Trump/Musk FCC Takes Aim at First Amendment

Extra!

The Newsletter of FAIR—The Media Watch Group April 2025 Vol. 38, No. 3

 

FCC Takes Aim at First Amendment

 

Deadline (1/22/25) noted that the last FCC chair, Jessica Rosenworcel,

dismissed the complaints Brendan Carr reinstated because “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.

by Ari Paul

 

B

rendan Carr, newly appointed chair of

the Federal Communications Com



mission, is waging a war on the news

media, perhaps the most dangerous front in

Donald Trump’s quest to destroy freedom of

the press and the First Amendment.

Trump’s FCC has revived right-wing re

quests to sanction local affiliates of ABC,

CBS and NBC TV stations over their election

coverage—complaints that had previously

been dismissed by the FCC as incompati

ble with the First Amendment’s guarantee

of a free press (Deadline, 1/22/25). Soon

after, Carr launched an investigation into

the diversity, equity and inclusion policies

of Comcast and NBCUniversal, announc

ing that other outlets would soon follow,

and into the underwriting of PBS and NPR

(Deadline, 2/17/25). 

 

Carr has also made it clear that he will

use the FCC to attack dissent, threatening to

revoke licenses for supposed anti-conserva

tive bias (Ars Technica, 12/17/24). Revok

ing licenses or blocking license renewals is

difficult legally, experts told Ars. But Carr

could use his position to pressure broad

casters and strangle them with costly legal

proceedings and red tape, even if he never

succeeds in taking a license away from a

broadcast station. 

 

Regulation to benefit the right 

 

Carr wrote the policy section on the FCC in

Project 2025, the right-wing policy agenda

guiding the second Trump administration.

In it, Carr vowed to eliminate “many of the

heavy-handed FCC regulations that were

adopted in an era when every technology

operated in a silo.”

US conservatism likes to sell itself as a

general resistance to federal regulation in

the marketplace, allowing for capitalism to

run free without government interference.

In reality, the struggle between

American liberals and conserva-

tives is more about what

kind of

regulation they want to see.

Just look at Carr’s record: He

likes regulation when it benefits

the right, and opposes it when

it doesn’t. His reported use of

his FCC power to investigate a

George Soros–linked investment

fund buying Audacy stations

(Fox News, 2/25/25) contrasts

with his rejection of calls to block

Musk’s takeover of Twitter (FCC,

4/27/22). 

 

He has spoken out against social media

content moderation (Wired, 11/20/24), but he

has supported the move to ban TikTok (NPR,

12/23/22), a campaign based on anti-Chinese

McCarthyist hysteria (FAIR.org, 3/14/24).

And while Carr revived the right-wing

FCC complaints about centrist networks,

he didn’t reintroduce a similarly dismissed

complaint challenging Fox News’ license

(Deadline, 1/22/25). 

 

‘A chilling effect’ 

 

Meanwhile, Trump sued CBS and its par

ent company Paramount for $20 billion on

claims that 60 Minutes had deceptively ed

ited an interview with Democratic presiden

tial candidate Kamala Harris; Paramount

is considering settling the suit, despite its

baselessness, as the litigation could impede

a lucrative potential merger that requires

government approval (Wall Street Journal,

1/17/25). 

 

ABC had already settled another bogus

Trump lawsuit for $15 million (FAIR.org,

12/16/24)—which indicates that even giv

ing Trump massive amounts of money will

not protect media outlets from the wrath of

MAGA.

Carr’s ideological campaign will almost

certainly have a chilling effect on any media

outlet with an FCC license. The Guardian

(2/24/25) cited American University law

professor Rebecca Hamilton on the danger

that “investigations risk creating a chilling

effect on the ability of journalists to report

without fear of retaliation.”

 

Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Free

dom of the Press Foundation, told FAIR that

“rather than guessing precisely what line of

attack might come next, broadcasters will

be incentivized to tone down their cover

age overall, and make it more friendly to the

Trump administration.” Worse, he added, the

viewers won’t know that such self-censorship

is happening. “We only know what gets aired,”

he said. “We don’t know what gets pulled.”

The only way to truly resist is for media

outlets to simply not comply with the insane,

authoritarian dictates of the Trump admin

istration—as AP has done by refusing to

rename the Gulf of Mexico, despite having

its White House correspondents blacklist

ed (FAIR.org, 2/18/25). Now is the time to

relentlessly and honestly report on the most

powerful political figure on earth, not to

back down.