NTIA: 33 States Submitted Final BEAD Proposals
The agency said the remaining states 'have been granted short-term extensions and will be submitting their Final Proposals in the coming weeks.'
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5, 2025 – Of the 56 states and territories, 36 submitted final spending plans under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the agency said Friday.
That includes 33 states and 3 territories, according to the agency. NTIA had set a deadline of Sept. 4 to submit final plans under the $42.45 billion program, and said the remaining 17 states and 3 territories “have been granted short-term extensions and will be submitting their Final Proposals in the coming weeks.”
“After years of delay, the Trump Administration has made monumental progress in moving the BEAD program forward,” NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth said in a statement. “We are eager to review these plans so that we can deliver on Secretary Lutnick’s goal of approving deployment projects by the end of the year and immediately begin connecting Americans across the country.”
The agency is aiming to review and approve plans within 90 days of submission. NTIA approval is the last step before states can sign contracts with their tentative grant winners and begin funding projects.
At least 34 states have posted plans for public comment – states have to accept public input on drafts of their plans for one week before submitting them. At least six have specified their new submission deadlines: Michigan (Sept. 11), Oregon (Sept. 18), Idaho (Sept. 25), Illinois (Sept. 30), California (Oct. 2), and Texas (Oct. 27). Nebraska posted its plan on Wednesday, implying a deadline on or after Sept. 10.
In June, the Trump administration handed down new rules for the BEAD program, eliminating an explicit preference for fiber broadband and making it easier for wireless and satellite ISPs to compete on the basis of deployment cost, where fiber is at a disadvantage. States had to conduct an additional round of bidding under the new rules.
Compared to plans compiled under the Biden administration, states are funding more satellite and fixed wireless and are saving cash, both chief goals of the Trump administration’s rule change.
In the states that have posted public drafts of their plans, about 20 percent of the total eligible locations are set to be served by satellite and 13 percent would be served by fixed wireless. Most are still in line for fiber, about 65 percent.
NTIA said in its release that states that submitted their plans were “projecting savings of at least $13 billion for American taxpayers – driven by a rise in participation by the private sector, increased matching commitments by subgrantees, and a surge of innovative technology solutions to deliver high-speed connectivity.”
The $13 billion figure appears to be the difference between the total BEAD money allocated to states and territories that submitted plans and what they’re collectively planning to spend on deployment.
Under the Biden-era rules, broadband offices were planning on being able to spend their entire allocation, even if only part of it was needed to secure connectivity for each home and business in their state. The Trump administration isn’t eager to see much of that – in June the NTIA rescinded approval for any non-deployment activities, including some that were already underway.
The law standing up BEAD specified that at least “broadband adoption programs and affordable device distribution” were allowed uses of BEAD funds remaining after ensuring universal connectivity, in addition to whatever the NTIA head saw fit. States have said they’re still not all optimistic they will get to fund non-deployment initiatives.
“This is a deployment program. It’s not a non-deployment program,” NTIA Chief of Staff Brooke Donilon said at the Mountain Connect conference in August. “We’re going to deliver on the benefit of the bargain, and we will figure out how much we have for non-deployment. Until we know how much money we’re talking, it’s hard to talk about the policy.”
Member discussion