When a foreign billionaire or overseas conglomerate eyes a slice of American media, a quiet but consequential set of rules kicks in. Most people assume the government either blocks foreign ownership outright or waves it through with little scrutiny. The reality is far more layered, and understanding it matters more than ever as cross-border media deals continue to reshape the information landscape.
The FCC’s 25 Percent Rule: A Hard Limit With Soft Edges
The foundation of foreign broadcast ownership rules sits inside the Communications Act of 1934. That law prohibits foreign nationals, foreign governments, or foreign corporations from directly holding a license for a U.S. broadcast station. For indirect ownership through a holding company, the Federal Communications Commission enforces a 25 percent benchmark. If a foreign entity owns more than 25 percent of a parent company that holds a broadcast license, the FCC has the authority to deny or revoke that license.
But here is the catch: that 25 percent figure is not an absolute ceiling. The FCC can approve higher levels of foreign indirect ownership if it determines the arrangement serves “the public interest.” In practice, this has allowed foreign investment well above 25 percent in some cases, including for broadcast licensees, through petitions for declaratory ruling that the FCC decides case by case.
Newspapers, digital news outlets, and most streaming services fall almost entirely outside FCC jurisdiction. There is no federal cap on foreign ownership of a publication like a major newspaper or a news website, which is why foreign investors have acquired American print and digital media properties with relatively little regulatory friction.
Where National Security Steps In
The FCC does not work alone. Since the 1990s, an informal interagency group known as “Team Telecom” has played a growing role in reviewing FCC license transactions with foreign ownership. A 2020 executive order made it a formal body, the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector. The committee brings together the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to assess whether a deal poses risks to national security or law enforcement access to communications networks.
Separately, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS, reviews a broader range of acquisitions involving foreign buyers. CFIUS gained significantly expanded powers under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, which was signed into law in 2018. That legislation gave the committee authority to scrutinize minority investments and real estate transactions near sensitive facilities, not just full corporate takeovers.
A high-profile example of these mechanisms at work came in 2021, when the FCC revoked the operating authority of China Telecom Americas, citing national security concerns raised by federal agencies. The commission followed with similar actions against other Chinese state-affiliated carriers. Those cases illustrated how regulators can use existing authority aggressively when geopolitical pressure is high.
The Gaps That Critics Worry About
Despite this framework, analysts and policymakers have pointed to significant blind spots. Social media platforms, podcasts, and digital news operations remain largely unregulated when it comes to foreign ownership. A foreign government or its proxies could theoretically hold a substantial stake in a major American digital news brand without triggering any mandatory FCC review.
There have been ongoing congressional discussions about whether to extend stricter ownership reviews to online media, but as of now no comprehensive legislation has passed. The FCC’s mandate remains tethered to broadcasting, a technology that, while still relevant, no longer dominates how most Americans consume news and information.
The regulatory architecture governing foreign media ownership was largely built for a broadcast world that looked very different from today’s fragmented, internet-driven media environment. Regulators and lawmakers face the ongoing challenge of updating rules without creating new barriers that could inadvertently stifle legitimate foreign investment in American media companies that genuinely need capital.
As geopolitical tensions remain elevated and media consumption habits continue shifting online, expect this area of policy to stay contested. The rules that govern who gets to shape the American information space are not settled, and the next major cross-border media deal will likely test them again.