Sen. Democrats Call for Stop to Funneling Money to Starlink in States
From potentially illegal giveaways to shady trade deals, Donald Trump and Elon Musk's relationship has drawn a lot of scrutiny. Now, Democrats are honing back in on potential backdoor deals for the benefit of Musk's satellite internet constellation. In a recent letter, Senate Democrats claimed the Trump administration is withholding broadband grants to funnel money to Starlink.
The $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment fund is a federal grant program aimed at improving high-speed internet access nationwide. However, BEAD hit a major roadblock in January when Trump froze funding for its parent law, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Then in April, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration further delayed BEAD for a detailed review.
Last week, a group of Senate Democrats, including Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Commerce Committee Ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), sent an open letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trump. In it, the Senators urged the Trump administration to 'move swiftly' and release BEAD funding.
'Congress created the [BEAD] Program as part of the bipartisan Infrastructure Invest and Jobs Act to finish the job of connecting everyone and building high-speed, scalable, and reliable networks everywhere,' the Senators wrote. 'For six months, states have been waiting to break ground on scores of projects, held back only by the Commerce Department's bureaucratic delays.'
Last month, Ookla, an internet analysis site, released a report stating that only 22 states met minimum broadband speeds in 2024 with divides between rural and urban communities widening in 32 states. BEAD funding is a crucial element to closing that divide which can have a huge impact on people's quality of life. As the Senators wrote, we live in an age where 'high-speed internet is essential for jobs, education, and telehealth'.
Since taking office, Trump has targeted basically every equity measure that he can. Last month, he announced his intentions to end the Digital Equity Act while slamming it as 'racist' and 'unconstitutional'. BEAD hasn't received that same treatment yet. However, the Trump administration has made very obvious attempts to restructure the program to favor Starlink.
When announcing BEAD's impending review, the NTIA said it sought to 'remove unnecessary rules and mandates, to improve efficiency, and take a more technology-neutral approach, cut unnecessary red tape, and streamline deployment.' Currently, BEAD is all about fiber networks but in March, Lutnick was telling rural broadband leaders to prioritize less-reliable satellite internet. As CNET explained, Starlink is the only satellite internet provider that qualifies right now.
In their letter, the Senators directly called out Musk, writing, 'States must maintain the flexibility to choose the highest quality broadband options, rather than be forced by bureaucrats in Washington to funnel funds to Elon Musk's Starlink, which lacks the scalability, reliability, and speed of fiber or other terrestrial broadband solutions.'
This isn't the first time that Starlink has come under scrutiny. Last month, Democratic Senators called for an ethics investigation into Starlink's recent trade deals, which they labeled as a textbook case of corruption. The Senators highlighted numerous examples, including Lesotho awarding Musk the country's first-ever satellite internet service license shortly after Trump issued extremely high tariffs. Musk also made deals with other countries seeking tariff relief, including India, Vietnam, and Bangladesh.
Numerous other lawmakers have called on the administration to release BEAD funding. Last month, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), co-author of the IIJA, alongside several other Democratic senators, wrote, 'To unlock the full strength of the U.S. economy, every community must have access to the vast opportunities enabled by broadband, and this can be achieved by your Administration following the law as outlined in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.'
'The attempts by NTIA to revise the state application process at this late stage will cause further delays to the program and leave rural and tribal communities behind in an increasingly connected economy,' the Senators wrote. 'Time is of the essence, and our rural and tribal communities cannot afford more delays.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
6 minutes ago
- Politico
Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.
