The Trump FCC is leveraging public trust for political gain

In a raw exercise of leveraging public trust for political gain, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr, at the behest of President Donald Trump, is forcing America’s broadcasters to choose between free speech and their business interests.

It is a bad business deal and an even worse deal for democracy.

We saw it with Jimmy Kimmel, “The View,” and now the Iran war: When Trump doesn’t like broadcast coverage of his administration, he often threatens their existence, and the chairman of the FCC joins in. Claiming that free speech is a violation of the public interest, Carr has told broadcasters they “have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up.” The message is clear: Align your coverage with the administration or risk your business.

Trump loves the intimidation. “I am so thrilled to see Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), looking at the licenses of some of these Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic ‘News’ Organizations,” he posted on social media.

That is not how a free society works, nor is it the appropriate role for the FCC and its chairman.

The First Amendment is unambiguous: Government may not punish speech based on its viewpoint. This protection is not an abstraction; it is the bedrock of American self-governance. From the earliest days of the republic, we have rejected the idea that those in power should determine what information reaches the public. Congress reinforced that principle in the Communications Act. Section 326 explicitly prohibits the FCC from exercising “censorship” or interfering with the free expression of broadcasters.

The FCC is a technical and economic regulator—not a Ministry of Truth.

Yet the mere suggestion that licenses could be used as a tool for retaliation introduces a new and corrosive dynamic into the media marketplace.

Broadcasting has always had a dual nature. It is both a public trust—operating on spectrum owned by the American people—and a business, sustained by the pursuit of profit. When those incentives aligned in a way that supported robust journalism, democracy is served.

But when government signals that regulatory favor—or disfavor—may hinge on editorial choices, a different incentive emerges. The economic calculus shifts from “What serves the audience?” to “What avoids regulatory retaliation?”

In such an environment, free speech becomes a business decision.

What makes the current moment particularly troubling is that it targets one of the few remaining media with a legally protected obligation to serve the public interest. Unlike purely digital platforms, broadcasters operate under licenses that must be periodically renewed. That renewal process—historically routine when basic obligations are met—becomes a point of vulnerability if politicized.

To be clear: No broadcaster has a constitutional right to a government license. But once that license is granted, the government cannot condition its continued existence on editorial compliance. To do so would convert a regulatory framework into a mechanism of control.

The result would not be better journalism; it would be safer journalism—safer for those in power and those holding licenses, not for the public.

The job of a journalist is to be suspicious, to look for what’s not working. A press corps that fears losing its license is less likely to play that role, challenge official narratives, or give voice to dissenting views. What remains is a cautious press rather than a free press.

That is the path away from democratic accountability.

The framers of the Constitution understood that freedom of expression is not self-executing. It requires constant vigilance, particularly when those in power find criticism inconvenient or uncomfortable. The legal protections the founders established are clear. What matters now is whether they are respected in practice.

Carr should reaffirm, unequivocally, that the FCC will not politicize decisions on broadcast license renewals based on the licensee’s coverage of the Trump administration. At the same time, Congress should make clear that Section 326 remains a binding constraint, not an optional guideline. And broadcasters themselves must resist the quiet drift toward self-censorship that such threats are designed to induce.

Because once the line between regulation and retaliation is blurred, it is exceedingly difficult to redraw.

At stake is not simply the fate of individual licenses or particular news organizations. It is whether Americans continue to receive information shaped by journalistic judgment—or by political pressure.

A democracy cannot function if its citizens hear only what those in power want them to hear.