Will Trump administration order halt broadband funds for Internet buildout in Mississippi?
A reader from Forrest County recently asked the Roy Howard Community Journalism Center's 'What Is True?' fact-checking service if a Trump administration executive order, issued on the president's first day in office for his second term, would halt federal funding aimed at expanding broadband internet access to rural portions of Mississippi.
On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump signed a flurry of executive orders, including one called 'Unleashing American Energy.' This particular order directed federal agencies to pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a $1.2 trillion package aimed at modernizing U.S. infrastructure, improving sustainability and boosting economic growth. The act, which was signed into law by President Joe Biden in November 2021, allocated $65 billion for broadband expansion and affordability efforts.
The act also created the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, better known as BEAD. The goal of BEAD is to expand high-speed broadband access across the country and particularly to rural, unserved and underserved communities. BEAD was given $42.45 billion to accomplish this goal, and each state, territory and the District of Columbia received a slice of that funding. After state officials submitted a comprehensive plan for expanding access, the Magnolia State was awarded more than $1.2 billion of this funding.
At the time of this award, state leaders were already well on their way to expanding broadband access to hundreds of thousands of Mississippians. In a 2023 interview with the Mississippi Business Journal, Sally Doty, head of the state broadband office, said that funding streams for this effort included about $450 million from the federal Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, about $75 million from the 2020 federal CARES Act, $32 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Broadband Infrastructure Program and around $152 million from the federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
In that interview, Doty said the BEAD funding would have a 'tremendous impact on Mississippi.' She said her office was working with federal officials on an implementation plan, and, in August 2024, the Biden administration announced that an initial plan proposal had been approved, enabling 'Mississippi … to request access to funding and begin implementation.'
After Trump took office and signed the 'Unleashing American Energy' order, several news outlets — including StateScoop — reported that broadband expansion was 'in limbo.' To clarify matters, the Trump administration issued a memo stating that the funding 'pause only applies to funds supporting programs, projects, or activities that may be implicated by the policy established in Section 2 of the order.' Section 2 discusses the administration's plans to expand domestic energy production, reduce reliance on foreign resources and eliminate regulatory barriers that favor technologies like electric vehicles.
While this executive order does not mention internet expansion efforts and will likely not affect BEAD funds for Mississippi, CNN recently reported that the U.S. Commerce Department, which has oversight of the program, is 'revamping' it. The original BEAD framework prioritized fiber-optic networks as the preferred solution for high-speed internet expansion, but the department's changes, according to CNN, include the adoption of a technology-neutral approach, allowing satellite providers like Elon Musk's Starlink to compete for federal funding.
According to British daily newspaper The Guardian, Musk, a senior White House adviser, has publicly called for defunding BEAD while also suggesting that Starlink 'could provide internet connectivity to rural homes at a fraction of the connectivity cost.'
Doty told 'What Is True?' that she foresees 'no drastic change in Mississippi's plan for the buildout of broadband infrastructure to the approximately 125,000 households across the state that remain unserved.' She added that her office 'had already anticipated that (low-Earth orbit satellite providers Starlink and Amazon's Project Kuiper) or fixed wireless would be used for our extremely high-cost locations in Mississippi.'
'Alternative technologies are the right answer in certain situations and can provide acceptable speeds, especially as this technology evolves,' Doty said. 'Starlink will have a role in our buildout, but (it) is not the answer for all remaining unserved locations in Mississippi.'
She said that she agreed with Musk's criticism surrounding the program's 'slow rollout.'
'I emphatically agree that the program has been excruciatingly slow,' Doty said. 'From my view, many of the federal requirements that states must meet are time-consuming, expensive and unnecessary for an effective program.'
Doty said that she expects the new administration to 'streamline the process,' which will allow her office to move 'with more urgency.'
