Trump’s escalating takeover of FCC stoking First Amendment crisis

Editor’s note: “Behind the News” is the product of Sun staff assisted by the Sun’s AI lab, which includes a variety of tools such as Anthropic’s Claude, Perplexity AI, Google Gemini and ChatGPT.

President Donald Trump last week argued that U.S. broadcast networks should have their licenses reviewed if their programming is excessively critical of him. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One while returning from the UK, Trump said, “That’s something that should be talked about for licensing, too. When you have a network and you have evening shows, and all they do is hit Trump.”

“They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat party, the president said[1].

Trump’s comments came in the wake of ABC’s decision to suspend late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s show indefinitely after Kimmel made comments about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk [2]. These developments raise serious constitutional questions about government interference in media operations and the erosion of First Amendment protections.

The Jimmy Kimmel suspension

ABC suspended Kimmel after he made comments criticizing the response of Trump’s allies to Kirk’s death. The network justified the suspension by citing backlash over his remarks, describing them as “offensive and insensitive at a crucial time in our national political discourse” [3].

The suspension followed immediate pressure from major station affiliates, including Nexstar and Sinclair, both of which announced they would refuse to air Kimmel’s show following his segment. Nexstar declared that continuing to air Kimmel’s program was “not in the public interest right now” [4].

Significantly, ABC’s action was preceded by explicit public warnings from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who threatened that ABC’s broadcast licenses could be subject to review or revocation if the network did not take disciplinary action against Kimmel [5].

Multiple industry and rights advocates have condemned the suspension, with FCC commissioner Anna Gomez labeling the move as “cowardly,” and as a capitulation to governmental and political pressure, calling it an attack on free speech [7].

Constitutional and legal framework

Trump’s comments suggesting that broadcast networks should have their licenses reviewed for airing critical programming are deeply troubling because they challenge the basic principles of free speech and press freedom protected by the First Amendment [1].

Trump’s lack of authority

Trump does not have unilateral authority to determine what is broadcast on American television. The FCC is the independent regulatory body responsible for issuing eight-year licenses to local broadcast stations — not networks directly [8]. The First Amendment and the Communications Act expressly prohibit the FCC from censoring broadcast matter based on content, and the courts have consistently limited government’s power to interfere with editorial decisions due to constitutional protections for free speech [21].

FCC’s limited censorship powers

Free speech protections under the First Amendment place major limits on the FCC’s ability to censor broadcast content. The FCC cannot censor or punish the content of programs because of political viewpoints, criticism or controversy; it may only intervene in cases involving obscene, indecent or profane content, which the Supreme Court has narrowly defined and repeatedly limited [9].

Obscenity is not protected; indecency and profanity may be restricted to hours when children are less likely to be watching or listening, but not banned outright [10]. Most news, commentary, satire and even highly critical content about politicians is fully protected speech.

FCC actions to pressure stations into removing critical programming or suspending hosts — especially for speech about public issues — often risk violating the First Amendment. Courts have found that indirect censorship or coercion violates free speech when regulators threaten licenses or fines for protected content [11].

Standards for regulatory action

While journalists and entertainers must abide by standards prohibiting incitement, defamation and unprotected speech (like true threats or fighting words), these standards do not prevent criticism, satire or harsh commentary about public figures [13]. The threshold for restricting broadcast content is very high, and most political criticism — even if caustic or partisan — is protected.

Federal law and the FCC’s own policies emphasize that a diversity of views benefits the public; suppression of criticism or punishment of unpopular speech undermines democracy and journalistic independence [14]. The FCC’s history — including the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine — reflects recognition that government efforts to enforce “objectivity” or “balance” are often unconstitutional and antithetical to free speech principles [15].

FCC independence under pressure

The FCC is structured by law as an independent regulatory agency, separate from direct presidential control. Traditionally, it is supposed to operate with protection from political interference to ensure its decisions serve the public interest and uphold constitutional standards [16]. However, in practice, the president has substantial ability to influence the FCC — primarily by appointing its chair and commissioners, who typically share the administration’s policy priorities.

Erosion of independence

Recent developments — including Trump’s executive orders and judicial decisions — have started eroding FCC independence, making it easier for presidents to direct regulatory actions or remove agency leaders for any reason [17]. Direct White House involvement, regulatory threats and public pressure from the president and his surrogates have led the FCC to act in ways that align closely with presidential goals — even if formal processes remain technically separate [18].

Carr has leveraged his unilateral powers to shape investigations and enforce standards reflecting Trump administration interests, sometimes without formal commission votes — actions described by agency veterans as “coercive.” [5] His recent actions have drawn accusations of “weaponizing” the FCC against perceived political opponents, which is alarming to legal experts and First Amendment advocates [19].

Although the FCC retains some procedural independence, new executive orders now require increased White House oversight and review of major regulatory actions by agencies like the FCC [17]. If the Supreme Court further expands presidential removal powers, the FCC’s independence could be effectively ended, transforming it into an arm of executive branch policymaking.

Sources

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/18/trump-jimmy-kimmel-tv-network-licenses.html

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr4qe0rz2zvo

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/media/jimmy-kimmel-charlie-kirk-trump-fcc-brendan-carr

[4] https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a67950912/jimmy-kimmel-suspended-abc-charlie-kirk-comments-explained/

[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/business/media/jimmy-kimmel-suspension-brendan-carr-trumps-fcc-chair-rcna232091

[7] https://www.newsweek.com/jimmy-kimmel-show-cancelled-charlie-kirk-2131747

[8] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/18/trump-fcc-revoke-tv-licenses-negative-coverage/86223851007/

[9] https://www.justia.com/communications-internet/the-fcc-and-broadcast-content-regulation/

[10] https://fiveable.me/television-newsroom/unit-11/fcc-regulations-broadcast-standards/study-guide/6D9Z6dg7uh5pJ0Bn

[11] https://ncac.org/news/the-rise-of-the-federal-censorship-commission-fcc

[12] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-fcc-license-kimmel-first-amendment-b2829445.html

[13] https://freespeech.pitt.edu/rights-responsibilities

[14] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech

[15] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/fairness-doctrine/

[16] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/not-deregulation-but-heavy-handed-regulation-at-the-trump-fcc/

[17] https://www.insideglobaltech.com/2025/02/19/trump-administration-asserts-presidential-authority-over-independent-agencies/

[18] https://natlawreview.com/article/decoding-independent-agency-executive-order-implications-activities-federal

[19] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5511085-trump-administration-fcc-commissioner/

[20] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/18/us/trump-news

[21] https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting