WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission has set dates for filings in the early renewal of licenses for eight ABC-owned stations.

The FCC has set deadlines for comments filed in its MB Docket No. 26-131, with petitions to deny due on June 29, opposition on July 29 and replies due Aug. 5.

On April 28, the Video Division of the Media Bureau issued an order directing The Walt Disney Co., ABC and its subsidiaries to file license renewals for all of their licensed TV stations.

On May 28, Disney’s ABC filed renewal applications for its eight television licenses along with comments saying the “Commission had not demanded early renewal in over five decades. And it has never before demanded simultaneous license renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned with a network as it has here.”

“The Order is inconsistent with a legitimate exercise of investigative authority and is plainly incompatible with the First Amendment,” the letter said. “Worse, the Order opens the door to an assault on the Station’s license, while the Commission searches for a legal pretext to achieve its desired goal. This effort to suppress speech under the guise of bureaucratic process must not prevail. WABC files this application without waiving any rights, and calls on the Commission to rescind the Order.”

In the filing setting deadlines for comments, the FCC noted that generally broadcast TV stations are given eight-year licenses and none of Disney’s ABC licenses would ordinarily be due for renewal until 2028 at the earliest.

In its order demanding the early renewals, the agency noted that “the FCC has been investigating Disney’s ABC stations for possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules, including the agency’s prohibition on unlawful discrimination.”

“Specifically, the FCC has been investigating whether Disney’s ABC engaged in prohibited practices by hiring, promoting, compensating, and/or providing workplace opportunities to people based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics in violation of federal nondiscrimination laws,” the FCC said in the June 1 filing setting deadlines for comments. “In the course of conducting that investigation, the FCC determined that calling in Disney’s ABC licenses for early renewal was necessary to the proper conduct of that ongoing investigation.”

“Calling the licenses in now for early renewal also provides the FCC the opportunity to determine whether the ABC Stations have been operating in the public interest, as required by their FCC licenses,” the regulator added.

The decision to investigate the stations for possible violations of public interest standards, including the airing of“biased news coverage,” has drawn criticism. Democratic FCC commissioner Anna Gomez, broadcasters, the National Association of Broadcasters, former FCC members and staff and public-interest groups have said the investigation is outside the agency's authority and is an unconstitutional attack on free speech.

The licenses up for renewal are:

• KFSN-TV, Fresno, Calif.
• KABC-TV, Los Angeles, Calif.
• KGO-TV, San Francisco, Calif.
• WLS-TV, Chicago, Ill.
• WABC-TV, New York, N.Y.
• WTVD, Durham, N.C.
• WPVI-TV, Philadelphia, Pa.
• KTRK-TV, Houston, Texas

The FCC document setting filing procedures in this case is available here.

WASHINGTON—In a wide-ranging Public Notice reminding broadcasters of their public interest obligations, the Federal Communications Commission stressed that “spectrum auctions routinely bring in billions of dollars for the same spectrum broadcasters use for free” and insisted that the agency has the authority to investigate, fine and potentially remove broadcast licenses for violations of broadcast public interest obligations.

Those public interest obligations include the requirement that "broadcasters are also prohibited from engaging in news distortion," the agency noted.

Though not signed and not explicitly issued in response to any given criticism, the document amounts to an unusual public defense from the GOP-led commission for the regulatory approach taken under FCC Chair Brendan Carr. As previously reported, he has been criticized by Democrats in Congress, former FCC officials and FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez for attempting to use the agency's enforcement powers to limit "free speech" and chill broadcast news coverage that is critical of the Trump administration.

“Federal law requires broadcasters to comply with a basic and fundamental obligation—they must operate in the public interest,” the public notice argued. “Congress first enshrined this concept in the law nearly 100 years ago, and it charged the FCC with the responsibility of ensuring that broadcasters only obtain and maintain a license to the extent they are operating in a manner that serves the `public interest, convenience, and necessity.’”

In addition to its statutory authority to enforce “public interest” requirements, the Public Notice argued that “spectrum is a finite public resource bound by the limits of physics” and an extremely valuable asset.

“Spectrum auctions routinely bring in billions of dollars for the same spectrum broadcasters use for free,” the agency reminded broadcasters, adding that “proceeds from the auction for broadcast television spectrum that was reallocated for wireless broadband use yielded $19.8 billion in revenue, including $10.05 billion for winning broadcast bidders and more than $7 billion to be deposited to the U.S. Treasury for deficit reduction.”

“In exchange, broadcasters are required to operate in the public interest of the communities they serve,” the agency noted. “It is this service as a public trustee—and the corresponding obligation to offer programming responsive to the needs and interests of the local communities they are licensed to serve—that makes broadcasters unique and distinguishes them from other programmers. It is an obligation that broadcasters take on voluntarily, in exchange for the privilege of holding a license to operate using the public airwaves.”

The Public Notice also laid a variety of legal arguments affirming the regulator’s controversial conclusion that it has the power to ensure that broadcast programming is in the public interest.

“Programming decisions by broadcasters must be made in service of the public and be responsive to the needs of the local community they are licensed to serve, not the private interests of national networks,” the FCC insisted.

“No broadcaster has a ‘right’ to use the public spectrum,” the notice stated, adding that “indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that certain FCC regulatory efforts in furtherance of its statutory mandate `enhance rather than abridge the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment.’” and that “the courts have recognized that there are limits on broadcasters’ First Amendment rights.”

The FCC concluded that “the mere denial of a license because ‘the public interest’ requires it ‘is not a denial of free speech.’”

“Where the Commission finds that a broadcaster has failed to serve the public interest, the Commission may take appropriate action, including enforcement action,” require a licensee to file an early license renewal application,” as it has done with ABC’s stations, and apply the “public interest” rules when considering mergers or station sales.

As examples of the FCC’s authority to regulate content, the notice cited its “main studio” rule, intended to ensure service obligations were met by placing a station’s production center within the community it served,and its “program origination” rule, which required stations to originate a minimum percentage of its non-network programming from its main studio or elsewhere within its community of license.

“The purpose of the rule was to encourage locally-oriented programming in furtherance of the Commission’s public interest standard and localism mandate,” the Notice argued.

It also highlighted rules relating to the station’s online public inspection file issues/program lists, and insisted “broadcasters are also prohibited from engaging in news distortion, must provide equal opportunity to political candidates and are prohibited from airing obscene, indecent and profane content.”

“The Commission will continue to engage in a robust review of applications to ensure compliance with our rules and determine whether broadcasters have met their obligation to operate in the public interest,” the notice concluded. “We encourage broadcasters to review their current practices and confirm that they fully align with their statutory public interest obligation.”

In the final sentence, the Notice also stressed that the agency determination to both investigate public-interest violations and enforce those rules in ways that could involve taking away broadcast licenses.

“The Commission will not hesitate to exercise its statutory authority to ensure that broadcasters either fulfill their public interest obligation or provide the privilege of being a broadcast licensee to someone that will fulfill that duty,” the Notice stated.

Carr also reiterated the agency’s authority in a post on X:

In response, Gomez asserted: “The ‘public interest’ does not mean this administration's interests. Broadcasters should ignore these latest threats and stiffen their spine.“

WASHINGTON—A key group of Democratic senators has sent a stern letter to the Federal Communications Commission calling its investigation into The Walt Disney Co. and its recent order requiring early license renewals for its eight ABC-owned television stations “an egregious abuse of power and a clear violation of the First Amendment.”

“The campaign against Disney and its editorial decision-making, culminating in last week’s early-renewal order, is an egregious abuse of power and a clear violation of the First Amendment,” the letter to FCC Chair Brendan Carr said. “Although the FCC has the authority to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest, it cannot serve as President Trump’s roving censor, threatening to revoke licenses against broadcasters whose editorial content—including a comedian’s jokes—displeases the President. In fact, before serving as chairman, you frequently recognized the importance of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, including for comedians. As you previously explained: ‘From Internet memes to late-night comedians, from cartoons to the plays and poems as old as organized government itself - Political Satire circumvents traditional gatekeepers & helps hold those in power accountable. Not surprising that it’s long been targeted for censorship.’ Now, you are doing exactly that — targeting political satire for censorship.”

The letter also laid out a number of questions that the senators wanted answered, including about contact between FCC staff and the White House and prior instances of the FCC asking for early renewals.

The letter was signed by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, along with Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Commerce Committee Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.).

Sens. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also signed the letter.

