"With respect to Nexstar-TEGNA, I support that transaction."

— Brendan Carr, FCC Chairman  Washington press conference, February 19, 2026

K-EnterTech Hub Analysis

For the K-content industry, this is not a distant event. If the U.S. local broadcast landscape consolidates under a single dominant operator, the number of negotiating windows for syndication agreements and programming rights for Korean dramas, variety shows, and K-pop content will narrow to a handful of mega-groups. That concentration cuts two ways.

On one hand, "break through once and you get nationwide simultaneous distribution" — a massive pipe opens. On the other, Nexstar's buying power at the scale of a super-group could sharply reduce the negotiating leverage of individual production companies and mid-sized distributors.

Korean content industry stakeholders should read this deal not as "someone else's M&A" but as a structural signal requiring a full redesign of their U.S. distribution strategy.

"Those that are opposed don't fully understand how good the concept of this Deal is for them, but they will in the future. GET THAT DEAL DONE! PRESIDENT DJT"

— Donald Trump, President of the United States  Truth Social, February 7, 2026

"President Trump is exactly right. The national networks like Comcast & Disney have amassed too much power. For years, they've been pushing this Hollywood & New York programming all over the country with no real checks."

— Brendan Carr, FCC Chairman  February 7, 2026

K-EnterTech Hub Analysis

Chairman Carr's remarks go beyond a simple pro-deregulation signal. They reveal a political and regulatory reframing of media power dynamics.

First, by targeting the concentrated influence of national networks like Comcast and Disney, Carr is publicly criticizing the existing structure in which "Hollywood & New York programming" has been pushed nationwide without real checks.

Second, he is positioning local broadcaster coalitions — Nexstar, Sinclair, TEGNA — as a new power axis, a "counter-power" to the national networks.

From a K-content perspective, this is a signal that U.S. market entry partners need not be limited to streaming platforms or national networks (ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS). With the administration officially backing local broadcaster groups as rivals to the national networks, K-content operators should proactively explore strategic partnerships with local station coalitions (e.g., Sinclair affiliates), including ATSC 3.0 channel launches, advertising, sports, and news collaboration.

"This should be voted at the Commissioner level. It should absolutely not be done at the bureau level. It's a new and novel issue. And it is also a very difficult issue because actually approving the transaction would be prohibited by the statutory cap on ownership."

— Anna Gomez, FCC Commissioner  FCC press conference, February 19, 2026

K-EnterTech Hub Analysis

This episode confirms the foundational principle of regulatory politics: procedure is power. Which body handles a matter, under which delegated authority, and at which level of review shapes outcomes before substance is even debated.

Korean media companies examining U.S. partnerships, investments, or M&A should build procedural selection risk into their analysis — not just the substantive merits of a deal.

"I am prepared to litigate FCC departure from the 39% cap."

— Chris Ruddy, CEO, Newsmax  Senate Committee hearing, February 10, 2026

'Media Is Business, Not Politics'

The Newsmax episode sends two important signals to the K-content industry.

First: in the streaming era, media is industry, not ideology. Basing U.S. media market strategy solely on political alignment or administration posture is dangerous. Even within the same political camp, national broadcast groups, local station coalitions, independent news channels, cable/satellite operators, and big tech/streaming platforms each have distinct — and sometimes directly conflicting — interests in ownership rules, retransmission fees, and advertising markets.

Second: whether a strategic alliance or equity stake with a particular major broadcast group could simultaneously damage relationships with other conservative or liberal channels, regional broadcasters, or distribution platforms — and whether it could trigger litigation or regulatory risk — must be evaluated on its own axis, separately and rigorously.

In short: this episode demonstrates that political alignment cannot substitute for regulatory risk hedging or market entry security. K-content operators selecting U.S. partners must conduct multi-dimensional stakeholder analysis — ownership structure, regulatory positioning, litigation history, local advertising and retransmission strategy — rather than relying on political or ideological labels.

"We think Slater would have been more likely than her successor to entertain certain Top Four divestitures notwithstanding the repeal of the FCC's Top Four rule. Her successor will be more likely to follow the FCC's lead and determine that owning two top four stations (other than perhaps in a handful of middle or smaller markets) would not harm competition."

— Blair Levin, Policy Advisor, New Street Research

K-EnterTech Hub Analysis

Under Slater, the DOJ had the potential to act as a separate counterweight to the FCC — checking the merger on competition and market structure grounds independently of ownership rule changes. Specifically, even if the FCC weakened or effectively nullified the Top Four rule, the DOJ could have required divestitures of certain stations on the grounds that a single entity owning two of the top four network affiliates in the same market harms competition.

As Levin's analysis suggests, Slater would likely have examined Top Four divestiture conditions based on market structure analysis, independent of FCC rule changes. Under the Assefi acting regime, the dominant expectation is alignment with the FCC's ownership rulings.

The core issue: the risk that DOJ and FCC — two independent regulatory axes — converge under a single political will has grown materially. In the history of U.S. media regulation, it has been rare for both agencies to move in lockstep on a major broadcast deal under the same political and interpretive framework. In the past, FCC (applying public interest and ownership rules) and DOJ (applying antitrust and market competition standards) served as mutual checks. That structural check is now in question.

Implications for K-content companies entering the U.S. market:

• The U.S. TV broadcast regulatory environment has limited direct impact on K-content operators. But indirect structural effects — on distribution, advertising markets, and retransmission dynamics — deserve close attention.

• Relying on a dual-review risk hedge — assuming one agency will restrain what the other allows — may no longer be reliable. When FCC and DOJ can align rapidly under the same political-industrial policy direction, the assumption that "one side will hold the line" does not hold.

• Broadcast content partnerships, channel acquisition, and joint venture or M&A structures must account not only for individual deal competition and ownership risk, but also for the scenario in which regulatory lines shift rapidly with changes in administration and personnel.

• Long-term contracts or equity partnerships with major broadcast groups or local coalitions carry the risk of backlash if the U.S. regulatory climate swings back toward anti-consolidation and pro-independence. Contract structure should include policy risk provisions: exit clauses, renegotiation triggers for regulatory changes, and legal/financial architecture that absorbs such shifts.

S1

High

Conditional Approval — Deal Closes in 2026

FCC effectively neutralizes the 39% cap via waiver or rulemaking; DOJ approves with limited divestitures in a handful of smaller markets. Nexstar emerges as a super local broadcaster covering 50%+ of U.S. households. For K-content, deal-making with the "#1 local coalition" becomes the baseline for U.S. broadcast syndication, local advertising/sponsorship, and sports/entertainment format licensing. How to structure package deals not just with national networks but with a local super-group becomes a core question in K-content's U.S. broadcast entry strategy.

S2

Medium

Litigation — Years of Uncertainty

Opponents including Newsmax file as threatened; courts question the administrative basis for waiving the statutory 39% cap. Regardless of FCC approval, deal closing is delayed for years. U.S. broadcast M&A broadly enters a watch-and-wait freeze. For K-content, a fixed local broadcaster landscape persists for several years, but regulatory risk keeps mega-deals constrained — requiring sustained parallel partnerships across multiple mid-size groups, FAST channels, cable, and streaming.

S3

Low

Congressional Legislation — Slowest but Most Durable

Congress adjusts the statutory cap or explicitly delegates waiver authority to the FCC. Takes the longest to realize, but once enacted provides clear legal precedent and predictability for future similar transactions. Broadcast ownership rules are then organized into a clean three-tier structure: statute → FCC regulation → individual deal conditions. K-content operators can design long-term partnerships, joint channels, and co-investment structures on a legal framework less vulnerable to shifts in administration or political climate.