rule

The Federal Communications Commission‘s stronger enforcement of its “equal time” rules is already affecting late-night TV.

During Stephen Colbert’s Monday night monologue on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” he carried on per usual, introducing the Late Show Band and his guest Jennifer Garner. He then posed the question, “You know who is not one of my guests tonight?”

The late-night host was meant to have Texas state representative James Talarico on the show. But he said on air that he was “told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.”

He continued on to explain the FCC’s new guidance for equal time rules under its Chairman Brendan Carr. The rules require broadcasters who feature political candidates to provide the same time to their rivals, if requested. Typically, news content, daytime and late-night talk shows have been excluded from these regulations, as it’s been an informal tradition for presidential candidates to make their rounds on various late-night shows.

But the FCC under Carr, who has made no secret of his intention to carry out an agenda that is aligned with President Trump’s wishes, has questioned whether late-night and daytime talk shows deserve an exemption from the equal-time rules for broadcast stations using the public airwaves. Many legal and media experts have said a stricter application of the rule would be hard to enforce and could stifle free speech

“Let’s just call this what it is. Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV,” said Colbert Monday night.

Earlier this year, ABC’s “The View” featured Talarico, as well as his main rival and fellow Democrat Jasmine Crockett. Talarico is currently facing off with Crockett and Ahmad Hassan in the Democratic primary for one of Texas’ two seats in the U.S. Senate. The FCC is also reportedly investigating his appearance on “The View.”

Experts consider the equal time rule to be antiquated, designed for a time when consumers were limited to a handful of TV channels and a dozen radio stations if they lived in a big city. The emergence of cable, podcasts and streaming audio and video platforms — none of which are subject to FCC restrictions in terms of content — have greatly diminished traditional broadcast media’s dominance in the marketplace. Carr has previously suggested that if TV hosts want to include political candidates in their programming, they can do it — just not on broadcast TV.

Colbert said he was taking Carr’s “advice” and revealed that his entire interview with Talarico was instead uploaded on YouTube. During the interview, Talarico calls out the Republican Party for initially running against “cancel culture.”

“Now they are trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture, the kind that comes from the top,” said Talarico. “They went after ‘The View’ because I went on there. They went after Jimmy Kimmel for telling a joke they didn’t like. They went after you for telling the truth about Paramount’s bribe to Donald Trump.”

“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” is leaving the air come May, signaling the end of CBS’s longstanding relationship with the late-night talk show. Its cancellation was a “purely financial decision,” according to CBS. But it also came at a time when Paramount Global, which owns CBS, was seeking regulatory approval from the Trump administration to sell itself to Skydance Media. The merger was finalized in August.

L.A. Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

CORTINA D’AMPEZZO, Italy — Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych took his case to sport’s highest court Friday, detailing the reasons why he wanted to race at the Milan-Cortina Olympics in a helmet that paid tribute to his country’s war dead.

The arbitrator was moved by his story but ruled against him anyway, denying him his last chance for a win of any kind at this year’s Winter Olympics.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport denied Heraskevych’s appeal of his disqualification from the men’s skeleton race, agreeing with the International Olympic Committee and the sliding sport’s federation that his plan to wear a helmet showing the faces of more than 20 Ukrainian coaches and athletes killed since Russia invaded their country four years ago would violate Olympic rules.

“The court sided with the IOC and upheld the decision that an athlete could be disqualified from the Olympic Games without actual misconduct, without a technical or safety threat, and before the start,” wrote Yevhen Pronin, Heraskevych’s attorney.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport said the sole arbitrator who heard the case sided with IOC policy about what athletes at an Olympics can say on a field of play — and that the “memory helmet” Heraskevych brought to the Milan-Cortina Games would not align with the rules.

The arbitrator, the court said, “found these limitations reasonable and proportionate,” especially since Heraskevych could show his helmet away from the racing surface, such as in interview areas and on social media. Heraskevych also wore the helmet in training runs.

The court added that the arbitrator “is fully sympathetic to Mr. Heraskevych’s commemoration and to his attempt to raise awareness for the grief and devastation suffered by the Ukrainian people, and Ukrainian athletes because of the war.”

The appeal, which Heraskevych believed he would win, was largely moot anyway. He was disqualified from the competition 45 minutes before its start on Thursday, and whatever the Court of Arbitration for Sport said Friday wouldn’t have changed that.

