FCC

trump-fcc-threatens-to-enforce-equal-time-rule-on-late-night-talk-shows

Trump FCC threatens to enforce equal-time rule on late-night talk shows

brendan carr, Equal Time Rule, FCC, Policy / /

FCC Democrat says the rules haven’t changed

The equal-time rule, formally known as the Equal Opportunities Rule, applies to radio or TV broadcast stations with FCC licenses to use the public airwaves. When a station gives time to one political candidate, it must provide comparable time and placement to an opposing candidate if an opposing candidate makes a request.

The rule has an exemption for candidate appearances on bona fide news programs. As the FCC explained in 2022, “appearances by legally qualified candidates on bona fide newscasts, interview programs, certain types of news documentaries, and during on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events are exempt from Equal Opportunities.”

Entertainment talk shows have generally been treated as bona fide news programs for this purpose. But Carr said in September that he’s not sure shows like The View should qualify for the exemption, and today’s public notice suggests the FCC may no longer treat these shows as exempt.

Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the FCC, issued a press release criticizing the FCC for “a misleading announcement suggesting that certain late-night and daytime programs may no longer qualify for the long-standing ‘bona fide news interview’ exemption under the commission’s political broadcasting rules.”

“Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to our political broadcasting rules,” Gomez said. “The FCC has not adopted any new regulation, interpretation, or commission-level policy altering the long-standing news exemption or equal time framework. For decades, the commission has recognized that bona fide news interviews, late-night programs, and daytime news shows are entitled to editorial discretion based on newsworthiness, not political favoritism. That principle has not been repealed, revised, or voted on by the commission. This announcement therefore does not change the law, but it does represent an escalation in this FCC’s ongoing campaign to censor and control speech.”

Trump FCC threatens to enforce equal-time rule on late-night talk shows Read More »

verizon-to-stop-automatic-unlocking-of-phones-as-fcc-ends-60-day-unlock-rule

Verizon to stop automatic unlocking of phones as FCC ends 60-day unlock rule

FCC, phone unlocking, Policy, verizon / /

FCC waives rule that forced Verizon to unlock phones 60 days after activation.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

The Federal Communications Commission is letting Verizon lock phones to its network for longer periods, eliminating a requirement to unlock handsets 60 days after they are activated on its network. The change will make it harder for people to switch from Verizon to other carriers.

The FCC today granted Verizon’s petition for a waiver of the 60-day unlocking requirement. While the waiver is in effect, Verizon only has to comply with the CTIA trade group’s voluntary unlocking policy. The CTIA policy calls for unlocking prepaid mobile devices one year after activation, while devices on postpaid plans can be unlocked after a contract, device financing plan, or early termination fee is paid.

Unlocking a phone allows it to be used on another carrier’s network. While Verizon was previously required to unlock phones automatically after 60 days, the CTIA code says carriers only have to unlock phones “upon request” from consumers. The FCC said the Verizon waiver will remain in effect until the agency “decides on an appropriate industry-wide approach for the unlocking of handsets.”

The FCC rejected a request to at least limit the locking period to 180 days. The agency’s order said the CTIA code provides “an adequate threshold of ensuring Verizon consumers have competitive options and that granting this waiver will not impede those competitive options. We thus decline to limit today’s waiver to a period of 180 days.”

Until today’s waiver order, Verizon faced strict unlocking requirements that didn’t apply to other carriers. But that was by choice, as Verizon gained significant benefits in exchange for agreeing to unlocking requirements in 2008 when it purchased licenses to use 700 MHz spectrum, and again in 2021 when it agreed to merger conditions to obtain approval for its purchase of TracFone.

Goodbye, automatic unlocking

Verizon used to sell phones that were already unlocked, but in 2019 it obtained a waiver that allowed it to lock phones for 60 days in order to deter fraud. In March 2025, Verizon said the 60-day locking period wasn’t long enough to stop fraud and asked the FCC to waive the requirement.

In a press release today, the FCC said the Verizon rule “required one wireless carrier to unlock their handsets well earlier than standard industry practice, thus creating an incentive for bad actors to steal those handsets for purposes of carrying out fraud and other illegal acts.”

A statement from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said, “Sophisticated criminal networks have exploited the FCC’s handset unlocking policies to carry out criminal acts—including transnational handset trafficking schemes and facilitating broader criminal enterprises like drug running and human smuggling. By waiving a regulation that incentivized bad actors to target one particular carrier’s handsets for theft, we now have a uniform industry standard that can help stem the flow of handsets into the black market.”

Verizon’s current policy is for phones to be “remotely unlocked automatically 60 days after paid activation and 60 days of paid active service.” Phones already activated on the Verizon network won’t be affected by the waiver, according to the FCC.

“The terms of this waiver apply to all handsets that become active on Verizon’s network beginning the day after the release date of this Order,” the FCC ruling said. “The prospective application of this waiver will minimize customer confusion and interference with existing contractual arrangements and service agreements. Upon the release of this waiver, Verizon has stated that it will change its unlocking policies to follow those set out in the CTIA Consumer Code.”

Man sued Verizon to get phone unlocked

We recently wrote about a Kansas resident, Patrick Roach, who sued Verizon and complained to the FCC after the carrier refused to unlock an iPhone he purchased. Although the FCC took no action on Roach’s complaint, a small claims court ruled in his favor because Verizon tried to retroactively enforce a locking policy implemented in April 2025 on a phone Roach had bought before the policy change.

Verizon’s April 2025 policy change required “60 days of paid active service” before Verizon would unlock a customer’s phone. Roach alleged that this violated the FCC condition, which required Verizon to unlock phones 60 days after activation and did not say that Verizon may refuse to unlock a phone when a customer has not maintained paid service for 60 days. Going forward, today’s FCC ruling will render that distinction moot and make it easier for Verizon to avoid unlocking phones.

The Verizon petition was opposed in a filing by Public Knowledge, the Benton Foundation, Consumer Reports, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, iFixit, and other groups. The automatic unlocking enforced through the FCC condition was good for consumers and competition, the groups said.

“Automatic unlocking reduces switching costs, enhances competition, and promotes a more efficient and sustainable device marketplace,” the groups said. “It facilitates the resale and reuse of mobile devices, reduces e-waste, and enables low-cost carriers and MVNOs to compete on a more level playing field. The opposite, which Verizon seeks through its waiver request, merely serves as a way to keep customers locked in one provider.”

FCC cites law enforcement arguments

The consumer groups’ filing argued that “Verizon offers no specific evidence that a longer lock period would have prevented the fraudulent acquisition of the devices it identifies,” and said the carrier is capable of detecting and responding to fraud during the 60-day locking period.

“It can flag suspicious purchases, deny unlocking to devices that show signs of trafficking, and pursue legal or contractual remedies against fraudulent actors,” the groups said. “The Commission has previously found that 60 days is a reasonable and sufficient period to allow providers to identify and act upon fraudulent behavior. Verizon has not shown that these prior determinations were in error or that its current loss mitigation measures are being overwhelmed solely because of the unlocking rule.”

The FCC rejected these arguments, saying it found that the 60-day period has been insufficient to deter fraud. “Verizon explains that the globalization of 4G LTE and 5G technologies in recent years has created a ready overseas market for fraudulently obtained handsets, and stolen handsets are frequently sold or distributed to a secondary black market in countries that do not participate in GSMA blocking,” the FCC said.

The agency said the waiver will address concerns of law enforcement associations that supported Verizon’s petition. “Law enforcement commenters have convincingly linked our handset unlocking policies and public safety matters on the basis that the current 60-day policy has impacted law enforcement lives and requires that law enforcement entities dedicate significant resources to investigating stolen handsets rather than focus on other public safety matters,” the FCC said.

Verizon issued a statement thanking the FCC for the waiver. “The FCC’s action will end bad actors’ ability to exploit the FCC’s unlocking rules to profit from easier access to expensive, heavily subsidized devices in the US that they traffic and sell to other parts of the world,” Verizon said. “Before today’s decision, the FCC’s rules have benefitted these international criminal gangs at the expense of legitimate American consumers.”

Cable lobby group NCTA was not pleased by the FCC decision. Cable companies have increasingly been competing against large mobile carriers by offering wireless service in recent years.

“Mobile phone unlocking delivers clear pro-consumer benefits, saving billions of dollars across the mobile marketplace by expanding choice, competition, and affordability,” the NCTA said. “Today’s decision delays these benefits, underscoring the need for a clear, uniform framework so all wireless providers operate under the same rules.” The NCTA has urged the FCC to implement a 180-day unlocking requirement.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Verizon to stop automatic unlocking of phones as FCC ends 60-day unlock rule Read More »

supreme-court-takes-case-that-could-strip-fcc-of-authority-to-issue-fines

Supreme Court takes case that could strip FCC of authority to issue fines

AT&T, FCC, Policy, T-Mobile, verizon / /

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could invalidate the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to issue fines against companies regulated by the FCC.

AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile challenged the FCC’s ability to punish them after the commission fined the carriers for selling customer location data without their users’ consent. AT&T convinced the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to overturn its fine, while Verizon lost in the 2nd Circuit and T-Mobile lost in the District of Columbia Circuit.

Verizon petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse its loss, while the FCC and Justice Department petitioned the court to overturn AT&T’s victory in the 5th Circuit. The Supreme Court granted both petitions to hear the challenges and consolidated the cases in a list of orders released Friday. Oral arguments will be held.

In 2024, the FCC fined the big three carriers a total of $196 million for location data sales revealed in 2018, saying the companies were punished “for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect that information against unauthorized disclosure.” Carriers challenged in three appeals courts, arguing that the fines violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Carriers claim FCC violates right to jury trial

The carriers’ cases against the FCC rely on the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that a similar but not identical SEC system for issuing fines violated the right to a jury trial.

The conservative-leaning 5th Circuit appeals court decided that the FCC violated AT&T’s rights while “act[ing] as prosecutor, jury, and judge.” But the 2nd Circuit and District of Columbia Circuit courts found that each carrier could have obtained a jury trial if it simply decided not to pay the fine.

Supreme Court takes case that could strip FCC of authority to issue fines Read More »

wi-fi-advocates-get-win-from-fcc-with-vote-to-allow-higher-power-devices

Wi-Fi advocates get win from FCC with vote to allow higher-power devices

FCC, Policy, wi-fi / /

“This is important for Wi-Fi 7 as well as Wi-Fi 6,” Feld wrote today in response to the Carr plan. “But we need a real pipeline for more unlicensed spectrum. Glad to see value of unlicensed acknowledged. Looking forward to more of it.”

Risk to Wi-Fi spectrum appears low

Despite the positive response to Carr’s plan this week, there’s still a potential threat to Wi-Fi’s use of the 6 GHz band. The 1,200 MHz between 5.925 and 7.125 GHz was allocated to Wi-Fi in April 2020, but a plan to auction spectrum to wireless carriers could take some of those frequencies away from Wi-Fi.

A law approved by Congress and Trump in July 2025 requires the FCC to auction at least 800 MHz of spectrum, some of which could come from the 6 GHz band currently allocated to Wi-Fi or the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) in the 3550 MHz to 3700 MHz range. The FCC has some leeway to decide which frequencies to auction, and its pending decision in the matter will draw much interest from groups interested in preserving and expanding Wi-Fi and CBRS access.

Calabrese said in June 2025 that 6 GHz and CBRS “are the most vulnerable non-federal bands for reallocation and auction.” But now, after Trump administration statements claiming 6 GHz Wi-Fi as a key Trump accomplishment and support from congressional Republicans, Calabrese told Ars today that reallocation of Wi-Fi frequencies “seems far less likely.” Advocates are “far more worried about CBRS now than 6 GHz,” he said.

In addition to consumer advocacy groups, the cable industry has been lobbying for Wi-Fi and CBRS, putting it in opposition to the mobile industry that seeks more exclusive licenses to use airwaves. Cable industry lobby group NCTA said yesterday that it is “encouraged by the FCC’s action to enhance usage in the 6 GHz band. With Wi-Fi now carrying nearly 90 percent of mobile data, securing more unlicensed spectrum is essential to keep up with surging consumer demand, power emerging technologies, and ensure fast, reliable connections for homes, businesses, and communities nationwide.”

Wi-Fi advocates get win from FCC with vote to allow higher-power devices Read More »

letting-prisons-jam-contraband-phones-is-a-bad-idea,-phone-companies-tell-fcc

Letting prisons jam contraband phones is a bad idea, phone companies tell FCC

brendan carr, FCC, Policy, prison phone jamming / /

FCC hopes you like jammin’ too

“Jamming will block all communications,” including 911 calls, CTIA tells FCC.

Credit: Getty Images | da-kuk

A Federal Communications Commission proposal to let state and local prisons jam contraband cell phones has support from Republican attorneys general and prison phone companies but faces opposition from wireless carriers that say it would disrupt lawful communications. Groups dedicated to Wi-Fi and GPS also raised concerns in comments to the FCC.

“Jamming will block all communications, not just communications from contraband devices,” wireless lobby group CTIA said in December 29 comments in response to Chairman Brendan Carr’s proposal. The CTIA said that “jamming blocks all communications, including lawful communications such as 911 calling,” and argued that the FCC “has no authority to allow jamming.”

CTIA members AT&T and Verizon expressed their displeasure in separate comments to the FCC. “The proposed legal framework is based on a flawed factual premise,” AT&T wrote.

While the Communications Act prohibits interference with authorized radio communications, Carr’s plan tries to sidestep this prohibition by proposing to de-authorize certain communications, AT&T wrote. “This legal framework, however, is premised on a fundamental factual error: the assumption that jammers will only block ‘unauthorized’ communications without impacting lawful uses. There is no way to jam some communications on a spectrum band but not others,” AT&T wrote.

Previous FCC leaders recognized the problem that radio jammers can’t differentiate between contraband and legitimate devices, AT&T said. “As explained above, there are no technical workarounds to that limitation with respect to jammers,” AT&T wrote.

“Jammers block all wireless communications”

In 2013, the FCC explained that jamming systems transmit on the same frequencies as their targets in order to disrupt the links between devices and network base stations and that this process “render[s] any wireless device operating on those frequencies unusable. When used to disrupt wireless devices, radio signal jammers cannot differentiate between contraband devices and legitimate devices, including devices making 911 calls. Radio signal jammers block all wireless communications on affected spectrum bands.”

That apparently hasn’t changed. The FCC’s new proposal issued in September 2025 said the commission’s “understanding is that jamming solutions block calls on all affected frequencies and… are unable to allow 911 calls to be transmitted.” But the proposal indicates this may be an acceptable outcome, as “some state DOC [Department of Corrections] officials have indicated that correctional facilities typically do not allow any calls from within, including emergency calls.”

If the FCC adopts its plan, it would “authorize, for the first time, non-federal operation of radio frequency (RF) jamming solutions in correctional facilities,” the proposal said.

Carr said in September that previous FCC actions, such as authorizing “contraband interdiction systems” and letting wireless carriers disable contraband phones at a prison’s request, have not been enough. “Contraband cellphones have been pouring into state and local prisons by the tens of thousands every year,” Carr said. “They are used to run drug operations, orchestrate kidnappings, and further criminal enterprises in communities all across the country.”

Carr said that prisons and jails will not be required to install jamming systems and that the FCC “proposes to authorize targeted jamming. Jamming technology can be precise enough that it does not interrupt the regular communications of law enforcement or community members in the vicinity.” The FCC proposal asks the public for comment on “restrictions that might prove necessary to ensure that jamming solutions are limited to this targeted use, and to mitigate the risk that these solutions are deployed in contexts other than a correctional facility environment.”

Jamming has support from 23 state attorneys general, all Republicans, who told the FCC that “inmates routinely use smuggled phones to coordinate criminal enterprises, intimidate witnesses, and orchestrate violence both inside and outside prison walls.” More jamming support came from the state Department of Corrections in both Florida and South Carolina.

Prison phone companies like jamming

Prison phone companies that would financially benefit from increased use of official phone systems also support jamming cell phones. Global Tel*Link (aka ViaPath) called the plan “one more tool to help combat the serious problem of contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities.”

NCIC Correctional Services, another prison phone firm, said that jamming to create “‘dead zones’ within correctional facilities would permit smaller jails to restrict contraband device access where it is not cost-effective to install managed access systems.” Detection Innovation Group, which sells inmate-tracking technology to prisons and jails, also urged the FCC to allow jamming.

Telecom industry groups say that limiting the effect of jamming will be difficult or impossible. The harms identified over a decade ago “remain the same today, although their effects are magnified by the increased use of wireless devices for broadband,” said the Telecommunications Industry Association, a standards-development group. “If an RF jamming solution is deployed at a correctional facility, such deployment risks not only interfering with voice communications but disrupting vital broadband services as well within the facility itself as well as the surrounding community.”

Verizon told the FCC that the Communications Act “requires more restrictive use of jamming devices than the NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] proposes.” The CTIA argued that jamming isn’t necessary because the wireless industry already offers Managed Access Systems (MAS) as “a safe and effective contraband interdiction ecosystem.”

A Managed Access System establishes “a private cellular network that captures communications (voice, text, data) on commercial wireless frequencies within a correctional facility, determines whether that exchange is coming from or going to a contraband device, and, if so, prevents those communications from connecting to the wireless provider’s network,” the CTIA said. “At the same time, MAS allows communications to and from approved devices to be transmitted without interruption, including 911 and public safety calls within the correctional facility.”

Wi-Fi and GPS groups warn of jamming risks

More opposition came from the Wi-Fi Alliance, a tech industry group that tests and certifies interoperability of Wi-Fi products. The FCC proposal failed to “address the potential impact of such jamming on lawfully operating Wi-Fi and other unlicensed devices,” the group told the FCC.

The FCC plan is not limited to jamming of phones on spectrum licensed for the exclusive use of wireless carriers. The FCC additionally sought comment on whether contraband devices operating on Wi-Fi airwaves and other unlicensed spectrum should be subject to jamming. That’s concerning to the Wi-Fi Alliance because Wi-Fi operates on unlicensed spectrum that is shared by many users.

“Accordingly, declaring that a jammer on unlicensed spectrum is permitted to disrupt the communications of another device also operating on unlicensed spectrum is contrary to the foundational principle of Part 15 [of FCC rules], under which all unauthorized devices must cooperate in the use of spectrum,” the group said. “Moreover, authorizing the use of jamming equipment in unlicensed spectrum pursuant to Part 15 would undermine decades of global spectrum policy, weaken trust in license-exempt technologies by providing no assurance that devices using those technologies will work, and set a dangerous precedent for the intentional misuse of unlicensed spectrum.”

Letting jammers interfere with Wi-Fi and other unlicensed devices would effectively turn the jammers into “a de facto licensed service, operating with primary status in bands that are designated for unlicensed use,” the Wi-Fi Alliance said. “To achieve that undesirable result, the Commission would be required to change the Table of Frequency Allocations and issue authorizations for operations on unlicensed spectrum (just as it contemplates for the use of cell phone spectrum in jamming devices). That outcome would upend the premise of Part 15 operations.”

The GPS Innovation Alliance, another industry group, warned that even if the FCC imposes strict limits on transmission power and out-of-band emissions, “jammer transmissions can have spillover effects on adjacent and nearby band operations. Only specialized, encrypted signals, and specialized receivers and devices designed to decrypt those signals, are jam-resistant, in contrast to how most commercial technologies work.”

Now that public comments are in, Carr has to decide whether to move ahead with the plan as originally written, scrap it entirely, or come up with a compromise that might address some of the concerns raised by opponents. The FCC’s NPRM suggests a pilot program could be used to evaluate interference risks before a broader rollout, and the pilot idea received some support from carriers in their comments. A final proposal would be put to a vote of commissioners at the Republican-majority FCC.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Letting prisons jam contraband phones is a bad idea, phone companies tell FCC Read More »

fcc’s-import-ban-on-the-best-new-drones-starts-today

FCC’s import ban on the best new drones starts today

dji, Drones, FCC, Policy, Tech, unmanned aircraft systems / /

DJI sent numerous requests to the US government to audit its devices in hopes of avoiding a ban, but the federal ban was ultimately enacted based on previously acquired information, The New York Times reported this week.

The news means that Americans will miss out on new drone models from DJI, which owns 70 percent of the global drone market in 2023, per Drone Industry Insights, and is widely regarded as the premium drone maker. People can still buy drones from US companies, but American drones have a lackluster reputation compared to drones from DJI and other Chinese companies, such as Autel. US-made drones also have a reputation for being expensive, usually costing significantly more than their Chinese counterparts. DaCoda Bartels, COO of FlyGuys, which helps commercial drone pilots find work, told the Times that US drones are also “half as good.”

There’s also concern among hobbyists that the ban will hinder their ability to procure drone parts, potentially affecting the repairability of approved drones and DIY projects.

US-based drone companies, meanwhile, are optimistic about gaining business in an industry where it has historically been hard to compete against Chinese brands. It’s also possible that the ban will just result in a decline in US drone purchases.

In a statement, Michael Robbins, president and CEO of the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), which includes US drone companies like Skydio as members, said the ban “will truly unleash American drone dominance” and that the US cannot “risk… dependence” on China for drones.

“By prioritizing trusted technology and resilient supply chains, the FCC’s action will accelerate innovation, enhance system security, and ensure the US drone industry expands rather than remaining under foreign control,” Robbins said.

Understandably, DJI is “disappointed” by the FCC’s decision, it said in a statement issued on Monday, adding:

While DJI was not singled out, no information has been released regarding what information was used by the Executive Branch in reaching its determination. Concerns about DJI’s data security have not been grounded in evidence and instead reflect protectionism, contrary to the principles of an open market.

FCC’s import ban on the best new drones starts today Read More »

no-one-loves-president-trump-more-than-fcc-chairman-brendan-carr

No one loves President Trump more than FCC Chairman Brendan Carr

Anna Gomez, brendan carr, FCC, Features, Policy, president trump, tom wheeler / /

Trump’s biggest fan runs the FCC

Carr used to insist on FCC independence. Now he uses FCC to fight Trump’s battles.

President-elect Donald Trump speaks to Brendan Carr, his intended pick for Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, as he attends a SpaceX Starship rocket launch on November 19, 2024 in Brownsville, Texas. Credit: Getty Images | Brandon Bell

Before he became chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr seemed to be a big believer in the agency’s role as an independent branch of the federal government. According to the pre-2025 version of Brendan Carr, the White House interfered with the agency’s independence when a Democratic president publicly urged the FCC to adopt net neutrality rules.

When the Biden-era FCC reinstated Obama-era net neutrality rules in 2024, Carr alleged that President Biden “took the extraordinary step to pressure the FCC—an independent agency that is designed to operate outside undue political influence from the Executive Branch.” As evidence, Carr pointed to a 2021 executive order in which Biden called on agency heads to “consider using their authorities” for various types of pro-competitive policies, including the adoption of net neutrality rules.

Carr said that President Obama similarly “pressure[d] an independent agency into grabbing power that the Legislative Branch never said it had delegated.” Obama’s intrusion into this independence, according to Carr, came in November 2014 when the president released a two-minute video urging the agency to implement net neutrality rules and reclassify broadband providers as common carriers.

While the FCC was created as an independent agency, it isn’t apolitical. There are Republican and Democratic members, and by design, the president’s party has a majority. FCC policies change dramatically from one administration to the next.

But Carr couldn’t have been clearer about his belief that the president should not publicly urge the FCC to take specific actions. “The White House did not let the FCC chair do his job,” Carr said last year, referring to the events of 2014 and 2015 involving Obama and then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “The president intervened. He flipped him.”

But then Donald Trump won a second term in office and promoted Commissioner Carr to the position of FCC chairman in January 2025. A few weeks later, Trump issued an executive order declaring that historically independent agencies could no longer operate independently from the White House.

Carr’s devotion to President Trump

Trump has continued his longtime practice of publicly calling on FCC chairs to revoke broadcast licenses from news organizations that Trump dislikes. Former FCC chairs Jessica Rosenworcel and Ajit Pai rejected these calls when they led the agency. Carr has instead amplified Trump’s complaints and repeatedly threatened to revoke broadcast licenses through investigations into news distortion.

Carr, a longtime Trump supporter who sometimes wears a Trump-shaped lapel pin, wrote a Project 2025 chapter in 2023 describing how the FCC should be overhauled to achieve conservative priorities. It was never likely that he and Trump would differ much in their policy positions. But few, if any, leaders of historically independent agencies have aligned themselves with Trump as consistently and vocally as Carr has in his first year as FCC chairman.

Carr’s devotion to the president has been most obvious to the general public whenever he threatens broadcaster licenses. But Carr hardly seems independent of Trump when it comes to his other actions as head of the FCC. His press releases announcing various types of FCC decisions often praise Trump’s leadership and say the FCC is acting to advance a Trump priority.

“We are fully aligned with the agenda that President Trump is running,” Carr told The Wall Street Journal.

Far from insisting that the FCC make decisions independently, Carr has welcomed Trump’s direct orders. After Trump issued a December 11 executive order requiring the FCC to open a proceeding that could lead to preemption of state AI laws, Carr issued a statement saying that “the FCC welcomes President’s Trump’s direction.”

We emailed Carr in early December, requesting a phone interview or comments about whether he still believes the FCC should operate independently from the White House and did not receive a response. But on December 17, Carr confirmed during a Senate hearing that he no longer believes the FCC is independent from the White House.

“There’s been a sea change in the law since I wrote that sentence,” he said after being confronted with one of his previous statements describing the agency as independent. “The FCC is not an independent agency” because “the president can remove any member of the commission for any reason or no reason,” he said.

Wheeler, who is still active in tech and telecom policy at the Brookings Institution and Harvard Kennedy School, has watched the current FCC with dismay. “The FCC is a policy agency that exists in a political environment, and the Trump administration has turned it into a political agency existing in a policy environment,” Wheeler told Ars in a phone interview early this month.

Wheeler said he has “respect for Brendan, his brain, his political skills, his way of framing issues and expressing himself. I’m disappointed that he’s using them in the manner that he is, in just being a cipher for the MAGA agenda.”

Wheeler: Obama “never called me”

Congress created the FCC in 1934. As indications of its independence, the FCC has commissioners with specified tenures, a multimember structure, partisan balance, and adjudication authority. The agency can also issue regulations within limits set by Congress and courts.

US law lists 19 federal agencies, including the FCC, that are classified as “independent regulatory agencies.” The FCC’s independence was until recently acknowledged by the FCC itself, which said on its website that it is “an independent US government agency overseen by Congress.” Carr apparently wasn’t aware that the statement was still on the website until the December 17 Senate hearing. It was deleted quickly after Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) asked Carr, “Is your website wrong, is your website lying?”

Then-Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai smiling and talking to each other before a Congressional hearing.

Then-Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler (L) and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai talk before testifying to the House Judiciary Committee on March 25, 2015, in Washington, DC.

Then-Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler (L) and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai talk before testifying to the House Judiciary Committee on March 25, 2015, in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla

“Congress said, ‘you should be an independent agency,’ and Trump steps up and says, ‘no, you’re not an independent agency,’” Wheeler said. “Brendan apparently is going along with that if you judge from his trips to Mar-a-Lago and elsewhere.” Wheeler is also disappointed that after Trump’s executive order, “the Congress rolled over and just said, ‘oh, fine.’”

When Wheeler led a 2015 vote to implement net neutrality rules, Republicans in Congress claimed the agency was improperly influenced by Obama. “Five days of hearings under oath and an IG investigation that cleared me of wrongdoing,” Wheeler said, recalling the post-vote investigations by Congress and the FCC’s independent Inspector General’s office. “It was political. It was Republican-controlled committees who were looking for a reason to go after a Democratic-controlled FCC,” he said.

At the time, Wheeler told Congress there were “no secret instructions” from Obama. Wheeler said he treated Obama’s input “with respect” but also listened to “nearly four million Americans, who overwhelmingly spoke in favor of preserving a free and open Internet” in comments to the FCC.

Wheeler told Ars that during his term as FCC chairman, Obama “never called me.” Wheeler said that in his first week as chairman in 2013, “he said to me, ‘Tom, I will never call you. You’re an independent agency,’ and he was good to his word. Did he do a video? Yeah. Does he have a right to do a video? Of course.”

FCC decisions “coordinated through the White House”

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the FCC, said in a phone interview in early December that “it is appropriate for the president to have an opinion, even to put an opinion out there,” as Biden and Obama did on net neutrality. “The public statements are different than actions,” she said. “What we’re seeing now are direct actions to undermine our independence.”

Gomez said Trump’s frequent demands on the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses have a “more coercive effect” because of “the overall actions by this president to fire anyone that doesn’t do his will.” That includes Trump firing both Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission, another historically independent agency.

The Supreme Court has so far allowed the firing of former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter to stand while Slaughter’s lawsuit against Trump remains pending. At oral arguments, it appeared likely that the Supreme Court will rule that Trump can fire FTC commissioners.

At the December 17 Senate hearing, Carr cited the FTC case to support his view that the FCC isn’t independent. Carr said it used to be assumed that FCC commissioners would be protected from removal by the Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which unanimously held that the president can only remove FTC commissioners for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

The Communications Act was passed one year before Humphrey’s Executor and did not include explicit protection from removal, but “the theory had been that courts would read for-cause removal into the [Communications] statute and that was the basis for that viewpoint,” Carr said. “I think now it’s clear that’s not the case, so formally speaking the FCC isn’t independent because we don’t have that key piece, which is for-cause removal protection.” Carr said “the sine qua non of independence” is having protection from removal by the president.

Gomez has said she doesn’t know why Trump hasn’t fired her yet. “That erosion of our independence is negative for a variety of reasons,” Gomez said. “What worries me is that we will continue to see this White House pressure the FCC to favor or punish certain companies, to influence media ownership or media coverage, and to shape what information reaches the public.”

Gomez said the agency this year started sending decisions to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review before they are voted on. This practice is in line with one of the directives in the Trump executive order that declared independent agencies are no longer independent.

“We have a multi-member commission that makes these decisions, and somehow this is all getting coordinated through the White House before [the commissioners] vote on something. That is not independent,” Gomez said. While there were previously post-vote reviews, such as the standard reviews required under a 1980 law called the Paperwork Reduction Act, the OIRA process consists of “pre-clearance and approval of anything that we’re voting on. That is new,” Gomez said.

Gomez doesn’t know if those reviews have resulted in any significant changes to FCC actions before votes. “I’m not privy to that,” she said.

Carr heaps praise on Trump

Even before the Trump executive order that purported to eliminate the FCC’s independence, Carr attributed one of his first actions to an order from Trump. One day after the January 20 inauguration, Carr announced that he was ending the FCC’s promotion of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies. The press release said the FCC action was taken “pursuant to” Trump’s day-one executive order on DEI.

“Today, pursuant to the policies stated in the Executive Order, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that he is ending the FCC’s promotion of DEI,” the January 21 press release said. In the months since, Carr has repeatedly demanded that companies end internal DEI practices in exchange for FCC merger approvals.

Carr’s press releases announcing FCC decisions have continued to praise Trump for his leadership of the country. Instead of stating that the FCC makes decisions independently, without “undue political influence from the Executive Branch,” Carr’s press releases often specifically describe FCC decisions as advancing Trump’s agenda.

“This action follows President Trump’s leadership and the Trump Administration’s decision to usher in prosperity through deregulation,” one such Carr press release said while announcing the “Delete, Delete, Delete” plan to eliminate many of the agency’s regulations.

Carr makes statements praising Trump both when he announces decisions on politically charged topics and when he announces decisions on more routine matters handled by the FCC. “With President Trump’s leadership, America is entering a new Golden Age of innovation in space—one where US businesses are going to dominate,” Carr said in October to explain why he was making changes to space licensing and spectrum use rules.

Carr: “Trump is fundamentally reshaping the media landscape”

Of course, Carr’s most controversial initiative almost certainly wouldn’t exist if not for President Trump’s frequent demands that news outlets be punished for supposed bias. Carr’s approach differs markedly from the two previous FCC chairs—Rosenworcel, a Democrat, and Pai, a Republican—who said the FCC should avoid regulating broadcast content in order to uphold the free speech protections in the First Amendment.

By contrast, Carr has repeatedly threatened to enforce the FCC’s previously dormant news distortion policy against broadcasters by taking away station licenses. Carr has made it clear in numerous public statements that he’s taking his cue from Trump.

“For years, people cowed down to the executives behind these companies based in Hollywood and New York, and they just accepted that these national broadcasters could dictate how people think about topics, that they could set the narrative for the country—and President Trump fundamentally rejected it,” Carr told Newsmax in July. “He smashed the facade that these are gatekeepers that can determine what people think. Everything we’re seeing right now flows from that decision by President Trump, and he’s winning. PBS has been defunded. NPR has been defunded. CBS is committing to restoring fact-based journalism… President Trump stood up to these legacy media gatekeepers, and now their business models are falling apart.”

Carr made that statement after approving CBS owner Paramount’s $8 billion merger with Skydance on the condition that the company install an ombudsman, which Carr described as a “bias monitor.” Carr only approved the transaction once Paramount reached a $16 million settlement with Trump, who sued the company because he didn’t like how CBS edited a pre-election interview with Kamala Harris.

While the FCC order claimed the merger approval and ombudsman condition were unrelated to the Trump lawsuit, Carr repeatedly credited Trump for forcing changes at news broadcasters when giving interviews about that and other FCC actions. Carr uses similar language throughout these various interviews, saying that Trump “ran directly at” news organizations during his election campaign and “smashed the facade.”

“President Trump is fundamentally reshaping the media landscape,” he said in one interview. He said in another that “President Trump ran directly at the legacy mainstream media, and he smashed a facade that they’re the gatekeepers of truth.”

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul say Carr went too far

When Carr threatened the licenses of ABC stations over comments made by comedian Jimmy Kimmel, even some prominent Republicans said he went too far. “Brendan Carr has got no business weighing in on this,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said, calling Carr’s statement that ABC owner Disney must take action against Kimmel “absolutely inappropriate.”

Carr unconvincingly claimed that he never threatened ABC station licenses, even though he specifically said stations that continued to air Kimmel’s show were “running the possibility of fines or license revocations.” One person who didn’t buy Carr’s explanation was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The senator from Texas didn’t like it when Carr told ABC and Disney that “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

Cruz said Carr’s “easy way or the hard way” statement was an obvious threat and “right outta Goodfellas.” Cruz would later say at the December 17 hearing that Congress should restrict the FCC’s power to intimidate news broadcasters. Cruz said, “the public interest standard and its wretched offspring, like the news distortion rule, have outlived whatever utility they once had and it is long past time for Congress to pass reforms.”

Even after bipartisan criticism, Carr refused to end his news distortion investigations. “How about no,” Carr wrote in November. “On my watch, the FCC will continue to hold broadcasters accountable to their public interest obligations.”

Wheeler: “Brendan needs to man up and own his decisions”

One of Carr’s defenses of his news distortion probes is that Rosenworcel’s FCC kept an advocacy group’s petition to deny a Fox station license renewal on the docket for over a year instead of dismissing it outright. Rosenworcel ultimately dismissed the petition, which alleged that Fox willfully distorted news with false reports of fraud in the 2020 election that Trump lost.

The petition pointed out that a judge presiding over a Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox found that Fox News aired false statements about Dominion. Fox subsequently agreed to a $788 million settlement.

Rosenworcel simultaneously dismissed the Fox petition and three complaints alleging anti-Trump or anti-conservative bias by ABC, CBS, and NBC, saying that all four requests “seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment.” Carr reinstated the conservative complaints against ABC, CBS, and NBC, but not the one against Fox.

Carr defended his actions by saying the Biden administration “weaponized our country’s communications laws,” and that his own FCC simply “put the CBS complaint on the same procedural footing that the Biden FCC determined it should apply to the Fox complaint.”

Wheeler said Carr shouldn’t blame his actions on his predecessors. “I own my decisions,” Wheeler said. “I think that Brendan needs to man up and own his decisions and quit this ‘what about.’ He’s always out there saying, ‘Well, what about what Jessica did or what about what Wheeler did?’… Is that the best he can do? I mean, take responsibility for your decisions and go forward.”