President Donald Trump's campaign against two of the planet's best-known universities is laying bare just how unprepared academia was to confront a hostile White House. Schools never imagined facing an administration so willing to exercise government power so quickly — targeting the research funding, tax-exempt status, foreign student enrollment and financial aid eligibility schools need to function. That's left them right where the president wants them. Even as Ivy League schools, research institutions, and college trade associations try to resist Trump's attacks in court, campus leaders are starting to accept they face only difficult choices: negotiate with the government, mount a painful legal and political fight — or simply try to stay out of sight. Groundbreaking scientific research, financial aid for lower-income students and soft power as an economic engine once shielded schools' access to federal funds. Trump has now transformed those financial lifelines into leverage. And the diversity and independence of U.S. colleges and universities — something they've seen as a source of strength and competition — is straining efforts to form a singular response to the president. 'Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on the part of universities,' said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. 'It feels now like there has been a naïveté on the part of universities. There's been no planning for this kind of thing.' Schools are accustomed to tension with their faculty, governing boards, legislatures and governors. But punishments for resisting the Trump administration plumbed untested levels of severity this week when the president issued an executive order to bar foreign students from entering the country to study at Harvard University as his administration threatened Columbia's academic accreditation. Even though Project 2025 — The Heritage Foundation's roadmap for a second Trump administration — previewed some of the tactics the administration would use, many school leaders may have underestimated the president's determination. 'It just seemed inconceivable that we would be in this position of having massive amounts of federal funding withheld, threats to have legislation that attacks your tax status, and now these new issues with international students,' Bollinger said. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday night that blocked Trump's directive to restrict Harvard's access to international students. But the administration is brandishing its response to Harvard's resistance as a warning to other schools who might resist, as federal officials pressure schools to negotiate the terms of a truce over the administration's complaints about campus antisemitism, foreign government influence and its opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 'We've held back funding from Columbia, we've also done the same thing with Harvard,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told House lawmakers this past week. 'We are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the table for negotiations,' she said, just hours before telling the school's accreditor it was violating federal anti-discrimination laws. 'We've also asked Harvard. Their answer was a lawsuit.' A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 'What we've seen so far when it comes to Harvard is the playbook for holding these radical schools accountable is way deeper than anyone anticipated or expected,' a senior White House official told POLITICO. 'You're starting to get to the bone, so to speak, of holding these people accountable,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss White House strategy. 'Harvard knows they cannot endure this for long, they just can't. They're going to have to come to the table, and we'll always be there to meet them. But this was a test case of what to do.' The university described Trump's latest foreign student order this week as 'yet another illegal retaliatory step.' A federal judge in May blocked a separate administration attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard is still locked in a legal fight over more than $2 billion in federal grants the White House blocked after the school refused to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions and disciplinary policies. Trump announced plans to cancel Harvard's tax-exempt status in early May, then later floated redistributing billions of dollars in university grants to trade schools. 'It is not our desire to bring these schools to their knees. The president reveres our higher educational facilities. He's a product of one,' the White House official said. 'But in order to hold these people accountable, we will be unrelenting in our enforcement of the law and hitting them where it hurts, which is their pocketbook.' Many institutions have chosen a more muted response following months of conflict, including major public institutions in states that have also grown reliant on the full-freight tuition paid by international students. 'Universities don't have as many degrees of freedom, at least in the public sector, as you might think they do,' said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia. 'One reason they seem to be relatively slow to act is there's a certain disbelief — can this really be happening?' 'We seem to be in uncharted territory, at least in my experience,' Sullivan said. 'All of a sudden, the rules don't seem to apply. I think that's disconcerting. It shakes the ground beneath you, and you don't necessarily know what to do next.' Still, some higher education leaders are trying to confront the government. More than 650 campus officials have so far signed onto a joint statement that opposes 'the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Sullivan and a group of other former presidents used an op-ed in The Washington Post to argue the Trump administration's offensive 'won't be confined to Harvard University.' Trade associations including the American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have joined schools in a lawsuit to block some of Trump's research funding cuts. The Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a collective of school leaders, has also sued to challenge the Trump administration's attempts to target the legal status of thousands of foreign students. 'Your first obligation as president is you don't want to hurt the institution you represent,' Sullivan said of the relative silence coming from non-Ivy League institutions. 'These days it's hard to tell what hurts and what doesn't. I think that's the motive. The motive is not cowardice.' Schools still face a choice between negotiating with the government — and risk compromising on their principles — or inviting Trump's rage by putting up a fight. 'Every school has had an option to correct course and work with the administration, or stand firm in their violations of the law,' the administration official said. 'They have an option, they know very well what to do.' The real question, according to Bollinger, the former Columbia president, is how far the White House will go and how much resistance the schools are willing to put up. 'The power of government is so immense that if they want to destroy institutions, they can,' he said. 'What you do in that kind of environment is you stand on principle.'
Washington Post
35 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement
It took five years for the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and five major conferences to reach a settlement. Now comes the process for implementing it. Following are significant dates: Settlement approved; settlement-related NCAA rules are effective, as adopted by the NCAA Division I Board on April 21, 2025. NIL Go portal launches. Opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to fully commit to revenue sharing. First date for direct institutional revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes. Opt-in schools must 'designate' student-athletes permitted by the settlement to remain above roster limits. With the exception of the 'designated' student-athletes, fall sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition. With the exception of 'designated' student-athletes, winter and spring sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition or Dec. 1, whichever is earlier. ___ AP college sports:
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump dumps the Federalist Society — and even Republicans are shooketh
In a major about-face, Donald Trump is turning on the conservative powerhouse that built his judicial legacy, the Federalist Society. Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar warns that this break with the very group that helped propel him to power marks a dangerous shift. 'He just wants loyalty to himself—thugs and hacks,' Amar says, adding that Federalist Society judges are principled and loyal to the Constitution, not to Trump. 'The Senate needs to play a really important role now—especia
