FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has faced accusations of politicizing the agency since assuming the role in January 2025, particularly for his investigations into major media outlets and public broadcasters.
Carr has defended his actions as efforts to restore public trust in media and ensure broadcasters meet their public interest obligations, while critics argue he is weaponizing the FCC to target outlets critical of the Trump administration, thereby threatening press freedom. Below is a detailed exploration of Carr’s pushback against claims of politicization and his defense of media investigations, based on available information and critical analysis.
Carr’s tenure as FCC Chairman has been marked by a series of high-profile investigations into major broadcasters like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS, and KCBS radio, as well as inquiries into corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at companies like Comcast and Disney. These actions have drawn sharp criticism from Democrats, media experts, and some conservatives, who accuse Carr of using the FCC’s regulatory authority to advance partisan goals aligned with President Donald Trump’s media criticisms.
Carr launched an investigation into NPR and PBS, alleging their underwriting practices may violate FCC rules by crossing into commercial advertisements, which some see as a pretext to pressure public broadcasters and inform congressional efforts to defund them.
Carr initiated probes into Comcast and Disney’s DEI programs, suggesting they may violate FCC equal employment regulations, aligning with Trump’s executive order banning DEI initiatives. Critics argue these investigations overstep the FCC’s authority and target companies for political reasons.
Carr insists that broadcasters, who use public airwaves, must comply with FCC rules, including avoiding news distortion and adhering to equal-time provisions. He told POLITICO that broadcasters unwilling to meet these standards can “mail in their license” for reallocation to better uses, framing his actions as upholding regulatory accountability rather than political vendettas.
Carr’s pushback hinges on framing his investigations as regulatory enforcement rather than political attacks, but several points undermine this narrative:
Selective Enforcement: The decision to revive complaints against CBS, NBC, and ABC but not Fox News raises questions about impartiality. Critics, including FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, argue that the CBS probe, for instance, lacks evidence of rule violations, as CBS released unedited “60 Minutes” transcripts showing standard journalistic practices. The selective focus suggests political motivations, especially given Trump’s public calls to revoke CBS’s license.
First Amendment Risks: Legal experts and former FCC officials, like Tom Wheeler and Andrew Jay Schwartzman, contend that Carr’s investigations into editorial content (e.g., news distortion) overstep the FCC’s authority, which is limited to regulating transmission, not content. The Communications Act and First Amendment protect broadcasters from government interference in editorial decisions, and Carr’s actions risk a “chilling effect,” as evidenced by reports of broadcasters self-censoring to avoid FCC scrutiny.
Public Media Investigations: The NPR and PBS probes are seen as thinly veiled attempts to pressure public broadcasters, especially given Carr’s call to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.