM for Every Vehicle Act was a tremendous success, building a bill from concept to introduction to committee hearings and then markups, with the support of more than 300 members of Congress. To do all of that in basically a 16-month period was truly phenomenal, and as a result we’re really well positioned to get the bill over the finish line this Congress.
The success happened so quickly that it increased expectations that we could get it all done in one Congress. Political reality got in the way of that. But I’m very optimistic we can do it.