Although the Trump administration's executive order does not explicitly halt broadband expansion funding, the Commerce Department's revamp of BEAD introduces uncertainty about its future in Mississippi. While state officials, including Doty, anticipate progress will continue, the implementation process may shift under new federal guidelines.
'What Is True?' is a media literacy initiative dedicated to investigating false and misleading information. Our team fact-checks claims, provides context and helps the public navigate today's complex news landscape. Submit your claim.
Editor's note: This article is based on publicly available sources, media reports and information collected from interviews. The Mississippi Business Journal article cited in this report was written by Joshua Wilson, who is also the author of this article. In the interest of full transparency, we disclose this connection to ensure readers are aware of the author's previous reporting on this topic. The 'What Is True?' fact-checking service follows rigorous verification standards, and readers are encouraged to review the linked sources for further context and verification.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the Trump-Musk Feud Means for SpaceX and NASA
The U.S. government relies on SpaceX to support NASA and other agencies, and the company has received more $20 billion in federal contracts for it. As Musk and Trump threaten to cut ties, here's what that would mean for the U.S.'s space ambitions.


Business Insider
29 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump Ready to Ditch His Tesla Car amid Musk Fallout: 'I Might Just Get Rid of It'
WASHINGTON — June 7, 2025 President Donald Trump is distancing himself from Elon Musk—publicly and materially. According to The Washington Post, Trump has told aides in recent days that he is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla (TSLA) Model S he purchased in March, a gesture that once symbolized his support for Musk. Confident Investing Starts Here: 'I might just get rid of it,' Trump told aides, according to a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The car, still parked near the White House as of this week, has become a visible casualty of the rapidly souring relationship between Trump and Musk. The split followed Musk's harsh criticism of the administration's latest domestic policy bill, which he publicly called a 'disgusting abomination.' That comment triggered a sharp response from the president, both publicly and privately. On Air Force One, when asked by a reporter about Musk's alleged drug use, Trump replied: 'I don't want to comment on his drug use. I don't know what his status is.' 'I read an article in The New York Times. I thought it was, frankly, it sounded very unfair to me.' But privately, Trump has reportedly told associates that Musk is 'crazy' and blamed his behavior on drug use, according to The New York Times. Musk Gave No Public Comment on the Car—But a Hint at Peace? As of Saturday afternoon, Elon Musk has not issued any public statement specifically addressing Trump's decision to unload the Tesla. However, he did respond to a suggestion from investor Bill Ackman on X that the two men should reconcile for the good of the country. 'You're not wrong,' Musk replied—his only recent public comment that could be interpreted as a gesture toward de-escalation. Beyond that, Musk has been active on X in recent days, directing criticisms at others, including Steve Bannon and critics of Tesla, but has avoided commenting directly on Trump's actions regarding the car or federal contracts. Trump Weighs Tesla Breakup The sale—or symbolic disposal—of the Tesla would mark a final, visual severing of a political and personal alliance that once had significant policy weight. Musk had been one of Trump's most prominent business backers, and the March purchase of the Model S was, at the time, framed by aides as a nod of approval to the entrepreneur's role in the administration. Now, according to officials, the car is being referred to inside the West Wing as a political relic. And while no final decision has been made, staff say it's become a quiet but pointed symbol of Trump's intent to distance himself from Musk for good. Trump himself, speaking about Musk during a press gaggle on June 6, said: 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Whether the car is sold, donated, or simply removed from view, it now stands as a monument to one of the most dramatic falling-outs in recent political history. Is Tesla Stock Still a Buy? Meanwhile, Wall Street isn't exactly bullish on Musk's flagship automaker. According to TipRanks, Tesla currently holds a 'Hold' rating based on 37 analyst reviews over the past three months. It's a split camp: 16 analysts rate it a Buy, 10 say Hold, and 11 recommend Sell — a clear reflection of the uncertainty swirling around the company. The market seems just as cautious. The average 12-month price target for TSLA is $284.37, suggesting a 3.7% downside from its current level.

38 minutes ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'