🔗 Share this article

“The FCC must uphold free expression,” wrote Brendan Carr in a conservative manifesto proposing visions for a potential Trump term.

That stance reflects previous comments Carr made online, such as a 2023 tweet where he called open dialogue as a “safeguard” on state power.

“Speech suppression constitutes the dictator’s dream,” Carr wrote at the time.

But the FCC chairman now stands at the center of a heated debate over ABC’s action to indefinitely cancel the late-night host’s program following comments referencing the shooting of right-wing personality Charlie Kirk.

Despite the cancellation appearing to contradict open discourse, the chairman has leveraged his authority to challenge networks he deems are not acting in the “general welfare”.

Changing Stance

Prior to assuming the role of FCC leader, he remarked that “airwave rights should not be considered protected” and vowed to enforce standards under the vague “public interest” standard established in the historic telecom law.

Carr has since pushed redefining what serving the common good means.

Carr remains experienced in agency operations. Carr was appointed to the commission by Trump in 2017 and subsequently named as leader in January. His experience includes roles as an FCC lawyer and advisor to former chair Ajit Pai.

Concern and Response

A former FCC chairman appointed by a Democratic administration characterized Carr as “highly intelligent” but warned that he is “using the loopholes in the term ‘public welfare’.”

Wheeler added that rather than reducing rules, the current government has “delivered such overreach.”

“It is not the proper job of the FCC chairman to become the censor-in-chief,” he said.

Following Kimmel’s removal, the chairman argued that his comments were not satire but attempts to “deceive the audience.”

The host had previously remarked that Maga-aligned groups were seeking to distance themselves from the perpetrator to gain advantage.

Wider Industry Consequences

The late-night host is not the chairman’s only target. As chair, he has used the commission’s formal tools and his public platform to highlight alleged media biases and pressure networks into implementing concessions.

For example, he has signaled that he would block mergers for entities with inclusion initiatives.

Such tactic has allegedly led multiple media companies to proactively align to avoid pushback from the current White House.

Constitutional Concerns

Anna Gomez at the FCC criticized Carr for “using the power of government power to suppress free commentary.”

Gomez called ABC’s decision a “disgraceful display of fear-driven surrender” that threatens First Amendment protections.

Gomez further warned that potential move to strip operating permits would probably be unprecedented and would be overturned in legal challenges due to constitutional safeguards.

“Even the risk of revoking a permit poses a significant risk,” she wrote. “It poses an existential risk to a media company.”

Political Endorsement

Trump has publicly praised the chairman and celebrated Kimmel’s suspension, calling it “Good for for America.”

He also encouraged NBC to let go additional comedians.

During growing criticism, Trump stood by Carr, calling him a “true American” who is “performing a excellent job.”

Unprecedented Methods

Within the agency, the chair has significant power and functions much like a CEO, establishing the priorities and overseeing what matters are considered.

Wheeler observed that the current chair has “perfected to a novel tactic” the capacity to accomplish results without a formal ruling by the agency body.

This method reduces opportunities for legal appeal, effectively circumventing established checks and balances.

Past Background

Historically, the FCC has taken a largely restrained posture toward content, noting that “open debate thrives by permitting free expression” and promoting “counter-speech” rather than restriction.

During Trump’s previous administration, then-chair Ajit Pai stated that the agency did not have the power to revoke broadcast licenses based on content.

Now, observers argue that the present chairmanship is pushing a increasingly ideological agenda.

What’s Next

During an recent appearance on a political show, Carr suggested at possible regulatory measures against the host and similar media figures.

He stated that companies could “do this the simple way or the difficult way,” suggesting that proactive concessions—such as on-air corrections—would be preferable to formal commission review.

Carr also referenced so-called “news distortion” and credited the president for exposing media “bias.”

Carr highlighted multiple current changes in media, including personnel changes and editorial shifts at prominent networks.

Whether the chairman continues using his position in this way remains unclear, but critics caution that the strategy may expand as long as it remains impactful.