The senators also requested answers by May 21 to these questions:

• ”What internal legal review, including by the Office of General Counsel, was conducted before the order was issued?
• ”Did you consider, but reject, any less aggressive enforcement steps prior to issuing the order?
• ”The Commission issued a procedurally similar early-renewal order against Bridge News, LLC on April 27, 2026 — one day before the Disney order. Did you intentionally time the orders so that the Bridge News order would precede the Disney order in the public record?
• ”What is the status update on each open FCC investigation into Disney or its ABC stations?
• ”What is the FCC’s justification for issuing the early-renewal order amidst these ongoing investigations?
• ”Between April 22, 2026, and April 28, 2026, did you, your staff, or any other FCC personnel communicate with the White House, any other component of the Executive Office of the President, or any individual acting on their behalf regarding Disney, ABC, Jimmy Kimmel, or the early-renewal order?
• ”What are the prior instances in which the Commission has invoked 47 CFR § 73.3539(c) to call in the licenses of a broadcaster for early renewal, including a summary of the grounds for each instance?”

Critics of attempts by the Federal Communications Commission to threaten broadcasters by investigating them for violating “news distortion” policies have gone to court to force the regulator to take a formal stand on the issue and respond to November 2025 petition to repeal those controversial policies.

On April 28, a group of former FCC chairs, commissioners and senior-level staff, joined by the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA), filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The filing asks the court to compel the FCC to respond to a November 2025 petition to repeal the News Distortion Policy.

The petition was in response to several highly controversial investigations by the FCC into allegations of “biased” news coverage of President Donald Trump by ABC, CBS and NBC and comments by FCC Chair Brendan Carr that the regulator has the power to punish broadcasters and potentially even remove broadcast licenses from stations violating “public interest” and “news distortion” rules. (TV Tech’s coverage of that petition is available here.)

In response to the November petition, Carr indicated that he does not plan to repeal the news distortion policy. “How about no,” he posted on X.

Carr has repeatedly argued that the public interest rules for obtaining broadcast licenses give the FCC authority to investigate stations airing “biased” newscasts and programming. Several affiliate stations are currently being investigated, but the agency has yet to take any formal action.

“FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s refusal to present the petition to the Commission for a vote is not only a procedural failure, but also an active threat to the First Amendment,” said Conor Gaffney, counsel at Protect Democracy. “The FCC is legally obligated to respond to our petition. We are asking the court to hold it to that obligation.”

If the writ is granted, the FCC will be required to take a formal position on whether to repeal or uphold the news distortion policy, which critics say FCC Chair Brendan Carr has used to chill free speech in the press by threatening to yank broadcast licenses.

“The free press is called the fourth estate for a reason—it exists to hold powerful leaders in the legislature, judiciary, and executive branch to account. Journalists must be able to safely seek the truth and publish facts, without fear of retaliation,” said Tara Puckey, president and CEO of RTDNA, a major professional organization devoted to broadcast and digital journalism. “Any policy that enables the federal government to punish broadcasters for their coverage is an existential threat to independent journalism. The stakes are too high for the FCC to remain silent.”

Besides the RTDNA, other petitioners include: former FCC member Rachelle B. Chong; former PBS president Ervin S. Duggan; former FCC chairs Mark S. Fowler, Alfred C. Sikes and Thomas E. Wheeler; former FCC general counsel Christopher J. Wright; Kathryn C. Brown, chief of staff to former FCC Chairman William Kennard; and Jerald N. Fritz, a former chief of staff to Fowler and longtime broadcast executive.

The petitioners write that “in the context of the midterm elections, which are fast approaching, the Chairman’s naked attempts to suppress coverage the Administration views as unfavorable pose serious threats to the First Amendment and to our democratic order. …The Chairman’s abuse of the news distortion policy itself distorts the information voters have to make their choice, threatening the fairness of the midterms.”

Several former FCC officials named as petitioners issued statements condemning the policy:

• “The News Distortion Policy is a loaded gun that Chairman Carr is using to threaten broadcasters,” said former FCC Chairman Mark Fowler (R, 1981-87). “Until it is repealed, we will not have a free press. Every day the agency delays is another day the FCC can use this policy in bad faith. The press that uses air and electrons should be as free as the press that uses paper and ink.”
• “The FCC’s failure to act is no accident. As long as the News Distortion Policy remains, the FCC Chair could continue to misuse it to police perceived media bias, discourage broadcasters from covering controversial stories, and punish outlets that air content the Trump administration dislikes,” said former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (D, 2013-17). “The agency must answer for its attempts to censor the press.”
• “When unlikely allies share an opinion, that opinion eclipses partisanship and ideology,” said former Commissioner Rachelle Chong (R, 1994-1997).“You could not find a group of petitioners with more divergent political beliefs than this one, and yet, we all agree on one thing: The news distortion policy should be repealed. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects the right to free speech and freedom of the press by broadcasters.”

The petitioners are represented by counsel at Protect Democracy and TechFreedom, as well as Andrew Jay Schwartzman and Gigi Sohn.

Read the full petition here.

When Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr took to X last month threatening license revocations over broadcasters not operating in the public interest, it became a case study for policy experts, educators and journalists alike.

How much government oversight is too much?

Commissioner Anna Gomez, currently the sole Democrat on the FCC, led a panel of experts who offered perspectives on the government’s role in ensuring that news outlets avoid bias, whether real or perceived.

A focal point was the concept of “jawboning” — government officials using informal pressure, public threats or social media to coerce media organizations into changing their coverage.

Threats raised on social media may not result in a direct policy change, said Joe Flint, entertainment business reporter for The Wall Street Journal, but may weigh heavily on a company looking ahead to its next license renewal.

“That’s where I wonder if the ultimate goal is to be in the back of an outlet’s mind, ‘Well, what lawsuit will this bring?’” Flint asked.

Casey Mattox, vice president of legal strategy at Stand Together, said the pressure can build gradually over time.

“People end up being slowly affected by this sort of accumulation of the gravitational force’s power,” he said.

But Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said jawboning historically has been difficult to prove in court.

“It is going to require a licensee that has had enough and said, ‘We are being affected adversely by all of this pressure being brought on broadcasters, and we would like to put that to the test,’” Corn-Revere said.

You cannot completely remove bias from media, Mattox said, because to be human is to have bias.

Flint referenced the controversies around Howard Stern in his Infinity Broadcasting days to show that pressure from regulators is nothing new.

Mara Gassmann, senior staff attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, pointed to two recent court decisions that are relevant though not directly involving the FCC.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled in March that the Trump administration’s executive order to end federal funding for NPR and PBS was unconstitutional.

And District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled last month that the administration’s efforts to dismantle the Voice of America were “arbitrary and capricious.”

It is unclear where those decisions will lead, though Corn-Revere noted that the use of social media by Carr and others has caught the eye of federal courts.

Gomez pointed out that historically, the FCC has justified regulating broadcast content by arguing that spectrum was a scarce public resource and a “pervasive presence.”

Should that apply in today’s fragmented content landscape?

“We’ve got media literacy programs, media education, but at the bottom end of the day, I don’t think it’s the government’s role to sort out what’s true or what’s false,” said Clay Calvert, nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

“If everyone just took a little more time trying to listen and understand each other and not immediately go to ‘what is the agenda,’ I think we’d be a lot better off,” Flint said.

Local broadcasters, the panelists concurred, are uniquely positioned to push back and remain objective.

“All of this is sort of downstream of culture,” Mattox said. “You are in the best position, more than just about anybody, to do what is the most necessary thing to protect First Amendment rights going forward.”

© 2026 NAB

WASHINGTON—In a strongly worded response to threats by President Trump and Federal Communication Commission Chair Brendan Carr to yank broadcast licenses from stations who have aired "fake news" critical of the administration as part of their coverage of the war with Iran, FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued the statement arguing that the agency does not have the authority to regulate news coverage and that broadcasters need to resist the “chilling effect” those threats might have on news coverage.

“Once again, this FCC pretends it has the power to control news coverage,” Gomez said. “In reality, the FCC has vanishingly little power over national news networks. It licenses local broadcast stations, not networks, and no licenses are up for renewal until 2028. Early renewal attempts are exceedingly rare, and the process is so demanding that any effort would almost certainly fail, especially given the well-documented First Amendment violations underlying these moves. These threats are grounded in neither reality nor law and would not survive judicial scrutiny, just as other recent attempts by this Administration to push beyond constitutional limits have repeatedly failed in court.”