“Looks like this train has left,” Heraskevych said after Friday’s hearing, knowing there was no way he could race. He left Cortina d’Ampezzo’s Olympic village on Thursday night with no plans to return.

He was blocked from racing by the IOC and the International Bobsled and Skeleton Federation on Thursday after the slider and his father emerged from a last-minute, last-ditch meeting with IOC President Kirsty Coventry — who was unable to get Heraskevych to change his mind.

Coventry reiterated Friday that she believed the disqualification was justified. The IOC made its decision based on the guidelines for athlete expression at the Olympics, he said.

They say, in part, “the focus on the field of play during competitions and official ceremonies must be on celebrating athletes’ performances.” Heraskevych never made it to the field of play — not in competition, anyway.

“I think that he in some ways understood that but was very committed to his beliefs, which I can respect,” Coventry said. “But sadly, it doesn’t change the rules.”

The IOC contends that the rule is in place for multiple reasons, including protecting the athletes from pressure from their own countries or others about using Olympic platforms to make statements.

“I never expected it to be such a big scandal,” Heraskevych said.

He also said he found it puzzling that his accreditation for the Games was taken away, then returned in short order Thursday in what seemed like a goodwill gesture.

“A mockery,” he said.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport did agree that Heraskevych should keep his accreditation.

Heraskevych said he felt his disqualification fed into Russian propaganda, noting that he and other Ukrainian athletes have seen Russian flags at events at these Games — even though they are not allowed by Olympic rule. He has previously spoken out against the IOC’s decision to allow Russians and Belarusians to compete at Milan-Cortina as “neutral” athletes and said the IOC empowered Russia by awarding it the 2014 Sochi Games.

He also wondered why other tributes from these Olympics, such as U.S. figure skater Maxim Naumov displaying a photo of his late parents — killed in a plane crash last year — have been permitted without penalty.

Italian snowboard competitor Roland Fischnaller had a small Russian flag image on the back of his helmet during these Games, and Israeli skeleton athlete Jared Firestone wore a kippah with the names of the 11 athletes and coaches who were killed representing that country during the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Pronin wrote that IOC representatives at Friday’s hearing said that “they were not punished because they did not declare this in advance, but did it after the fact, so there was no point in disqualifying them.”

The IOC said those cases were not in violation of any rules. Naumov showed his photo in the kiss-and-cry area and not while he was actually on the ice; Fischnaller’s helmet was a tribute to all the past Olympic sites he competed at, with Sochi included; and Firestone’s kippah “was covered by a beanie,” IOC spokesman Mark Adams said.

The IOC offered Heraskevych the chance to compete with a different helmet and bring the tribute helmet through the interview area after his runs. He also could have worn a black armband, which the IOC typically bans. It just didn’t want him making a statement by competing in the helmet.

“I think it’s the wrong side of history for the IOC,” Heraskevych said.

Reynolds writes for the Associated Press. AP journalists Annie Risemberg and Stefanie Dazio in Milan and Vasilisa Stepanenko in Warsaw contributed to this report.

The Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping set of regulatory proposals that would substantially change health plan offerings on the Affordable Care Act marketplace next year, aiming, it says, to provide more choice and lower premiums.

But it also proposes sharply raising some annual out-of-pocket costs — to more than $27,600 for one type of coverage — and could cause up to 2 million people to drop insurance.

The changes come as affordability is a key concern for many Americans, some of whom are struggling to pay their ACA premiums since the Republican-led Congress allowed enhanced subsidies expired at the end of last year. Initial enrollment numbers for this year fell by more than 1 million.

Healthcare coverage and affordability have become politically potent issues in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

The proposed changes are part of a 577-page rule that addresses a broad swath of standards, including benefit packages, out-of-pocket costs and healthcare provider networks. Insurers refer to these standards when setting premium rates for the coming year.

After a comment period, the rule will be finalized this spring.

It “puts patients, taxpayers, and states first by lowering costs and reinforcing accountability for taxpayer dollars,” Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, said in a news release Monday.

One way it would do so focuses heavily on a type of coverage — catastrophic plans — that last year attracted about only 20,000 policyholders, according to the proposal, although other estimates put it closer to 54,000.

