When Donald Trump announced the appointment of Brendan Carr to the highest spot on the Federal Communications Fee, he referred to as Carr “a warrior for Free Speech.” Carr, in flip, pledged to “dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for on a regular basis People.” However Carr’s statements and actions each earlier than and since taking over his new function point out somebody all too comfy wielding authorities energy in opposition to media firms for politically disfavored speech.
“I feel he is probably the most anti–free speech FCC chair that we have had, so long as I can keep in mind,” says Techdirt founder Mike Masnick. “And I feel that is a little bit terrifying, particularly as he’s introduced by himself, Donald Trump, and the media as being a free speech warrior….But, time and again, we see that he is consistently attempting to assault and suppress and punish speech.”
Huge Tech Crackdown
Contemplate Carr’s November 2024 letter to the CEOs of Alphabet (which owns Google and YouTube), Apple, Meta (which owns Fb), and Microsoft. “People have lived by means of an unprecedented surge in censorship,” Carr wrote. He deemed these firms a part of a “censorship cartel” that had “silenced People for doing nothing greater than exercising their First Modification rights.”
Some social media firms did certainly work with the Biden administration to suppress on-line speech. However Carr didn’t ask about their acquiescence to authorities censorship requests: “I’m writing to acquire details about your work with one particular group—the Orwellian named NewsGuard.” He needed this data “to assist inform FCC motion.”
NewsGuard is a personal firm that employs journalists to fee the accuracy and reliability of stories retailers on a scale of 0–100. (It gave Purpose a perfect score “for the very best adherence to journalistic follow.”) It markets the service to advertisers, however customers may obtain software program that shows the scores of their internet browser. In his letter, Carr added that NewsGuard “has partnered with social media firms.”
NewsGuard is “a part of the broader censorship cartel,” Carr wrote, “leveraging its partnerships with promoting companies to successfully censors [sic] focused retailers.” On X, Carr later wrote that NewsGuard “operates for the aim of censoring viewpoints that fall exterior an accepted narrative. Its conduct has additionally led to collusive advert boycotts, which can violate antitrust and competitors legal guidelines.”
Carr’s argument was premised on a mistaken understanding of each the goal firm’s practices and the First Modification. “Neither of the social media firms (Alphabet and Meta) to which you wrote work with us in any respect,” NewsGuard cofounders and co-CEOs Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz wrote in reply. Additional, they added, “Our work doesn’t contain any censorship or blocking of speech.”
Extra to the purpose, NewsGuard’s score of stories retailers, and a tech firm’s resolution to permit their software program into its app retailer, are utterly throughout the bounds of protected speech. Even overtly calling for advertiser boycotts could be nicely inside a speaker’s rights. Except authorities coercion is concerned both explicitly or implicitly, it isn’t an act of censorship that violates the First Modification.
Carr’s letter additionally focused tech firms by threatening to revoke authorized legal responsibility protections enshrined in federal regulation. Section 230 of the Communications Act establishes that web sites can’t be held civilly responsible for content material posted by others, nor for actions “voluntarily taken in good religion to limit entry” to content material they discover “objectionable.”
However in his letter, Carr cited the regulation to threaten the tech CEOs. “As , Huge Tech’s prized legal responsibility protect, Part 230, is codified within the Communications Act, which the FCC administers,” he wrote. “As related right here, Part 230 solely confers advantages on Huge Tech firms after they function, within the phrases of the statute, ‘in good religion’….However NewsGuard’s personal observe file raises questions on whether or not counting on the group’s merchandise would represent ‘good religion’ actions throughout the that means of Part 230.” He later added: “Any tech firm that continues to depend on NewsGuard is placing its Part 230 protections in severe jeopardy.”
Carr will get it backward: Part 230 doesn’t require “good religion” as a prerequisite for legal responsibility safety. Moderately, it states that web sites bear no civil legal responsibility for issues that others put up, nor for moderation selections made “in good religion.” They do not forfeit these protections just by doing considered one of these the incorrect approach.
Carr additionally penned a chapter about the FCC for the Heritage Basis’s Mandate for Management, popularly often known as Venture 2025. Underneath the part “Reining In Huge Tech,” Carr wrote, “The FCC ought to problem an order that interprets Part 230 in a approach that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have learn into the statute” and “remind courts how the assorted parts of Part 230 function.” Particularly, Carr mentioned the FCC ought to “make clear” the interpretation of the statute to “appropriately restrict the variety of circumstances during which a platform can censor with the advantage of Part 230’s protections.”
Carr’s interpretation would not maintain up. “Part 230 itself incorporates no point out of FCC rulemaking authority to outline the bounds of the immunity it gives,” Lawrence J. Spiwak wrote in November for the Federalist Society. “Part 230, on its face, merely seems to supply digital platforms with an affirmative protection within the case of civil litigation.”