That does not mean, however, that threats to yank licenses aren’t very worrisome, Gomez argued, repeating previously stated concerns that the threats can have a chilling impact on coverage and encourage media outlets to avoid regulatory problems by self-censoring critical coverage of the administration.

“The concern over the chilling effect of these actions, however, is very real,” the Commissioner said. “Over the past year, this FCC has attacked the media as part of a years-long campaign by this Administration and its allies to discredit factual, independent coverage while blaming the press for growing public distrust. Meanwhile, it is the FCC’s own credibility and public trust that are rapidly eroding.

“Out of the many politically motivated FCC investigations targeting perceived government critics, not a single one has resulted in an enforcement action,” she said. “This follows a well-established pattern of threatened investigations, broadcast license revocations, and regulatory harassment aimed at pressuring broadcasters and their corporate parents to comply or capitulate in advance. We cannot give this FCC more power than it has. Broadcasters, journalists, and the public should recognize these empty threats for what they are and fight to defend the First Amendment against any attempt to control or intimidate the press.”

While the FCC has not attempted to investigate “news bias” in broadcast news in recent decades, FCC Chair Carr has repeatedly argued that it does in fact have the authority to do so. Under his leadership the agency is currently carrying out several investigations for “news bias” against ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates. It has also been investigating TV late night shows for alleged "news bias" and violations of equal time rules for political candidates.

Carr has said that the same rules against bias apply to both TV and radio but has not opened investigations into radio stations carrying conservative political shows and has generally sidestepped questions about radio.

Worries that rules relating to either “news bias” or “equal time” for political candidates could be applied to AM radio stations that regularly air conservative talk and political shows, has prompted pushback from conservative senators like Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sean Hannity, who has a popular show on the Fox News cable channel, which is not licensed by the FCC, and a syndicated talk show that airs on many broadcast radio stations licensed by the agency.

“Talk radio is successful because people are smart and understand we are the antidote to corrupt and abusively biased left wing legacy media,” Hannity said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times. “We need less government regulation and more freedom. Let the American people decide where to get their information from without any government interference.”

WASHINGTON—Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), has written FCC Enforcement Bureau Chiefs Patrick Webre and Erin Boone asking for information about its announcement that it would enforce “equal time” rules on late-night TV and talk shows.

As previously reported, the Federal Communications Commission in January issued new guidance on broadcast “equal time” rules which said stations airing “partisan” talk shows and late night programs must comply. This erupted into a major controversy when Stephen Colbert, host of CBS’s "The Late Show," said the network refused to allow him to air an interview with a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Texas.

The interview with Texas State Rep. James Talarico has since passed 8.8 million views on YouTube.

“FCC Chair Carr’s attempt to ground his partisan censorship scheme under legal pretense willfully misinterprets and disregards decades of settled precedent and ignores Americans’ fundamental freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Blumenthal wrote in a letter to Webre and Boone. “Congress provided statutory exemptions to the equal time rule in 1959 for bona fide news interviews and newscasts, fearing that the onerous application of the rule ‘would tend to dry up meaningful radio and television coverage of political campaigns’ and impose a ‘virtual blackout in the presentation of candidates on the news-type programs.’”

Blumenthal also wrote to Paramount Global Chairman and CEO David Ellison regarding the decision not to air the interview.

“While CBS claimed Mr. Colbert could host all other candidates, in practice that would require providing airtime for up to 14 other candidates, which would create exactly the ‘virtual blackout’ that Congress sought to prevent by enacting an exception to the equal time rule in 1959,” Blumenthal wrote in a letter to Ellison.

Blumenthal continued: “Additionally, the Subcommittee is engaged in an inquiry into political favoritism and the apparent corruption of antitrust review under the Trump Administration, including the FCC’s review of Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount and Paramount’s attempts to acquire Warner Bros. Paramount’s decision to comply, while it is attempting to enlist the Department of Justice and White House to intervene in the Warner Bros.’ transaction, calls into question its motivations for silencing Mr. Colbert.”

As ranking member of PSI, Blumenthal said he is conducting a preliminary inquiry into the FCC’s abuse of power, including dubious investigations and misrepresentations of the law to silence free speech. In September, Blumenthal hosted a public forum with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on what they called the Trump Administration’s efforts to use the FCC and government authority to chill First Amendment-protected speech and independent, fact-based news reporting.

The full text of Blumenthal’s letter to Webre and Boone is available here. The full text of Blumenthal’s letter to Ellison is available here.

WASHINGTON—In another example of how the Federal Communications Commission’s current interpretation of equal-time rules is beginning to impact programming on late night TV, Stephen Colbert revealed that CBS declined to air an interview with a Democratic candidate.

In January, the FCC’s Media Bureau issued guidance telling broadcast stations airing certain late night and daytime talk shows that they are required to give equal time to rival candidates. The guidance could give affiliate stations a legal rationale for dropping controversial programming like "Jimmy Kimmel Live", which regularly criticizes President Trump.

The news that CBS refused to air an interview with Texas State Representative James Talarico who is running for U.S. Senate, follows news that the FCC opened an investigation into ABC's "The View" after it aired an interview with the candidate.

In Monday Feb. 16 segment of his show, Colbert said that they had planned to run an interview with Talarico until "we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said. “Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on. And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”

The FCC has already been under fire from Democrats who allege that the agency pressured CBS to cancel Colbert’s program in exchange for approval of the Paramount Skydance merger. Paramount has said the cancellation was purely a financial decision.

In response to Colbert’s complaints, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez issued a statement saying “This is yet another troubling example of corporate capitulation in the face of this Administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech. The FCC has no lawful authority to pressure broadcasters for political purposes or to create a climate that chills free expression. CBS is fully protected under the First Amendment to determine what interviews it airs, which makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing.”

“It is no secret that Paramount, CBS’s parent company, has regulatory matters before the government, but corporate interests cannot justify retreating from airing newsworthy content,” she added. “The FCC is powerless to impose restrictions on protected speech, and any attempt to intimidate broadcasters into self-censorship undermines both press freedom and public trust. I once again urge broadcasters and their parent companies to stand firm against these unlawful pressures and continue exercising their constitutional right to speak freely and without government interference.”

WASHINGTON—In a move that could have a major impact on daytime and late night talk shows, the Federal Communications Commissions' Media Bureau has issued guidance telling broadcast stations airing certain late night and daytime talk shows that they are required to give equal time to rival candidates.

The guidance could also give affiliate stations a legal rationale for dropping controversial programming like "Jimmy Kimmel Live", which regularly criticizes President Trump.

It isn't certain, however, what legal impact the new guidance might have given that the FCC has not voted on any new regulations.

“Late night programming and daytime talk shows have been exempt from that [equal time for political candidates] requirement since 2006 when an exemption was given to Jay Leno because he was conducting bona fide news interviews,” the FCC noted in its latest guidance. “Importantly, the FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption…Moreover, a program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption under longstanding FCC precedent. Any program or station that wishes to obtain formal assurance that the equal opportunities requirement does not apply (in whole or in part) is encouraged to promptly file a petition for declaratory ruling that satisfies the statutory requirements for a bona fide news exemption.”

“In the meantime, the Media Bureau encourages all television broadcast stations to ensure that they are making all appropriate equal opportunity filings in accordance with section 73.1943 of the FCC’s rules and as required by agency precedent. 47 CFR § 17.1943. It is important that both broadcasters and legally qualified candidates understand the FCC’s equal opportunities regulations and how they can result in broadcasters offering opposing legal qualified candidates comparable time and placement,” the FCC concluded.

The move drew immediate fire from the lone Democrat on the FCC, Commissioner Anna Gomez, who said it was an “an escalation in this FCC’s ongoing campaign to censor and control speech.”

“Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to our political broadcasting rules,” Gomez said in a statement. “The FCC has not adopted any new regulation, interpretation, or Commission-level policy altering the long-standing news exemption or equal time framework. For decades, the Commission has recognized that bona fide news interviews, late-night programs, and daytime news shows are entitled to editorial discretion based on newsworthiness, not political favoritism. That principle has not been repealed, revised, or voted on by the Commission. This announcement therefore does not change the law, but it does represent an escalation in this FCC’s ongoing campaign to censor and control speech.

“The First Amendment does not yield to government intimidation,” Gomez added. “Broadcasters should not feel pressured to water down, sanitize, or avoid critical coverage out of fear of regulatory retaliation. Broadcast stations have a constitutional right to carry newsworthy content, even when that content is critical of those in power. That does not change today, it will not change tomorrow, and it will not change simply because of this Administration’s desire to silence its critics.”