“This proposal reads like the administration has found their next big thing in the catastrophic plans,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Such plans have very high annual out-of-pocket costs for the policyholder but often lower premiums than other ACA coverage options. Formerly restricted to those under age 30 or facing certain hardships, the Trump administration allowed older people who lost subsidy eligibility to enroll in them this year. It is not known how many people did so.

The payment rule cements this move by making anyone eligible if their income is below the poverty line ($15,650 for 2026) or if they’re earning more than 2½ times that amount but lost access to an ACA subsidy that lowered their out-of-pocket costs. It also notes that a person meeting these standards would be eligible in any state — an important point because this coverage is now available in only 36 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, the proposal would require out-of-pocket maximums on such plans to hit $15,600 a year for an individual and $27,600 for a family, Keith wrote this week in Health Affairs. (The current out-of-pocket max for catastrophic plans is $10,600 for an individual plan and $21,200 for family coverage.) Not counting preventive care and three covered primary care doctor visits, that spending target must be met before a policy’s other coverage kicks in.

In the rule, the administration wrote that the proposed changes would help differentiate catastrophic from “bronze” plans, the next level up, and, possibly, spur more enrollment in the former. Currently, the proposal said, there may not be a significant difference if premiums are similar. Raising the out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans to those levels would create that difference, the proposal said.

“When there is such a clear difference, the healthier consumers that are generally eligible and best suited to enroll in catastrophic plans are more motivated to select a catastrophic plan in lieu of a bronze plan,” the proposal noted.

However, ACA subsidies cannot be used toward catastrophic premiums, which could limit shoppers’ interest.

Enrollment in bronze plans, which have an average annual deductible of $7,500, has doubled since 2018 to about 5.4 million last year. This year, that number likely will be higher. Some states’ sign-up data indicate a shift toward bronze as consumers left higher-premium “silver,” “gold” or “platinum” plans following the expiration of more generous subsidies at the end of last year.

The proposal also would allow insurers to offer bronze plans with cost-sharing rates that exceed what the ACA law currently allows, but only if that insurer also sells other bronze plans with lower cost-sharing levels.

In what it calls a “novel” approach, the proposal would allow insurers to offer multiyear catastrophic plans, in which people could stay enrolled for up to 10 years, and their out-of-pocket maximums would vary over that time. Costs might be higher, for example, in the early years, then fall the longer the policy is in place. The proposal specifically asks for comments on how such a plan could be structured and what effect multiyear plans might have on the overall market.

“As we understand it thus far, insurers could offer the policy for one year or for consecutive years, up to 10 years,” said Zach Sherman, managing director for coverage policy and program design at Health Management Associates, a health policy consulting firm that does work for states and insurance plans. “But the details on how that would work, we are still unpacking.”

Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed rule included a lot of provisions that could “expose enrollees to much higher out-of-pocket costs.”

In addition to the planned changes to bronze and catastrophic plans, he points to another provision that would allow plans to be sold on the ACA exchange that have no set healthcare provider networks. In other words, the insurer has not contracted with specific doctors and hospitals to accept their coverage. Instead, such plans would pay medical providers a set amount toward medical services, possibly a flat fee or a percentage of what Medicare pays, for example.

The rule says insurers would need to ensure “access to a range of providers” willing to accept such amounts as payment in full. Policyholders might be on the hook for unexpected expenses, however, if a clinician or facility doesn’t agree and charges the patient the difference.

Because the rule is so sweeping — with many other parts — it is expected to draw hundreds if not thousands of comments between now and early March.

Pennsylvania insurance broker Joshua Brooker said one change he would like to see is requiring insurers that sell the very high out-of-pocket catastrophic plans to offer other catastrophic plans with lower annual maximums.

Overall, though, a wider range of options might appeal to people on both ends of the income scale, he said.

Some wealthier enrollees, especially those who no longer qualify for any ACA premium subsidies, would prefer a lower premium like those expected in catastrophic plans, and could just pay the bills up to that max, he said.

“They’re more worried about the half-million-dollar heart attack,” Brooker said. It’s tougher for people below the poverty level, who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies and, in 10 states, often don’t qualify for Medicaid. So they’re likely to go uninsured. At least a catastrophic plan, he said, might let them get some preventive care coverage and cap their exposure if they end up in a hospital. From there, they might qualify for charity care at the hospital to cover out-of-pocket costs.

Overall, “putting more options on the market doesn’t hurt, as long as it is disclosed properly and the consumer understands it,” he said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.