Carr: FCC Not Independent..What Actually Does That Mean?

During a Senate oversight hearing last week, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr stated that the FCC is "not formally an independent agency," citing the absence of "for cause" removal protections for commissioners in the Communications Act of 1934. 

He argued that commissioners serve at the president's pleasure, aligning the agency with executive branch authority.

Brendan Carr

Shortly after Carr's testimony, the FCC website removed the phrase describing the agency as "an independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress." The change occurred minutes into the hearing, as noted by multiple outlets tracking the site.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) pressed Carr on the discrepancy, holding up a printout of the original website text. When asked if the site was "lying," Carr replied "possibly" before reiterating his position.

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) questioned whether it was appropriate for the president to remove commissioners over policy disagreements; Carr responded that the president can do so "for any reason or no reason at all."

Commissioner Olivia Trusty echoed Carr, stating commissioners lack removal protections and thus are not independent. Commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat, disagreed, affirming that the FCC is and should be independent.

Anna Gomez

Carr's stance contrasts with his prior statements and the FCC's traditional self-description. He referenced the 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld removal protections for some independent agencies, but argued it does not apply here due to the 1934 Act's lack of explicit protections.

The shift carries significant implications for the broadcast industry. If the FCC functions as an executive arm rather than an independent regulator, decisions on mergers, licensing, ownership rules, and enforcement may align more closely with White House priorities. Broadcasters could face heightened scrutiny if their content or strategies conflict with administration goals, while aligned entities might benefit.

The incident raises broader concerns about regulatory predictability, public interest obligations, and potential politicization of media oversight.