Carr cited an October 2020 memo by FCC then-Basic Counsel Thomas Johnson Jr. to say the FCC does have the authority to interpret Part 230. That authority, Johnson argued, “derived from the Supreme Court docket’s landmark resolution in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Pure Sources Protection Council, Inc., that ‘Congress is nicely conscious that the ambiguities it chooses to supply in a statute can be resolved by the implementing company.'”
However Johnson’s memo was launched simply two weeks earlier than the 2020 election, and his idea was by no means put into follow. Moreover, the Supreme Court docket notably overturned Chevron final 12 months in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, foreclosing the flexibility of the FCC or another company to “make clear” or “interpret” a statute by itself. “The message of Loper Brilliant to the FCC is obvious,” Spiwak wrote, “no matter your political needs, deciphering Part 230 shouldn’t be your job.”
Broadcast Badgering
Carr has additionally adopted Trump’s lead in threatening broadcast tv networks for protected speech.
In September, Trump participated in a televised presidential debate in opposition to his Democratic rival, then–Vice President Kamala Harris, on ABC. Community moderators fact-checked a few of his statements. In response, Trump grumbled: “They seem to be a information group. They need to be licensed to do it. [The FCC] ought to remove their license for the way in which they did that.”
Equally, when 60 Minutes interviewed Harris in October, CBS aired two completely different variations of considered one of her solutions: a clipped model within the primetime broadcast and an extended model on the Sunday morning present Face the Nation.
Trump then complained that CBS had “sliced and diced” her reply for the primetime broadcast “to make her look ‘extra Presidential.'” He mentioned the edit “have to be investigated, beginning right now” and added that the FCC ought to “TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE.”
Then, days earlier than the election, Harris briefly appeared on NBC’s Saturday Night time Dwell, triggering an FCC rule that if a candidate for public workplace seems on broadcast TV, the community should supply equal time below related phrases to any opposing candidate who requests it.
One downside with Trump’s demand? The most important networks do not need FCC licenses of their very own. Moderately, their many native associates do.
Nonetheless, the Middle for American Rights, a conservative nonprofit, filed FCC complaints in opposition to ABC and CBS associates for “information distortion,” and in opposition to an NBC affiliate for violating the equal time rule, asking the company to research and intervene.
In January 2025, outgoing FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel dismissed all three complaints. “The incoming President has referred to as on the Federal Communications Fee to revoke licenses for broadcast tv stations as a result of he disagrees with their content material and protection,” she wrote. “The motion we take makes clear two issues. First, the FCC shouldn’t be the President’s speech police. Second, the FCC shouldn’t be journalism’s censor-in-chief.”
However days after Carr took cost, the FCC reinstated the complaints in opposition to ABC, NBC, and CBS, noting that every dismissal was “issued prematurely primarily based on an inadequate investigatory file for the station-specific conduct at problem.”
Notably, Rosenworcel had additionally dismissed a complaint from the left-leaning Media and Democracy Venture asking the FCC to punish Fox Information Channel for airing “knowingly false narratives concerning the 2020 election” by doubtlessly revoking a Philadelphia FOX affiliate’s broadcast license. Rosenworcel wrote that the criticism “seeks to have the FCC take away the license of a tv station for the character shortcomings of its company possession” and dismissed it concurrently the opposite three.
Underneath Carr, the company revived the complaints in opposition to ABC, NBC, and CBS however left the FOX criticism dismissed. In a statement, the Media and Democracy Venture referred to as the act “a type of intimidation and corruption.”
Reinstating the complaints solely in opposition to networks Trump finds disfavorable “looks as if one other instance of [Carr] making selections and doling out potential punishment primarily based on ideological views and speech,” Masnick, the Techdirt founder, says. “And that appears very anti–First Modification and anti–free speech…however actually a part of the sample of what we have seen from Carr.”
Even earlier than assuming his new place, Carr was important of the three main broadcast networks. In July 2024, leisure conglomerate Paramount World agreed to an $8 billion merger with manufacturing firm Skydance Media. Since Paramount owns CBS, plus 14 of its affiliate stations, any sale or merger would contain the switch of broadcast licenses, giving the FCC authority over whether or not the deal can transfer ahead—particularly, if the deal would profit “the general public curiosity, comfort, and necessity.”
Carr has signaled that he will not make it straightforward on them. “There’s…a information distortion criticism on the FCC nonetheless, having to do with CBS, and CBS has a transaction earlier than the FCC,” Carr advised Fox Information’ Dana Perino in November. “I am fairly assured that that information distortion criticism over the CBS 60 Minutes transcript is one thing that is prone to come up within the context of the FCC’s evaluation of that transaction.”
Carr deemed Harris’ Saturday Night time Dwell cameo “a transparent and blatant effort to evade the FCC’s Equal Time rule” and “us[e] the general public airwaves to exert its affect for one candidate on the eve of an election…until the broadcaster provided Equal Time to different qualifying campaigns.” NBC filed a notice with the FCC the next day, saying Harris “appeared with out cost…for a complete interval of 1 minute and 30 seconds,” and to compensate, it aired a Trump advert twice without cost.
However Carr went even additional, telling Fox Information’ Maria Bartiromo, “We have to hold each single treatment on the desk. One of many cures the FCC has, finally, could be license revocation if we discover that it is egregious,” as a result of a punishment “wants to discourage this sort of conduct.”
And in December, Carr despatched a letter to the CEO of Disney, which owns ABC. Whereas nominally addressing Disney’s ongoing contract negotiations with some ABC associates, the letter’s tone was decidedly threatening.
“People not belief the nationwide information media to report absolutely, precisely, and pretty,” Carr started. “ABC’s personal conduct has actually contributed to this erosion in public belief.” As an instance the purpose, he cited the community’s latest resolution to settle a defamation lawsuit introduced by Trump. “People largely maintain optimistic views of their native media retailers,” he added, whereas “so many People not belief…the nationwide information media and programmers” like ABC.
“The method that ABC is outwardly taking in [affiliate] negotiations considerations me,” Carr warned. “I can be monitoring the result of your ongoing discussions,” and “the FCC can be compelled to behave” if he finds the result unsatisfactory. (On the finish of December, Grey Tv announced it had renewed all its affiliate agreements with ABC throughout 25 markets.)
“To no matter extent the FCC has professional pursuits in these negotiations—and if it does, it is a small one—that basically wasn’t the purpose of the letter,” says Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech coverage on the Basis for Particular person Rights and Expression (FIRE). “The menace is, should you say issues that I do not like or that I feel will anger the president of the US who appointed me, then I will train no matter rights that I’ve as FCC chair and wield the ability of this company to problem you in different methods.”
Certainly, Carr’s conduct signifies somebody keen to make use of his energy in authorities to profit his political allies—chief amongst them, the president who appointed him.
Days earlier than the 2024 election, Trump personally sued CBS over the 60 Minutes interview. He claimed the edit of Harris’ reply constituted client fraud and requested $10 billion in damages.
On condition that he gained the election, it is onerous to think about Trump suffered a lot precise injury. And the Supreme Court docket dominated in 1973 that editorial selections are lined by the First Modification: “For higher or worse, modifying is what editors are for; and modifying is choice and selection of fabric,” the Court docket wrote in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee. “That editors—newspaper or broadcast—can and do abuse this energy is past doubt, however that’s no cause to disclaim the discretion Congress offered.”
But simply days into Trump’s second time period, The New York Occasions reported that CBS would doubtless settle, as executives “consider that settling the lawsuit would improve the chances that the Trump administration doesn’t block or delay their deliberate multibillion-dollar merger.” The Wall Road Journal had beforehand reported, “It is develop into clear to executives” that “they’re going to doubtless want to supply concessions to win [Trump’s] approval,” and that Carr “gave Paramount executives a warning to that impact at a reception late final 12 months.”
In January, as a part of its evaluation of the Paramount/Skydance merger, the FCC additionally demanded “[a] full, unedited transcript and digicam feeds” of the October interview, which CBS agreed to supply.
“CBS Information executives have been already discussing releasing a full transcript of the interview with Kamala Harris earlier than the FCC inquiry,” the Los Angeles Occasions reported. “However they noticed that as a harmful precedent as a result of uncooked transcripts of edited interviews are sometimes solely launched to handle points associated to potential defamation.”
Carr says a transcript is important due to the reinstated criticism. “I do not see how the FCC can moderately adjudicate this declare of stories distortion with out seeing what was really mentioned,” he told CNN.
Carr’s defenders argue it is a professional inquiry. “I feel it is truthful to ask questions on issues like that, particularly when an organization like CBS is within the means of being acquired,” says Nathan Leamer, CEO of Fastened Gear Methods, who beforehand labored with Carr on the FCC and nonetheless considers him a pal. “They need to get authorization from the FCC, and plenty of instances the chairman and the commissioners use the chance to ask probing questions concerning the public curiosity.”
As to the edit, Leamer says it is price asking, “Are these selections journalistic editorial selections, or are they selections being despatched down from the company management construction?”
But Carr himself has additionally demonstrated that he understands all too nicely the ability governments can wield in opposition to broadcasters, and the way harmful federal inquiries might be.
When conservative cable channels aired Trump’s faulty claims about fraud within the 2020 election, then-Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney (D–Calif.) demanded to know why cable and satellite tv for pc firms had “finished nothing in response to the misinformation aired by these retailers.”
Carr’s response was unsparing. “It is a chilling transgression of the free speech rights that each media outlet on this nation enjoys,” he wrote in response. “A newsroom’s resolution about what tales to cowl and the way to body them needs to be past the attain of any authorities official, not focused by them. To the Home Democrats that used their official letterhead to launch this inquiry, I might say this: Your demand to know the ‘ethical rules’ that information a personal entity’s resolution about what information to hold can’t be reconciled with bedrock rules of free speech and journalistic freedom.”
But Carr has been no stranger to issuing threats, on his official letterhead, in opposition to newsrooms or firms engaged in protected speech of their very own. The one distinction is that on this case, it is speech he would not like.