Gomez: “This administration has weaponized the FCC”

Gomez said that when Congress created the FCC’s predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, “it decided that it was too dangerous to have one person beholden to the president, to the whims of one person, in charge of the most important communication medium of the time, which was radio. So Congress decided, after deliberating it, to create a multi-member independent agency. And when it created the FCC, it did exactly that as well.”

Gomez continued: “[I]t has been important throughout history to keep that independence from political pressure. And what you’re seeing in this administration is completely different. This administration has weaponized the FCC in order to retaliate, pressure, and intimidate companies into doing its will.”

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York, on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025.

Credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York, on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg

Gomez said the weaponization is evident in how the FCC handles mergers and other transactions in which the agency decides whether to approve the transfer of licenses from one company to another. Carr has explicitly demanded that companies eliminate their DEI policies in exchange for approvals.

“This FCC has said that it will not approve a single license transfer for companies that have diversity, equity, and inclusion policies,” Gomez said, noting that the FCC’s anti-DEI policies were implemented right after Trump’s anti-DEI executive order. “That is why you see the FCC granting transfers of control immediately after getting letters from companies agreeing to drop their diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.”

Companies such as AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Skydance have ended DEI programs to gain Carr’s approval for transactions.

“We also saw that weaponization of the licensing authority with regard to the [FCC] pressuring EchoStar to give up its licenses,” Gomez said. “And that was done purposefully in order to ensure that other parties could get ahold of EchoStar’s licenses for spectrum.”

Trump intervened in EchoStar battle

SpaceX and AT&T struck deals to buy EchoStar spectrum licenses after Carr threatened to revoke the licenses. Trump intervened after Carr’s threat, as Bloomberg reported that Trump called Carr and summoned him to a White House meeting with EchoStar President Charlie Ergen and urged them to make a deal.

Carr’s pressuring of EchoStar was criticized by the Free State Foundation, a free-market group that usually supports Republican priorities at the FCC.

“Rescission of deadline extension orders granted months earlier undoubtedly creates a type of regulatory uncertainty,” the foundation said in reference to the FCC’s investigation into EchoStar. “Arbitrary and unforeseen” changes to rules or agency actions create instability in the market for wireless broadband deployment, it said.

Gomez said the FCC’s “authority rests on technical expertise, evidence, and the public record. When our agency’s decisions are insulated from partisan pressure, the public can trust the outcomes are driven by facts rather than politics.” She said it is also “important to maintain our global credibility because we have been viewed as a model for transparent, rule-based telecommunications regulation.”

Gomez, a telecommunications attorney, has worked in various private-sector and government roles over the past 30 years, including as deputy chief of the FCC International Bureau and senior legal adviser to then-FCC Chairman William Kennard during the Clinton administration. Prior to Biden’s nomination for her to serve as an FCC commissioner in 2023, she was at the US State Department as senior adviser for International Information and Communications Policy.

Executive order required review of FCC actions

Gomez said the FCC submitting decisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs before they’re voted on is a big change for an independent agency. Gomez said she’s deeply familiar with the OIRA process because of her previous work at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an executive branch agency that advises the president on telecom policy. She was the NTIA deputy administrator from 2009 to 2013.

The Trump executive order that purports to eliminate agency independence states that “all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register.”

In a section titled “OIRA Review of Agency Regulations,” the Trump executive order amends a definition of agency that was previously included in Section 3(b) of a 1993 executive order on regulatory reviews. The specified section in that Clinton executive order defined agency as “any authority of the United States that is an ‘agency’ under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies.” This carveout excluded independent agencies like the FCC from the requirement to submit draft regulatory actions for review.

The definition of “agency” in Trump’s executive order removes the language that excluded all independent regulatory agencies from OIRA requirements but includes a carveout for the Federal Reserve. Trump’s order also added the Federal Election Commission to the roster of agencies whose actions require OIRA review of significant actions, such as rulemakings.

While Gomez objects to the pre-clearance requirement, she noted that there are proper ways in which the FCC coordinates with executive branch agencies. For example, the FCC has a memorandum of understanding with the NTIA on how to coordinate spectrum management actions to prevent interference with federal systems that rely on specific radio frequencies.

“Another good use of coordination is in security, for example, when we coordinate with the security agencies to make sure that we are taking national security into consideration with our actions,” she said. “Our statute requires us to coordinate with the State Department and the Department of Justice… and that’s important to do in advance, and it’s good government.”

It’s also not uncommon for the FCC to receive advice from the current president’s administration through the NTIA, which expresses the executive branch’s views on telecom-policy matters in filings submitted in the public record. Those dockets attract filings from government agencies, companies, industry trade groups, advocacy groups, and anyone else who is interested in filing a comment, and the FCC takes the input into account before making decisions.

“What is improper,” Gomez said, “is when our decisions are being directed by this administration and impeding us from making our independent, expert-based judgment of how to manage resources and act in the public interest.”

Pai defied Trump, insisted on FCC independence

Carr was hired as a legal adviser by then-Commissioner Pai in 2014 and was briefly the FCC’s general counsel during Pai’s first year as chair in 2017. Carr became an FCC commissioner in August 2017 after a nomination by President Trump.

Carr and Pai have seemingly agreed on nearly everything to do with the FCC, with the most obvious exception being the regulation of broadcast media content. “I believe in the First Amendment,” Pai said in 2017, six days after Trump called for NBC license revocations. “The FCC under my leadership will stand for the First Amendment. And under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast.”

In a January 2021 speech during his last week as FCC chairman, Pai discussed how he led a 2018 vote against Sinclair Broadcast Group’s proposed acquisition of Tribune Media Company because it would violate station ownership limits. Carr joined Pai in the unanimous vote.

“Sinclair is widely perceived to be a right-leaning broadcaster,” Pai said in the speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute. “And the perception is probably accurate, just as it is probably accurate to say that many of our nation’s broadcast networks lean to the left. But the last time I checked, the First Amendment still applies to broadcasters, which means Sinclair’s perceived political views and the content of its newscasts should be entirely irrelevant to the FCC’s decision-making process.”