Last year, FCC Commissioner attacked "Jimmy Kimmel Live" for violating public interest standards for broadcast stations and applauded Nexstar and Sinclair for temporarily blacking out his show on their broadcast stations. This drew fire from free speech groups and some conservatives like Ted Cruz who argued that Carr's interpretation of public interest rules could be used to censor conservatives.

In 2025, regulatory issues dominated the headlines in a ways not seen in decades, as an activist Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr pushed hard to advance the administration’s agenda,

While a number of stories related to late night TV and Jimmy Kimmel made the list, very few of the most popular regulatory stories on the TV Tech website, involved one time controversies. Most of these stories, particularly those relating to free speech, ownership rules, blackouts and the ATSC 3.0 transition, also provide essential background reading for the regulatory issues that will continue to reshape the industry in 2026.

Here are the 20 most popular stories touching on regulatory issues that were posted to the TV Tech website in 2025:

1. Disney Urged to Shut Down ABC to Avoid Political Turmoil

Analysts think Disney should stop broadcasting but keep the licenses.

2. DirecTV Says Costs for ATSC 3.0 Transition Would be ‘Onerous’

American Television Alliance tells FCC that these costs would produce ‘no benefits whatsoever’ for pay TV operator’s subscribers.

3. Carr Weighs in on Disney, YouTube Dispute

“People should have the right to watch the programming they paid for — including football” the FCC chair said in a X post.

4. ABC Takes `Jimmy Kimmel Live!' Off the Air Indefinitely

The network made the move after FCC Chair Carr attacked the late night show for "sick" comments about the killing of Charlie Kirk and threatened licenses of stations who aired it.

5. Nagravision, Broadpeak Partner on Sports Piracy Solution

Collaboration gives sports rights holders and broadcasters the ability to detect, identify, and disrupt piracy in real-time

6. LPTV Broadcasters: Costs of ATSC 3.0 Transition Could Force `Many’ Stations Out of Business

In an FCC filing opposing the NAB’s plans to sunset ATSC broadcasts, the LPTVBA said broadcasters should not be forced to convert to ATSC 3.0.

7. Nexstar's ABC Affiliates To Preempt `Jimmy Kimmel Live!'

Nexstar joined Sinclair not airing the show's return on ABC on Sept. 23 but says it continues to have "productive" talks with Disney about the future.

8. FCC Commissioner Gomez Blasts ABC for Suspending Jimmy Kimmel

She called ABC’s decision a “cowardly corporate capitulation” to threats from the FCC to suspend broadcast licenses that have no legal basis in “facts or the law”.

9. 50 State Broadcasting Associations Pass Resolution Backing ATSC 1.0 Sunset

Resolution supports FCC ‘establishing a clear, industry-wide date-certain transition plan for the full deployment of Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0) as well as a sunset date for ATSC 1.0’.

10. U.S. Appeals Court Vacates FCC’s Top-Four Station Ownership Rule

NAB, FCC chair Brendan Carr applaud 8th Circuit’s ruling overturning FCC rules that station groups can’t own more than one of the four most-watched TV stations in a market

11. FCC Restores Accidentally Deleted ATSC 3.0 Rules

The agency has restored and recodified certain rules involving reporting requirements in a new Order.

12. Gray Media to Acquire Block Communications TV Stations for $80 Million

Deal is another example of how station groups are betting that FCC deregulation will open up a wave of deals and consolidation.

13. Pearl TV Doubles Down on ‘National Security Threat’ Posed by SiliconDust's 3.0 Tuners

In comments to the FCC, large broadcast station groups reiterated that the manufacturer uses a Huawei chip.

14. Weigel Broadcasting Pushes Back on Proposals for ATSC Sunset

In a meeting with FCC staff representatives of the broadcaster opposed the NAB’s plans for a “flash cut” from ATSC to ATSC 3.0.

15. FCC Approves Review of Broadcast Ownership Rules

NPRM to look at local television and radio ownership rules that limit the number of stations a single entity can own in a local market.

16. NBCUniversal Blasts Idea of Two-Tiered Station Ownership Rules

FCC filing said that there should not be two separate ownership caps for network O&Os and other TV station groups.

17. FCC to Vote on Accelerating ATSC 3.0 Transition at October Meeting

Commission will act on whether to propose shutting down 1.0 by 2030.

18. NAB: Ownership Caps Have Created a ‘True Emergency for TV Broadcasters’

‘The record shows that the need for TV broadcasters to gain scale now has become an emergency,’ the group told the FCC.

19. FCC to Lift Freeze on Applications for New LPTV, TV Translator Stations

The move is part of a phased process running into 2026 that will also lift the current freeze on major changes for Class A television, low power television and TV translator stations and permits.

20. ATSC 3.0: 'I Can't Imagine Anyone Defending Our Current Adoption Strategy'

The tasks of defining and socializing NextGen’s vision require a “break glass” resolve we haven’t seen or needed in a while.

In response to controversial efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to investigate broadcasters for airing biased news coverage, a group of seven former commissioners and chairs, plus additional senior-level former staff, have submitted a sternly worded petition to the agency slamming its attempts “to mold the speech of private broadcasters to the FCC’s own view of what is correct.”

The petition asks the agency to rescind the news distortion policy, which has “significantly chilled and otherwise altered the content of broadcasters’ speech, undermining First Amendment values.”

The petition is in response to several highly controversial investigations by the FCC into allegations of “biased” news coverage by ABC, CBS and NBC of President Trump and comments by FCC Chair Brendan Carr that the regulator has the power to punish broadcasters and potentially even remove broadcast licenses from stations violating “public interest” and “news distortion” rules.

The petitioners are a bipartisan group of former FCC chairs, commissioners, and other senior leaders who served the agency between 1981 and 2017. Signing on were Andrew C. Barrett, Rachelle B. Chong, Ervin S. Duggan, Mark S. Fowler, Dennis R. Patrick, Alfred C. Sikes, Thomas E. Wheeler, Christopher J. Wright, Kathryn C. Brown, Jerald N. Fritz and Peter Pitsch. The petitions were represented by Protect Democracy, TechFreedom, Andrew Jay Schwartzman and Gigi Sohn.

That controversy became particularly heated after Carr used the news distortion policy to accuse ABC and Disney of news distortion and threaten ABC affiliates’ licenses for airing controversial comments by late night host Jimmy Kimmel’s regarding the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

The news distortion policy also provided the basis earlier this year for threats against CBS News during the lengthy FCC review of the Paramount-Skydance merger.

Skydance won approval for the merger after it agreed to end Paramount’s DEI efforts, paid $16 million to settle a libel suit filed by President Donald Trump and promised to name an ombudsman to ensure unbiased coverage at CBS News.

"As the Supreme Court has made clear, the government has no legitimate role in un-biasing or balancing the media," said Fowler, the FCC chair from 1981-87 under Republican President Ronald Reagan. "The news distortion policy allows the government to threaten censorship of speech it doesn't like; it cannot stand.”

“The Commission should focus on ensuring that all Americans are connected and have access to information and ideas — not imposing on broadcasters its vision of what presentation of the news is correct,” added Wheeler, who served as chair under Democratic President Barack Obama from 2013-17 and also joined in the petition. “The news distortion policy is being used by the current FCC leadership as a tool of speech coercion and that abuse will not stop until the agency repeals it.”

“The FCC has no business policing free speech,” said Conor Gaffney, counsel at Protect Democracy, a not-for-profit that works to combat authoritarian threats. “It is not for the federal government to decide what is ‘biased’ any more than it is for the government to decide what is ‘news.’ The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that policing speech is not the government’s job.”

“Carr’s threats have worked despite their unconstitutionality because the FCC has extraordinarily vast leverage over broadcasters,” added Berin Szóka, president of TechFreedom, a think tank dedicated to defending free speech, the Constitution and the rule of law. “Carr so clearly abused that leverage that even his fellow Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz, compared his tactics to a ‘mafioso, … right out of Goodfellas.’ Critical speech has been, and will be, chilled. Disney bent, even if it didn’t break. Fearing retaliation, many comedians and journalists will self-censor, or their corporate employers will muzzle them. The news distortion policy is too dangerous a weapon to entrust to any Chair.”

The petition argues that the FCC’s crackdown on news distortion violated longstanding free speech precedents and Supreme Court rulings while creating a climate of fear designed to chill free speech and reduce criticism of the Trump administration.

“The petitioners request that the FCC repeal the news distortion policy in full,” the petition said. “In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Supreme Court, applying the First Amendment, reaffirmed that the government has no role in ‘un-biasing’ the media. In direct contradiction to that decision, the news distortion policy seeks to mold the speech of private broadcasters to the FCC’s own view of what is correct, complete, and accurate news. The First Amendment forbids the government from embarking on such a project.

“Furthermore, the application of the news distortion policy is constitutionally problematic,” the petition continued. “The vast scope and vague language of the news distortion policy cast an omnipresent shadow over broadcasters’ freedom of expression while leaving the policy open to partisan weaponization. Wielding the news distortion policy, the FCC has already opened or threatened to open investigations against private broadcasters due to disagreements with editorial decisions or statements made in a comedic monologue. Even if the FCC never tries to take enforcement action in these cases, the specter of government interference alone chills broadcasters’ speech and suppresses their message.”

“Because the FCC has no legitimate interest in correcting or punishing what it considers to be slanted news coverage, the news distortion policy lacks a meaningful function,” the petition concluded. “Over a period of 60 years, the FCC only enforced the policy eight times, typically in cases involving an intentional hoax. However, such cases are now covered by the FCC’s broadcast hoax role, rendering the news distortion policy a vestigial organ. In light of its redundancy and obsolescence, as well as its actively harmful effects, amply demonstrated as of late, the petitioners respectfully request the repeal of the news distortion policy.”

Both Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty, who make up the FCC’s Republican majority, argue Congress clearly gave the commission the power to enforce public-interest standards on stations because they receive licenses to use scarce spectrum.

The Nov. 13 petition by seven FCC chairs and commissioners follows comments made earlier this year by five former FCC chairs and commissioners in opposition to the onging investigation of CBS News for “news distortion.” They accused the FCC of acting as the “White House’s personal censor.”

The full petition can be found here.

WASHINGTON—FCC Commissioner Olivia Trusty has weighed in on one of the controversial issues facing the agency, with remarks at The Media Institute’s Free Speech America Gala asserting the FCC’s power to enforce “public interest” standards and “news distortion” policies on broadcasters.

At the same time, she also argued that regulators need to tread cautiously on those issues and said her preferred approach would be market-driven and voluntary, with the Federal Communications Commission creating "an environment that empowers them to do so voluntarily."

The remarks are important because FCC Chair Brendan Carr, Trusty’s fellow Republican, has vigorously asserted the agency’s power to regulate broadcast news coverage and has opened a number of investigations of TV stations and network programming for alleged violations of the public interest standard and “news distortion.”

That position overturns longstanding FCC policy of not attempting to regulate broadcast content because that would violate First Amendment free-speech rights.

Currently, the FCC is investigating complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates for “news distortion” in their coverage of President Donald Trump. Carr also threatened to pull licenses from affiliates that aired “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” after Kimmel made controversial comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

In her remarks, Trusty said, “At an event called the “Free Speech America Gala, it seems fitting to begin with an issue that has been much in the news—the First Amendment and broadcasting.

“At the FCC, our regulatory and oversight responsibilities span the media and communications sectors, which means that protecting the First Amendment is paramount to our policy work,” she said. “Yet, as many of you know, in the broadcasting context, the interplay between constitutional protections for speech and the requirements of the Communications Act can be uniquely complex.”

She compared this complexity of free speech for broadcasters to walking out on a frozen lake. “At first as you step on it, the surface feels solid,” Trusty said. “But, as you continue to move forward, the ice groans underfoot. Cracks spread. You can’t always see how thick the ice is beneath your feet, or whether it will hold if you take that next step. That is because, under existing precedent, broadcasting is treated differently than most Americans might expect.”

“Yes,” she continued, “the First Amendment still applies—both by its own terms, and as confirmed by Section 326 of the Communications Act. But in broadcasting, content-based regulation that would be unthinkable in other contexts is indeed permitted under longstanding doctrine. Congress placed public-interest obligations on broadcasters when it entrusted them with use of the public airwaves. Federal law restricts the broadcasting of obscenity, indecency, and profanity. Section 315 of the Communications Act imposes equal opportunity obligations on broadcasters once they grant access to one candidate for a political office.”

She also noted that “the FCC has a policy against news distortion, which prohibits broadcast station licensees from deliberately manipulating, slanting, or rigging the news” and defended the agency’s right to enforce those policies as being “grounded in the statute and decades of precedent. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the public interest standard is guided by the purposes of the Communications Act and the requirements it imposes.”

After discussing some of the cases and legal complexities of the issue, she highlighted her preference for a “voluntary” approach to enforcement.

“Walking this frozen lake requires careful judgment,” she said. “At what point are you still on solid ground, enforcing clear statutory requirements? At what point do the cracks appear, signaling that the ice might not hold? Navigating these questions requires a thoughtful, deliberate approach. For me, the preferred path is clear: when the marketplace, through the choices of individual licensees, advances the public interest, that is the best outcome, for the First Amendment, the Communications Act, and our constitutional republic. Most broadcasters take their public interest obligations seriously. Our role should be to foster an environment that empowers them to do so voluntarily.”

This, she added, raises “a larger question: how do we create an environment where the marketplace itself produces outcomes that serve the public interest and respect the First Amendment? Not just in broadcasting, but across the communications landscape?”

Her answer to that thorny question is for the FCC to create an environment that fosters innovation.

To create that environment she laid out several priorities that included: the FCC’s current push to eliminate outdated rules and legal barriers; FCC efforts to auction spectrum and ensure it is efficiently used; international collaboration that encourages new technologies and free speech; and generally “celebrate innovation.”

“Free speech and innovation are not separate stories,” she concluded. “They are two sides of the same coin. Free expression fuels innovation, because ideas only flourish when they can be tested, debated, and challenged. And innovation safeguards free expression, because new technologies give people more ways to speak, to listen, and to be heard.”

WASHINGTON—In response to criticism that the Federal Communications Commission has been “threatening” broadcast stations but has not actually taken any enforcement actions against them, FCC Chair Brendan Carr reiterated his plans to vigorously the “public interest standard” for broadcast stations and said that the agency was still investigating the complaints.

During a press conference following the agency’s October Open Meeting, Carr said that the agency was still investigating complaints against ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates for violating the public interest standard in their coverage of President Donald Trump. No decision had been made in those ongoing investigations, but they could still result in fines or other actions, he insisted.

Carr made the comments in response to a question about why the agency had threatened the stations but had not taken action against them. Critics have argued that the FCC is on shaky legal ground in trying to enforce "public interest" standards on broadcast stations. As a result, the agency has avoided taking enforcement actions, such as imposing fines or removing broadcast licenses, that could be easily challenged in court on First Amendment grounds.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democrat among the three Commissioners, has argued those threats are “empty” and that their real purpose is to stifle critical coverage of the Trump administration. .

“We may very well get” to the point of issuing fines or taking other action against the broadcasters Carr said in response. “Remember, we've got a number of investigations that are underway right now. We have investigations going into NPR and PBS member stations as to whether or not they've been running commercial advertisements rather than permissible identifications. We have DEI inquiries going on [for] a number of providers right now. We have sought comment on complaints that have been filed under various FCC rules that have to do with broadcasters. And again, you'll remember where we are in a process here [that is] 10 months in. At this point, we have a number of investigations that are underway, we are getting documents and information back…”

“So when you look at how you run these things, I'm not sure that there would be [any] sort of enforcement action that would have proceeded to an official document at this point in time,” Carr said. “But we may very well get back there.”

Carr also reiterated his view that “the FCC should be enforcing the public interest standard. That's not a threat. That's just something that Congress has asked us to do.”

Carr also responded to a separate question as to why the FCC has not acted on complaints by the Center for American Rights, against CBS, ABC and NBC stations. The CAR complaint alleged they offered biased coverage of Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign and that the FCC should investigate them for "news distortion."

“That was one of the complaints that I indicated earlier,” Carr said. “…We are ten months in, and you're developing a record, and you're looking at all the facts, you're weighing the record as it develops, we may move forward that [or] we may not. We haven't made a decision there again. Ten months in, I think we're at an appropriate place with the number of investigations and the complaints that we have sought public comment on.”

Carr admitted that only the CBS case has been opened to public comment.

In addition to criticism from Gomez and other Democrats, Carr has faced criticism from some conservatives, such as Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who fear that his investigations could limit free speech in ways that could eventually backfire on conservatives.

