“Chair of Trump’s FCC Aims to Cancel Broadcast Licenses, Yet the First Amendment May Pose an Obstacle”
**Brendan Carr Supports Trump’s Media Strategy: Legal Challenges and Obstacles in License Revocation**
Brendan Carr’s appointment as the new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President-elect Donald Trump has ignited considerable discussion regarding the FCC’s responsibilities in regulating broadcast media. A firm supporter of Trump, Carr has openly endorsed the former president’s demands to take action against media organizations seen as biased toward liberal viewpoints. Nevertheless, despite Carr’s statements, legal analysts contend that rescinding broadcast licenses or implementing penalties on networks represents a significant legal challenge filled with procedural hurdles.
### **Carr’s Perspective on the FCC**
Carr’s vision for the FCC marks a stark shift from his predecessors, such as Republican Ajit Pai and Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, both of whom were reluctant to fulfill Trump’s earlier requests to discipline broadcasters for purported anti-conservative sentiments. Carr aligns with Trump’s belief that broadcasters must be held responsible for failing to operate within the “public interest,” a principle established by the Communications Act of 1934. He has indicated his readiness to investigate and possibly revoke broadcast licenses, especially in cases where networks are claimed to misrepresent news or exhibit political bias.
In a December 6 interview with CNBC, Carr remarked, “The Communications Act mandates that you operate in the public interest. If you fail to do so, yes, one possible consequence is the loss of your license. Broadcast licenses are not inviolable.” Carr has also cited particular instances, such as CBS’s editing of a *60 Minutes* segment with Vice President Kamala Harris and NBC’s featuring of Harris on *Saturday Night Live*, as scenarios of perceived bias that justify FCC examination.
### **Legal and Procedural Complexities**
Despite Carr’s assertive remarks, legal authorities highlight that the process of revoking broadcast licenses is significantly more intricate than his statements might imply. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a senior counselor at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, underscores that the FCC’s power to revoke licenses is constrained by rigorous legal criteria and First Amendment protections.
Under the Communications Act, terminating a license before its term ends is virtually impossible unless there is clear evidence of serious wrongdoing, such as fraud or criminal conduct. Moreover, during license renewal periods, which transpire every eight years, the FCC faces a high legal bar to refuse a renewal based on content. Schwartzman observes, “The First Amendment prevents denial of renewal grounded in program content, and certainly not based on any expressed political opinions.”
Further complicating matters, the upcoming cycle of TV broadcast license renewals won’t occur until 2028, well after the conclusion of Trump’s potential second term. This schedule effectively restricts Carr’s ability to revoke licenses throughout his time as the FCC chair.
### **Alternatives to License Revocation**
While the outright cancellation of licenses may be legally difficult, Carr could still apply pressure on broadcasters in other ways. For instance, the FCC retains the authority to review license transfers during mergers and acquisitions. Carr has suggested using this mechanism to examine broadcasters accused of bias, potentially hindering or complicating those business moves.
Moreover, Carr has raised the possibility of reevaluating the FCC’s “Equal Time Rule,” which mandates that broadcasters provide equal opportunities to all political candidates. He has criticized NBC for supposedly breaching this rule by showcasing Harris on *Saturday Night Live*, despite the network complying by granting Trump equivalent airtime.
Though these strategies may not lead to revocation of licenses, they could impose financial and operational strains on broadcasters, compelling them to face expensive legal disputes and regulatory obstacles.
### **Internal and External Resistance**
Carr’s assertive viewpoint on broadcasters might encounter pushback not only from legal experts but also from within the FCC itself. Nathan Simington, the FCC’s other Republican commissioner, has raised concerns regarding the agency’s enforcement powers in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. Simington has committed to resisting any FCC fines until the agency clarifies its legal jurisdiction, referencing the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in *SEC v. Jarkesy*, which restricted federal bodies from imposing penalties absent jury trials.
Additionally, Carr’s moves could incite opposition from Congress and the broadcasting sector. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), a potent lobbying organization, is expected to challenge any efforts to limit broadcasters’ First Amendment protections. Schwartzman indicates that broadcasters enjoy robust ties with politicians, making it politically precarious for the FCC to target them. “Every member of Congress knows the general manager of every TV station in their district,” he stated.
### **Consequences for Future Administrations**
Carr’s initiative to penalize left-leaning broadcasters may create a precedent that subsequent administrations could use against conservative media outlets. This potential for reciprocal actions raises concerns regarding the long-term implications of politicizing the FCC’s regulatory powers. Schwartzman cautions that Carr’s strategy could threaten the FCC’s credibility and hinder its capacity to operate as an unbiased regulatory body.
### **Conservative Advocacy for Reform**
Some conservative organizations,
Read More
