Can the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) square its statutory authority to ensure that over-the-air television broadcasters provide local content that serves the public interest with potentially eliminating a federal rule that bans owners of broadcast stations from reaching more than 39 percent of all US TV households? Maybe, but before scrapping the cap, the Commission must explain whether and how it will use its public-interest power to police local news content that President Trump dislikes.

Let’s assume that the public interest in producing quality local journalism is aided financially by the scalability benefits of allowing companies to own stations collectively reaching every TV household. This still won’t prevent the FCC from aggressively––and possibly in pro-Trump fashion––enforcing against those same stations rules like the broadcast news distortion policy that now is central to investigations targeting CBS and ABC. Here’s the backstory.

The FCC began soliciting public input in March on its “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative for “alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.” The Commission seeks suggestions about “what existing FCC rules are unnecessary or inappropriate” due to “marketplace and technological changes,” and the “specific steps” it should take regarding “existing rules that have outlived their usefulness.” Chairman Brendan Carr, who President Donald Trump elevated to that post, stated that the FCC “is committed to ending all of the rules and regulations that are no longer necessary.”

Sensing an opportunity for change, the National of Association of Broadcasters (NAB) last month asked the FCC to eliminate the national TV ownership cap, reasoning:

there is simply no good reason to keep any artificial limits on TV station groups’ audience reach. With Google and Facebook gobbling up local advertising revenues and stations competing with unconstrained streaming platforms for viewers’ time and attention, the FCC must end this limitation and allow broadcasters to better serve the public interest.

The NAB contends that “marketplace realities”––ones propelled by an asymmetric regulatory environment––divert advertising dollars from local broadcasters to Facebook, Google, and Amazon, while letting streaming platforms “reach 100 percent of US TV households [and] now dominate viewing.” In short, terrestrial broadcasters face steep competition from entities largely unfettered by regulation in a media marketplace that’s decidedly different from the one that existed in 2004 when the 39 percent audience-reach cap took effect.

Sinclair, which “owns, operates and/or provides services to 185 television stations,” submitted comments to the FCC echoing the NAB’s sentiments. Sinclair asserts “that the media and communications ecosystem has radically changed over the last two decades,” and that “[b]roadcasters are competing with Big Media and overpowered and unregulated new Big Tech entrants with both hands tied behind [their] backs due to archaic regulatory structures that fail to reflect current competitive conditions.”

The 39 percent national audience-reach cap stems from a 2003 bargain struck between Congress and President George W. Bush’s White House. The Republican-controlled FCC voted to raise the then-current cap from 35 to 45 percent of TV households. That drew bipartisan opposition in Congress and ultimately led to a 39 percent compromise that began in 2004.

Importantly, the NAB and Sinclair contend that repealing the national TV ownership cap will bolster local broadcast journalism. The NAB points to a “yawning gap between the advertising revenues of Big Tech and local broadcast stations trying to produce quality local journalism.” It adds that the “streaming wars” and cable cord cutting have reduced “retransmission consent fees associated with those viewers” that broadcasters receive, thereby threatening “the viability of local TV stations and local journalism.” The NAB’s local journalism argument pivots on scalability:

Permitting TV station groups that provide local news and emergency journalism in local markets to reach greater scale would promote localism by safeguarding the quality and even the viability of broadcast journalism in markets (especially smaller ones) across the country in today’s Big Tech dominated marketplace.

Sinclair adds that the “trickle-down benefits of unlimited national reach” will include “more investment in local [broadcast] journalism” because increased national viewership will generate more advertising revenue. In March, 73 members of Congress signed a letter to Carr making a similar argument and adding that “Americans trust their local news more than any other source.”

Although promoting local journalism is a key selling point for eliminating a national audience-reach cap under “Delete, Delete, Delete,” Carr faces immense pressure from Trump to use the FCC’s public interest power to punish broadcasters for airing news Trump dislikes, including recent 60 Minutes reports about Ukraine and Greenland. Carr is already deploying the news distortion rule to investigate 60 Minutes about a pre-election Kamala Harris interview that Trump sued over.

Therein lies the problem: Eliminating the national cap won’t produce better local TV journalism if the FCC aggressively polices news content that the president deems fake or corrupt; it will only spawn pro-Trump public relations messages that masquerade as news.