Before diving in, I want to make clear that what motivates me to write this post isn’t ABC’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel nor the ending of Stephen Colbert’s show by CBS. My interest in watching late night network television ended when Craig Ferguson left the "Late Late Show" at the end of 2014 followed in mid-2015 by the departure of David Letterman from the Late Show. I tried watching their late-night replacement for a while as well as the other offerings, but I didn’t find the content to be sufficiently entertaining or compelling enough to hold my interest.

What motivates this is reading this blog post from NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. He makes some great points about the protection of the First Amendment and the propensity for government to try and pressure broadcasters to a particular slant on their coverage. As Mr. LeGeyt points out, it is nothing new and it is wrong and I agree wholeheartedly with him on these two statements. He concludes that protecting the First Amendment is “essential for the health of our democracy” which I also agree with.

Where I have concern is in the change in “local station” ownership. While I started working in local radio broadcasting in the 1970’s, I spent most of my career working in local television broadcasting beginning in 1982 so I’m going to focus my comments on local television.

The 1980’s were an interesting time for local television. Prior to 1985, a single entity could only own seven television stations nationwide which was part of the 7-7-7 rule (7 AM stations, 7 FM stations, 7 television stations). In 1985 the cap was raised to 12-12-12 and the collective reach of the 12 television stations could not exceed 25% of the total television households nationwide.

The percentage of households covered was increased to 39% sometime later and thanks to maintaining the UHF discount (a curious holdover from the 1985 ownership rules update), an entity can now own multiple stations in the same market and potentially cover significantly more than 39% of television household nationally.

So where we currently stand is that according to the FCC’s latest tally (June, 2025), there are 1,384 commercial television stations in the United States. As best as I can determine by searching the web, as of 2020/2022 about 30 owners’ control more than 1,000 of these stations. Currently there is a move to revise or eliminate the ownership caps and assuming that happens, I expect that most of the smallest owners and many of the mid-sized owners will be acquired by the largest owners and significantly fewer than 30 owners will control significantly more than 1,000 of the commercial television stations.

So what does all this have to do with concern over the First Amendment? Well, if you peruse the business plans and reports of most large companies, the metrics of success for the company and its leadership are often shareholder value and profitability. The reports often include plans for consolidation or centralization of services as a means of reducing operating costs and improving operational efficiency.

In a structure such as this, government pressure like Mr. LeGeyt describes becomes potentially easier and more effective. Threatening license renewal at the national level on a few large organizations that own and directly control the vast majority of local stations could certainly negatively impact the real or perceived shareholder value and profitability of the organization. This in turn could potentially generate a climate of national owners telling their local stations’ leadership to get in line with what they cover and how they cover it regardless of local community needs or sentiment.

I understand the need for broadcasting companies to grow to stay competitive with Big Tech but as we have seen in many businesses that consolidate, the mission and commitment to serving the customer is often diluted or completely abandoned in favor of the bottom line. It’s not hard to imagine maintaining shareholder value being in direct opposition to maintaining First Amendment rights.

When I started working in broadcasting, stations were licensed to operate in the public interest. Station ownership was limited to ensure that there were diverse voices in the market. Stations were required to regularly and proactively engage with the communities they served and document those findings.

While the media ecosystem has certainly changed, maybe broadcast station owners need to relook at those metrics and find a way to ensure that the local stations they own meet the needs and expectations of the communities they serve. Local stations may be “the most trusted source of information” but only as long as the local community sees them as local and worthy of their trust.

WASHINGTON—In a press conference following the Federal Communications Commission’s May Open Meeting, Chair Brendan Carr promised the agency would move rapidly in a number of areas over the summer now that it has a quorum of Commissioners with the swearing in of Republican Olivia Trusty.

“I think we have a very, very busy, productive July and August in terms of a number of items that we've got teed up and ready to go,” Carr said.

During the press conference, Carr, also a Republican, reiterated that he wanted to boost local broadcasters by reexamining FCC’s ownership caps, said that the agency would act “soon” on his concerns over how EchoStar is using its spectrum, declined to provide a timeline when the agency would conclude its review of the Paramount Global-Skydance Media merger and once again argued that the FCC has the power to regulate news content from licensed broadcasters.

In response to a question that the FCC seemed to be moving towards lifting ownership caps for most broadcasters but retaining restrictions on stations owned and operated by national broadcast networks like ABC, CBS and NBC, Carr denied that was the case.

“Look at this point, we're very open-minded as to the outcome,” he said. “[A] whole range of options that could be possible. And if you sort of step back, one of the themes that I've tried to be pretty clear about, and maybe some people would think I’ve been too blunt about, is that I want to work to empower local broadcasters. I think if you again look at trust in media across the board, trust in…national programmers, particularly when it comes to ABC, CBS, NBC, trust in those outlets is at an all-time low. And so, separate from that, one thing I'm trying to do is continue to empower those local broadcasters to feel they can actually have the freedom to serve their local communities. So as we go forward in this proceeding, I'm open-ended, open-minded as to where we will ultimately end up. But again, one of the North Stars I've been looking at is empowering those local broadcasters.”

In addition to attacking the major broadcast networks, Carr also reiterated his view that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate content on cable networks like Fox News or OAN but that it does have the authority to regulate news content and news bias on broadcast stations.

“Congress has been very clear that the regulatory authority with respect to broadcasters is different than the regulatory authority with respect to cable,” he said. The difference is authority, he added, is based on the fact that “if they have access to a valuable public resource spectrum {and are given a license for] the 6 MHz of spectrum, we're necessarily denying other speakers the right to do that. Similarly, there's statutory benefits that you get from being a licensed broadcaster, including things that ultimately go to retransmission consent and whatnot….It's not my decision, it's Congress's decision that there's a very different regulatory structure. And again, the thing that's the subject of the regulation is different. What I'm talking about is making sure that broadcasters fulfill their public-interest obligation.”

Carr did not address the obvious issue of whether the FCC would have, under that philosophy, the authority to regulate content from cable networks like OAN or Fox News Channel that airs on broadcast stations.

Carr was also asked about an FCC’s investigation into Echostar that could result in the satellite provider losing wireless and satellite spectrum that Elon Musk’s Starlink and others would like to acquire.

In response, Carr declined to comment on a meeting that he attended with President Donald Trump and Echostar chairman Charlie Ergen. He did say, however, that “the status quo needs to change. There's lots of different paths forward there. And you know, all options are still on the table.”

He added that he expected the FCC to act “soon.”

In a press conference following Carr, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez explicitly rejected the idea that ownership caps should be removed and that the FCC has authority to regulate broadcast news content, which she called a clear violation of First Amendment rights.

“As you know, I launched my first amendment tour a few months ago to shine a light on the administration's campaign of censorship and control,” she said. “Since then, we've seen all kinds of actions aimed at silencing dissent and punishing critics. These aggressive tactics recently culminated in a U.S. senator being forcibly removed from a public event and thrown onto the ground simply for asking a government agency he oversees a question. This is what government censorship and control looks like today.”

In terms of ownership caps, Gomez complained: “Just hours before the national holiday, the FCC issued a notice that would begin the process to give billionaire-owned media conglomerates even more influence over what Americans see and hear. Most likely missed this last-minute release...and that's no accident, because we know, and they know, that this isn't about strengthening journalism or preserving local news. This FCC proposal to unleash a new era of unregulated media consolidation is only about helping the largest broadcast companies grow even larger at the expense of independent stations and the communities they serve. A media landscape dominated by a few national players will not deliver diverse local voices. Instead, it risks the loss of local jobs and local perspectives and the disappearance of independent, community-focused journalism.”

WASHINGTON—FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez has announced that she is partnering with consumer and civil society organizations to launch a “First Amendment Tour” of events to challenge government censorship and control.

“Since the founding of our country, the First Amendment has protected our fundamental right to speak freely and hold power to account,“ Gomez said. “Today, the greatest threat to that freedom is coming from our own government. Silencing dissenting voices is not a show of strength—it’s a sign of fear. We must continue to speak out against this growing campaign of censorship and control before this dangerous new normal becomes the status quo.”

To announce the effort, Gomez issued a press release arguing that over the last few months, actions across the federal government have demonstrated an alarming pattern of silencing dissenting voices, including in the media and telecommunications sector.

The release specifically singled out the Federal Communications Commission for criticism: “From investigating broadcasters for editorial decisions in their newsrooms, to harassing private companies for their fair hiring practices, to threatening tech companies that respond to consumer demand for fact-checking tools, the FCC’s actions have focused on weaponizing the agency’s authority to silence critics,” she said.

TV Tech’s extensive coverage of those issues can be found here.

Gomez has previously attacked the current FCC leadership on numerous occasions for launching “news distortion” investigations into broadcast TV news coverage that was critical of President Donald Trump. At NAB Show earlier this month, she complained that the FCC had strayed from its core mission and criticized FCC investigations into public media, DEI and broadcast TV stations.

The press release issued by Gomez’s office reported that these events will provide a forum where the commissioner can engage with "stakeholders and the public on the various ways the FCC is being weaponized to attack freedom of speech in the media and telecommunications sector instead of focusing on its core mission – connecting the public, protecting consumers, and supporting competition.”

The events will be open to the public and/or livestreamed where possible.

The first event will be hosted by the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 24. “Who Will Fight for the First Amendment? Protecting Free Expression at a Critical Time” is set for 2 to 3 p.m. ET.

Interested parties can register to join via Zoom here.

Panelists will include:

• Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
• ·Alexandra Givens, President and CEO, Center for Democracy & Technology
• Kate Tummarello, Executive Director, Engine
• Alex Abdo, Litigation Director, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
• Sara Oates, Associate Dean for Research and Professor, Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Federal Communications Commission has broadened its investigation into a “news distortion” complaint against CBS by asking for public comments and establishing a public docket for comments.

As part of the investigation, the FCC has released the full video and transcript of a “60 Minutes” interview with then vice president Kamala Harris that is at the center of the investigation. Typically regulators do not release such raw materials during an investigation.

CBS News has also released the full video and transcript. “The transcripts and video “show – consistent with 60 Minutes‘ repeated assurances to the public – that the 60 Minutes broadcast was not doctored or deceitful,” CBS News said.

The FCC said that it will take comments at MB Docket No. 25-73. Comments are due on March 7, 2025; reply comments are due March 24, 2025

On October 16, 2024, the conservative group Center for American Rights (CAR) filed a complaint with the Commission requesting an investigation into WCBS for “news distortion” in the airing of a “60 Minutes” interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris. The complaint was dismissed on First Amendment grounds by previous FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel and reinstated by current chair Brendan Carr.

On February 3, 2025, in response to a request from the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, the WCBS licensee provided the Commission with an unedited transcript and video of the 60 Minutes interview.

The move to make the video and transcript available to the public was applauded by CAR as a move towards “transparency” while the investigation was criticised by commissioner Anna Gomez, a democrat.

Other critics have viewed the investigation as an attempt by the FCC to stifle critical coverage of President Trump and his administration.

“Given the value of transparency and demonstrated interest in this ongoing FCC matter, the FCC has determined that the public interest would be served by making the transcript and video available and by opening a docket to seek comment on the issues that have been raised,” the FCC said. “Thus, materials can be found here (video) and here (transcript), and we hereby establish a docket to seek comment on the CAR Complaint. We have concluded that establishing this docket would, in this case, permit broader public participation and thereby serve the public interest.”

In response, FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez said “The transcript and footage of this interview provide no evidence that CBS and its affiliated broadcast stations violated FCC rules. Having now seen these materials, I see no reason to continue pursuing this investigation. The FCC should now move to dismiss this fishing expedition to avoid further politicizing our enforcement actions.”

Gomez also complained that “it is unprecedented and reckless for the FCC to disclose the status of an active investigation and publicly share materials before its conclusion and before they’ve been shared with other members of this independent body. The agency’s Enforcement Bureau generally treats highly sensitive matters with confidentiality and discretion because they can have market impacts. This action sets a dangerous precedent that threatens to undermine trust in the FCC’s role as an impartial regulator. The FCC should stop trying to keep up with this Administration’s focus on partisan culture wars and return to its core focus of protecting consumers, promoting competition, and securing our communications networks.”

Gomez also laid out a series of legal and regulatory arguments relating to a “new distortion claim” that she said had already prompted the FCC to dismiss the complaint. More info on what qualifies as a news distortion claim can be found here

With one day left in her term, outgoing Federal Communications Commission chair Jessica Rosenworcel leveled heavy criticism at the incoming Trump administration over the First Amendment and denied four current complaints filed against broadcasters.

The complaints against WPVI Philadelphia, WCBS-TV New York, WNBC New York and WTXF Philadelphia had all been filed within the past several months and involved a number of complaints, all stemming from what complainants perceived as biased coverage.

Three of the four complaints were filed by the Center for American Rights, which describes itself as a “non-profit public interest law firm.” In the case of ABC-owned WPVI, the Center accused the Philadelphia TV station for what it claimed was “news distortion” during the broadcast of the oresidential debate on Sept. 10, 2024. In WCBS’s case, the center accused CBS of biased editing during an Oct. 7 "60 Minutes" interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, then the Democratic presidential candidate. WNBC was also accused of biased coverage when Harris appeared on an episode of “Saturday Night Live” in October.

The fourth denial went to the Media and Democracy Project (MAD), a liberal organization that petitioned the FCC last year to deny the renewal of Fox-owned WTXF-TV due to Fox News Channel’ $787 million defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems last year. (Because networks don’t have broadcast licenses, the complainants use local affiliates as their targets.)

Rosenworcel’s likely successor, Brendan Carr, has also accused CBS of bias, and said the FCC will take that issue into account when it reviews the pending merger of network parent Paramount Global and Skydance.

He also told the AP last fall that Harris’s appearance on “SNL” was “a clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule.”

At a Congressional hearing last September, Carr was noncommital when asked whether he would have pulled WPVI’s license because of perceived bias during the ABC News-sponsored presidential debate.

During the 2024 campaign, Rosenworcel frequently responded to such accusations of media bias, mostly from the right, and she repeated her arguments in the following statement:

“The First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. By restricting the government from making laws that impair freedom of speech, the First Amendment preserves our right to express ourselves. The freedom of the press in this country depends on it.

“Over the course of history, our government leaders have clashed with news organizations that cover their efforts. President John Adams, for instance, championed a law that made it illegal to print, utter or publish malicious statements about the federal government. President Nixon targeted the license renewals of two television stations that were owned by the newspaper investigating his involvement in Watergate.

“More recently this threat to the First Amendment has taken on new forms, as the incoming President has called on the Federal Communications Commission to revoke licenses for broadcast television stations because he disagrees with their content and coverage.

“It may seem quaint to draw attention like this to broadcast licenses, in an era when so many of us seek out information we want, when we want it, from where we want it, on any screen handy. But these stations remain a vital source of local and national news. And there is nothing antiquated about the idea that the FCC has a duty to respect the Constitution.

“Today, I have directed the FCC to take a stand on behalf of the First Amendment. We draw a bright line at a moment when clarity about government interference with the free press is needed more than ever. The action we take makes clear two things. First, the FCC should not be the President’s speech police. Second, the FCC should not be journalism’s censor-in-chief.

“The agency has before it four complaints and petitions that seek to curtail freedom of the press and undermine the First Amendment. They come from all corners—right and left—but what they have in common is they ask the FCC to penalize broadcast television stations because they dislike station behavior, content or coverage. The first asks that the FCC penalize a television station for the substance of the presidential debate on the basis that it was not a true news event. The second seeks to use the FCC to demand the release of the transcript of a news interview as a condition of continued broadcast licensing. The third asks that the FCC fine a television station regarding equal time for programming involving political candidates. The fourth seeks to have the FCC remove the license of a television station for the character shortcomings of its corporate ownership. In two Letters and two Orders, we deny all four filings.

“The facts and legal circumstances in each of these cases are different. But what they share is that they seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment. To do so would set a dangerous precedent. That is why we reject it here.”

WASHINGTON—Incoming Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr has once again highlighted how he plans to take seriously complaints about political bias and “news distortion” at CBS News in the agency’s review of Skydance Media’s bid to merge with Paramount Global.

The claims were first made by the Center for American Rights in an October filing with the FCC and in a more recent letter to the agency.

In a post on X, which is owned by Elon Musk, who gave $277 million to back President-elect Donald Trump and Republican candidates and is now playing a major role in the administration’s deregulatory efforts, Carr wrote that “Paramount's sale of CBS broadcast licenses to Skydance remains pending before the FCC. This filing from CAR raises what it describes as significant concerns, including ones that go to CBS's adherence to the public interest standard. The FCC will need to address these concerns.”

Carr has raised those concerns several times in the past, both on social media and in interviews with NewsNation and Fox News. While he has tried to position himself as a “free speech” advocate of First Amendment rights, he has also indicated that the FCC will use the “public interest” regulatory requirements of broadcasters to examine potential bias in news operations during station license reviews. In addition, he has implied the regulator might crack down on fact-checking efforts as part of a larger effort “to smash” the “censorship cartel.”

