FCC & Congress Race to Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers
The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a rule that would strip away local control and force residents to accept more cell towers in their neighborhoods. Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers are advancing a 100-page bill that would accomplish the same goal
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and federal lawmakers are pushing to make it easy for telecom companies to erect cell towers in communities without residents’ consent — even if the tower isn’t really needed to close a coverage gap in cell service.
If either the agency or Congress succeeds, communities will lose the right to keep unwanted towers and other wireless infrastructure away from their homes and schools, according to Miriam Eckenfels, director of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program.
“This is the most aggressive push we’ve ever seen to override local zoning, erase public participation, and force dense wireless infrastructure into residential areas under the guise of streamlining wireless infrastructure deployment,” Eckenfels said.
On Wednesday, the U.S House Committee on Energy and Commerce advanced H.R. 2289, the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025, in a 26-24 vote along party lines, with Democrats opposing it.
A floor vote has yet to be scheduled as of press time. If passed, the bill would allow wireless companies to install towers and antennas wherever they decide, regardless of whether local residents want the equipment, Eckenfels said.
The FCC, the federal agency that oversees telecommunications, is working on its own similar strategy. On Dec. 1, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register about a proposed rule to “free towers and other wireless infrastructure from unlawful regulatory burdens.”
Eckenfels called H.R. 2289 a “legislative shortcut” for what the FCC wants to accomplish.
The FCC and lawmakers don’t want any roadblocks to installing more wireless infrastructure, said tech attorney Odette Wilkens, president and general counsel for the nonprofit Wired Broadband, Inc. “They see community input as an obstacle, and they see it as a regulatory barrier because the zoning ordinances on the local level protect the people.”
Across the country, residents have been successfully keeping new cell towers and antennas from going up next to their homes and schools. Eckenfels said she thinks these successes prompted the FCC — which is captured by the wireless industry — and lawmakers who favor the wireless industry to push the measures.
Wilkens agreed. “The reason for HR 2289 is to prevent any further litigation and any further successes that people have had across the country in stopping cell towers,” she said.
Eckenfels called the FCC and Congress’ proposed actions an “unprecedented federal power grab” that would “strip away state and local powers, and force communities to accept more cell towers, more antennas and more industrial equipment — without meaningful review, without due process and without the ability to say no.”
‘This is the moment where we decide whether local democracy survives’
Eckenfels said now is the time for people to speak up against what lawmakers and the FCC are trying to do. “We need to show there’s massive public opposition.”
CHD encourages people to send three strategic messages. “Each one will only take 45 seconds, and they are all important,” Eckenfels said. One action alert lets people send a message to FCC commissioners and Congress, so they hear loud and clear that the public opposes the FCC’s proposed rule.
Another walks people through how to submit a comment in the FCC docket objecting to the proposed rule. The FCC’s public comment window closes Dec. 31. These comments can be used as evidence in a future lawsuit if groups challenge the FCC’s possible adoption of the rule, Eckenfels said.
A third action alert makes it easy for people to urge their U.S. representatives to vote against H.R. 2289.
Although some lawmakers receive campaign money from wireless companies, we the people can have a “much bigger voice,” Wilkens said. “We just have to come out in large numbers — tens of thousands — to call,” email and schedule appointments with our legislators.
The National Call for Safe Technology, led by Wilkens, also helps people connect with their legislators.
“This is the moment where we decide whether local democracy survives,” Eckenfels said in a presentation posted Monday on X.
CHD is also launching a “Light It Up For Local Control!” campaign so residents can take flyers and go downtown to spread the word about mounting massive opposition. CHD has also created a letter people can send to their local officials, so they’re made aware and can also resist the proposed rule.
Some local government groups are already pushing back. For example, the California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities and the Rural County Representatives of California filed joint comments, urging the FCC to withdraw its proposed rule.
Bill would remove local residents’ tools in resisting new cell towers
Although six other wireless bills are also advancing in Congress, H.R. 2289 is the biggest threat, Wilkens said. The bill, a consolidation of 21 bills, “removes virtually all local and state control over the siting of cell towers, and it strips local authority from being able to protect their communities,” she said.
For instance, the bill would impose short deadlines for cities to process new wireless facility applications and would automatically approve the application if the city misses the deadline, wrote Theodora Scarato, director of the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences, on a webpage about the bill.
The bill also removes the environmental and historical preservation reviews that would typically be conducted before certain towers were built, she wrote.
It’s “a radical shift that elevates industry speed over public safety and democracy,” Scarato wrote.
If passed, every U.S. community would be at risk of getting little to no notice for major cell tower upgrades, such as adding 5G antennas, according to a CHD action alert.
The bill would let towers go up even if they would likely hurt property values and ruin the area’s historic character. This matters because some communities have used concerns about property values and neighborhood aesthetics to successfully fend off unwanted towers.
Even though many residents are concerned about the negative health impacts of wireless radiation exposure, they strategically fought the towers on the grounds of aesthetics and property values because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 forbids state and county officials from denying a wireless project application due to safety or health concerns — which are considered “environmental effects.”
But now the FCC and federal lawmakers want to remove even those tools from local residents’ toolbox, Eckenfels said.
Also, existing federal law includes provisions that empower state and county officials. For instance, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that “nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.”
The FCC’s proposed rule and H.R. 2289 would steamroll that, Eckenfels said.
Wireless companies wouldn’t have to prove there are gaps in coverage
Under current federal law, wireless companies typically have to prove to local authorities that a gap in cell service exists before local officials can approve their application for a new cell tower. But H.R. 2289 would eliminate that requirement, Wilkens said.
Wireless companies would no longer have to convince local officials that their new tower would close a coverage gap. This would basically undo the 2022 “Flower Hill” court decision, which upheld that there must be a gap in service, Wilkens said. “That decision will mean nothing.”
“That is the danger” of the bill, she said. “People will not have any legal recourse to stop the unfettered onslaught of cell towers.”
See more here childrenshealthdefense