By Donald Valdez

As a former state representative for District 62, in the southern part of the state, I spent years fighting to make sure the voices of rural Coloradans were heard in state decision-making. As a lifelong farmer, I know firsthand what comes with living in a rural community — and the unique needs we face.

That experience shapes how I see a hotly contested debate I believe is leaving an important perspective out of the room entirely: the perspective of rural communities across this country who depend on local broadcast television in ways urban policymakers rarely stop to consider.

Colorado’s Attorney General, joined by seven other state AGs, has filed a lawsuit challenging the proposed acquisition of Tegna Inc. by Nexstar Media Group — a $6.2 billion deal that would combine the two companies into the largest owner of local broadcast television stations in the country. The AGs argue the deal is anti-competitive and an illegal consolidation of media. I have enormous respect for the work of Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser, and I have no doubt the lawsuit is filed in good faith. But on this one, I respectfully disagree and think the effect on rural communities is being critically overlooked. 

In August 2025, Nexstar announced its deal with Tegna, with the combined company owning 265 local television stations across 44 states and Washington, D.C. The Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice reviewed and approved the merger, with Nexstar agreeing to divest six stations as a condition. The FCC chairman, who has previously called the existing 39% national ownership cap “arcane,” supported the deal as a necessary step to help local media survive in a rapidly changing landscape.

That last part matters enormously — and it’s what I think is getting lost in this debate.

My former district does not sit in a Nexstar or Tegna market; but my experience representing rural communities has given me a unique perspective on how this deal will affect similar regions across the country, where these companies do operate. And in places like small agricultural counties, remote mountain communities and areas where broadband infrastructure is still a work in progress, local broadcast television is not one option among many. It is often the only option when streaming services require reliable internet.

For a family in a community like the ones I represented, folks who tune in to the evening news or check the weather before heading out to the fields, local broadcast TV is free, accessible and essential. It doesn’t require a monthly subscription or a fiber optic line. It works.

That’s why the survival of local broadcasting has to be part of this conversation. The media landscape has been fundamentally transformed by global tech giants and streaming companies with resources that dwarf anything in local broadcasting. Nexstar, as it stands today, generates roughly half the revenue of DIRECTV, one-seventh that of Charter Communications and one-ninth that of Netflix. Even after this acquisition, the combined company would control just 15% of the full-power television stations in the country. This is not the monopolistic consolidation the lawsuit implies, it is a company trying to build enough scale to stay competitive against players that are vastly larger.

When I hear consolidation concerns, I take them seriously. But we have to be honest about what consolidation means in context. Anti-competitive behavior harms consumers by reducing choices and driving up costs. What this deal actually does is give a local broadcasting company the resources to keep the lights on, keep journalists employed and keep communities informed — some of which will have no viable alternative if local broadcast disappears. Blocking this deal doesn’t protect competition, it accelerates the disappearance of local news in exactly the places that need it most.

I understand why this deal generates scrutiny. Any transaction of this scale will naturally face tough questions. But when we strip away the noise, what we’re really debating is whether rural communities across this country will continue to have access to free, local, over-the-air television news. For towns like the ones I served, that’s not an abstract policy question. It’s about whether your neighbors can find out about a wildfire evacuation order, a severe weather warning, or a local election result — without needing a broadband connection they may not have.

I’m asking Colorado’s leaders, as well as courts and leaders across the country, to think carefully about who bears the cost if broadcast television cannot exist. It won’t be the tech giants. It won’t be the streamers. It will be people in rural communities — from southern Colorado to rural Georgia to the Texas Panhandle — who depend on a signal that comes through the air for free. Those voices don’t often make it into debates like this one, but they should.

Donald Valdez is a rancher and former state representative for Colorado’s House District 62.