That has prompted concern from critics that Carr will actually limit free speech in news operations.

In October, the Center for American Rights filed a formal complaint with the FCC against WCBS-TV New York for engaging in significant and intentional "news distortion" in the editing of an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, segments of which ran on CBS’s “Face the Nation” and "60 Minutes" on Oct. 5 and 6.

CBS News has hotly disputed those claims.

WASHINGTON—In celebration of the 231st anniversary of Congress passing what would become known as the Bill of Rights, NAB is launching a new campaign celebrating the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of speech and the press, as well as the freedom of religion and assembly.

The campaign is being launched to coincide with the anniversary of Congress sending out 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution to the states for ratification, 10 of which would be adopted. 

NAB is providing broadcasters with a toolkit that features on-air and digital resources designed to help media professionals, policymakers and the public celebrate the First Amendment. This includes an interactive timeline of key moments in history where journalists exercised their First Amendment rights to provide news; a social media filter, shareable video and suggested posts highlighting the importance of free speech; and a listing of associations, organizations and partners that defend and support the First Amendment.

“America’s founders, in their infinite wisdom, understood that our country could not long survive without a free press that could report the facts and deliver their opinions without fear or favor,” said Gordon Smith, NAB president and CEO. “NAB celebrates this enduring principle that has kept our communities informed and engaged since our nation’s early days, and we honor the ongoing work of the press in preserving our democracy.”

To access the campaign’s content, visit WeAreBroadcasters.com/FirstAmendment. 

Though their words may be alternately frustrating, verbose or bombastic, the First Amendment rights of speech and the press must be supported — although, remember (wink-wink) even government officials have the right to call out the press in case of inaccuracy or downright lunacy, said Federal Communications Commission commissioner Michael O’Rielly.

O’Rielly said the functioning of these Constitutionally protected rights (in addition to those of religion, freedom of assembly and the right to redress grievances) epitomize what it means to be an American in a speech to the Media Institute on October 24 in Arlington, Va.

“It is worthy of the strongest defenses against any enemy near or far,” he said during the group’s Free Speech America gala.

O’Rielly began by focusing on the freedom of the press, an issue that he said has generated “significant and proper attention” in recent months.

Not only does a fully functioning press provide the general public with information about our government — “an incredibly valuable function that provides a sharp and accurate picture of the government and the activities it carries out on our behalf,” he said — but it serves as a powerful antidote to any abuses of power by government officials, he added.The press serves to scrutinize governmental activities, exposes instances where employees have exceeded their authority and highlighted those who have caused harm to the public by failing to take necessary actions, he said.

“Granted, most federal departments and agencies have inspector generals to examine these abuses, but those entities rarely have the impact of a well-timed expose? by a serious journalist examining corruption or improper behavior, or a live video or picture of a governmental official trying to defend questionable practices,” he said.“The media provides a vital check on the government on behalf of the American citizenry,” he said.

O’Rielly admitted wryly that it can be difficult to always applaud the press’ record in serving this function. “I have been on the receiving end of some of those stories … and it can be emotionally and professionally trying to defend legitimate actions and decisions,” he said. “Certainly, working in the government is not for the faint of heart, especially in the current environment where certain pejorative words are spewed out so carelessly.”

Despite that, he said, “the value of such efforts by the press are immeasurable, and, even if quantifiable, would far exceed any downsides.”

We in America are fortunate, he said: “These … purposes of the press do not exist worldwide. [T]he world’s jails contain many individuals who were trying to perform these exact functions, but were not protected by a similar First Amendment.”

O’Rielly also touched on free speech as it relates to pirate radio. These stations undermine free speech with their very existence, he said, by interfering with a legal stations’ ability to reach their audiences.

[Read: Smith: Founding Fathers Got It Right On Press Freedom]

“While I am a firm supporter of removing illegitimate restrictions on broadcasters’ speech, I also believe that individuals who use the public airwaves must play by the rules, meaning that, at the most basic level, they must have an authorization.” O’Rielly shared the well-reported story of a local Colorado publication that advocated that townspeople tune into a local pirate radio station before the FCC shut it down. O’Rielly wrote a letter to the editor to share his concerns about a publication’s romanticizing illegal broadcasts.

Here’s a situation where the government official has the right to free speech as well, he said. The First Amendment does not make those who enjoy its protections immune from criticism, O’Rielly said.

“Merely criticizing a publication for having little discretion and promoting illegal behavior is not an infringement of the First Amendment, even if I am a government official,” he said. “The Colorado publication has a First Amendment right to state what it did … but such protections don’t preclude me from criticizing what I see as a misguided or wrongheaded story.”

The First Amendment should never be viewed as a shield against challenges of facts, style or substance, he said.

“While it protects the right of everyone, especially press officials, to state what they would like to state, it does not protect these same individuals from being called out for their inaccuracy, inappropriateness, or lunacy — depending on the circumstances — even if done so by government officials,” he said.

The following is an op-ed by NAB President Gordon Smith that appeared in TV Technology's sister publication, Broadcasting & Cable: 

My friend and former Senate colleague John McCain was asked in 2017 whether he regards the press as the enemy of the people. “I hate the press,” responded McCain, perhaps tongue-in-cheek. “I hate you, especially. But the fact is, we need you. … If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you need to have a free and many times an adversarial press.”

McCain’s comment on NBC’s Meet the Press symbolized the Arizona senator’s on-again, off-again relationship with “the media.” But more importantly, it reflected the tension and hostility between government and “the press” that was anticipated, accepted and encouraged by our founding fathers when they adopted the First Amendment as the cornerstone of American democracy. As we honor Senator McCain’s life, it is also fitting to reflect on the audacity of the founding fathers in their embrace of free speech as a core principle of a new nation.

As a recovering politician-turned-advocate for local broadcasters in Washington, I come to this debate with a perspective from both sides. In my 16 years as an elected official — the last 12 as a U.S. senator from Oregon — I was occasionally frustrated by “the media.” But I came to understand that unfriendly press coverage, either real or perceived, comes with the territory when you become a public official. And I believed then and believe now that press criticism, fair or unfair, is the essential lifeblood of our liberty.

Disagreeing Agreeably

Today, we watch a scorched-earth battle in Washington between some in the media and the Republican Administration, and between others in the media and Democrats in Congress. Allegations of bias fly in every direction. What the combatants are really underscoring is the point Senator McCain was making, not just with the remarks on Meet the Press, but with his entire life. He understood that it is precisely our ability to freely disagree that underscores the greatness of America. The essence of our democratic experiment is this: It no more matters what the president thinks is news than what other Americans think. When the press is being attacked, its value is being affirmed. And so too are the underlying values of America.

As head of the National Association of Broadcasters, I’ve witnessed firsthand the remarkable work of local radio and TV journalists and their broadcast network colleagues dedicated to fact-based news reporting. Among these journalists are fierce patriots who embed with U.S. troops abroad. They risk their lives reporting on wildfires, hurricanes and tornadoes. They’ve saved the lives of hundreds of children with Amber Alerts and coverage of the opioid crisis. Broadcast groups have doubled down on credible investigative journalism that exposes fraud and corruption at the local, national and international level. I may not agree with every perspective or story, but my consent is not required for free voices to speak out.

Much of what riles passions today is opinion journalism that would remind Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton of the partisan pamphleteers of the late 1700s.

Today, only the platforms have changed. Raucous voices on social media and commentary-based cable programming may pervade and dominate our daily discourse. But viewers and listeners should try, always, to distinguish between fact-based reporting and editorial commentary. They are not the same. The broadcast journalists that I know hold themselves to a higher standard. They report truth as best they see it, without fear or favor. Some of their reporting may not please the president. Some of their reporting may not please Democratic leaders in Congress. Thankfully, the consent of the political class is not required for reporters to do their jobs.

Enduring Principles

That our founding fathers grudgingly accepted withering press criticism and sustained journalism attacks, there can be little doubt. They did so because they understood that government efforts to delegitimize the role of the journalist constituted an attack on democracy itself. For more than two centuries, little has changed in the adversarial relationship between reporters and politicians in power. The enduring constant has been the First Amendment, and our forefathers’ fundamental embrace of free speech principles that preserve America as the last best hope on Earth.

Gordon Smith has been president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters since 2009. He is a former two-term Republican U.S. senator from Oregon.