But when Trump lashed out at NBC and ABC on Thursday night after both networks declined to air his White House speech on election security, the threat landed differently this time.
Unlike during Trump’s first term, when Republican leaders at the Federal Communications Commission publicly disavowed any such reprisals, the current FCC chair, Brendan Carr, has already opened formal probes and inquiries into the same television outlets that have drawn the president’s ire. Carr initiated an early review of ABC’s broadcast licenses months ago, signaling a shift in regulatory posture that has media policy veterans deeply concerned.
“We’ve never in this country had a law that permits a royal decree for news coverage,” said Robert Corn-Revere, a former top FCC official who now serves as chief counsel for the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression. “If you expressly link a licensing proceeding to whether or not the networks are airing coverage that the president wants covered, then whatever legitimacy that those proceedings have is gone.”
The legal stakes are significant. Broadcast television stations operate under licenses granted by the FCC, which are subject to renewal every eight years. While the agency has historically treated license renewal as a routine administrative matter, a concerted effort to revoke a license based on content or political coverage would almost certainly trigger a First Amendment challenge, legal experts said.
Carr’s approach marks a departure from the hands-off posture of his predecessors under both parties. During Trump’s first term, then FCC Chair Ajit Pai repeatedly deflected the president’s calls to punish networks, insisting the agency would not act as a speech police. Carr, by contrast, has embraced a more interventionist stance, opening investigations that align closely with the president’s public grievances against major media outlets.
The dynamic raises questions about the independence of the FCC, an agency that by design operates with some insulation from the White House. Policy veterans worry that Carr’s willingness to act on Trump’s complaints could erode that tradition and set a dangerous precedent for future administrations of either party. The commission’s five members, including three Republicans, would ultimately vote on any license revocation, but Carr controls the agency’s agenda and investigative resources.
For the television industry, the threat is no longer theoretical. ABC, NBC and other major broadcasters now face the prospect of prolonged regulatory scrutiny that could tie up resources and create uncertainty around their licenses. Even if no license is ultimately revoked, the chilling effect on news coverage could be substantial, media lawyers said.
The constitutional fight that would follow any attempt to revoke a license over political content would be historic. The Supreme Court has long held that the government cannot condition a broadcast license on a station’s willingness to air favorable coverage. But the question of whether the FCC can consider a station’s editorial decisions at all during the license renewal process remains a gray area that Carr’s actions may force the courts to clarify.