Trump didn’t like Pai’s rejection of the Sinclair deal. The president tweeted in July 2018, “So sad and unfair that the FCC wouldn’t approve the Sinclair Broadcast merger with Tribune. This would have been a great and much needed Conservative voice for and of the People. Liberal Fake News NBC and Comcast gets approved, much bigger, but not Sinclair. Disgraceful!”

Reflecting on this incident and other Trump comments about the Sinclair rejection in his January 2021 speech, Pai said, “in terms of powerful opponents in Washington, it’s hard to top the president.” Pai told the audience “that you don’t demonstrate the FCC’s independence by saying you’re independent. You do it by acting independently… This decision may have won me few friends, but I’m proud I lived up to my oath and preserved the agency’s independence.”

It’s no secret

Wheeler and Pai often clashed over policy differences when they served on the commission together. Pai even accused Wheeler of taking orders from Obama on net neutrality. But Pai’s exit speech made a positive impression on Wheeler.

“I seem to recall that Pai at the end of his term made a speech in which he talked about some of the proudest things he had done was maintaining the independence of the agency and protecting the First Amendment speech rights of the people,” Wheeler said.

While federal agency operations can change in ways that aren’t readily visible to the public, the changes to agency independence in Trump’s second term haven’t been hidden. “One thing about this is so much is out in the open, which I think is an effort to normalize it,” Gomez said. “And we have to resist it.”

Gomez knows she might not be able to serve out her entire term given that Trump fired Democrats from the FTC. The risk would be particularly high if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor in the case filed by Slaughter. While the Senate has the authority to confirm or deny presidential nominations to the FCC and FTC, a Trump victory in the FTC case would give the president more power to dictate the membership of independent agencies.

“I don’t know why,” Gomez said when asked if she knows why Trump hasn’t fired her yet. “I don’t want to speculate. We’ll find out, I guess. But I’m focused on doing my work, and every day that I can continue to do my work and to speak out on behalf of consumers and the First Amendment is a good day.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

No one loves President Trump more than FCC Chairman Brendan Carr Read More »

fcc-chair-scrubs-website-after-learning-it-called-fcc-an-“independent-agency”

FCC chair scrubs website after learning it called FCC an “independent agency”

brendan carr, FCC, jimmy kimmel, Policy / /

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz wants to restrict FCC’s power to intimidate broadcasters.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr speaks at a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee oversight hearing on December 17, 2025, in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images | Heather Diehl

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr today faced blistering criticism in a Senate hearing for his September threats to revoke ABC station licenses over comments made by Jimmy Kimmel. While Democrats provided nearly all the criticism, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said that Congress should act to restrict the FCC’s power to intimidate news broadcasters.

As an immediate result of today’s hearing, the FCC removed a statement from its website that said it is an independent agency. Carr, who has embraced President Trump’s declaration that independent agencies may no longer operate independently from the White House, apparently didn’t realize that the website still called the FCC an independent agency.

“Yes or no, is the FCC an independent agency?” Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) asked. Carr answered that the FCC is not independent, prompting Luján to point to a statement on the FCC website calling the FCC “an independent US government agency overseen by Congress.”

“Just so you know, Brendan, on your website, it just simply says, man, the FCC is independent. This isn’t a trick question… Is your website wrong? Is your website lying?” Luján asked.

“Possibly. The FCC is not an independent agency,” Carr answered. The website still included the statement of independence when Luján asked the question, but it’s now gone.

Carr: Trump can fire any member “for any reason or no reason”

Carr, who argued during the Biden years that the FCC must remain independent from the White House and accused Biden of improperly pressuring the agency, said today that it isn’t independent because the Communications Act does not give commissioners protection from removal by the president.

“The president can remove any member of the commission for any reason or no reason,” Carr said. Carr said his new position is a result of “a sea change in the law” related to an ongoing case involving the Federal Trade Commission, in which the Supreme Court appears likely to approve Trump’s firing of an FTC Democrat.

“I think it comes as no surprise that I’m aligned with President Trump on policy, I think that’s why he designated me as chairman… I can be fired by the president,” Carr said. Carr also said, “The Constitution is clear that all executive power is vested in the president, and Congress can’t change that by legislation.”

Changing the FCC website doesn’t change the law, of course. US law specifically lists 19 federal agencies, including the FCC, that are classified as “independent regulatory agencies.” Indications of the FCC’s independence include that it has commissioners with specified tenures, a multimember structure, partisan balance, and adjudication authority. Trump could test that historical independence by firing an FCC commissioner and waiting to see if the Supreme Court allows it, as he did with the FTC.

Ted Cruz wants to restrict FCC power

Carr’s statements on independence came toward the end of an FCC oversight hearing that lasted nearly three hours. Democrats on the Senate Commerce Committee spent much of the time accusing Carr of censoring broadcast stations, while Carr and Committee Chairman Cruz spent more time lobbing allegations of censorship at the Biden administration. But Cruz made it clear that he still thinks Carr shouldn’t have threatened ABC and suggested that Congress reduce the FCC’s power.

Cruz alleged that Democrats supported Biden administration censorship, but in the next sentence, he said the FCC shouldn’t have the legal authority that Carr has used to threaten broadcasters. Cruz said:

If my colleagues across the aisle do what many expect and hammer the chairman over their newfound religion on the First Amendment and free speech, I will be obliged to point out that those concerns were miraculously absent when the Biden administration was pressuring Big Tech to silence Americans for wrongthink on COVID and election security. It will underscore a simple truth, that the public interest standard and its wretched offspring, like the news distortion rule, have outlived whatever utility they once had and it is long past time for Congress to pass reforms.

Cruz avoided criticizing Carr directly today and praised the agency chairman for a “productive and refreshing” approach on most FCC matters. Nonetheless, Cruz’s statement suggests that he’d like to strip Carr and future FCC chairs of the power to wield the public interest standard and news distortion policy against broadcasters.

At today’s hearing and in recent months, Carr defended his actions on Kimmel by citing the public interest standard that the FCC applies to broadcasters that have licenses to use the public airwaves. Carr also defended his frequent threats to enforce the FCC’s rarely invoked news distortion policy, even though the FCC apparently hasn’t made a finding of news distortion since 1993.

Cruz said today he agrees with Carr “that Jimmy Kimmel is angry, overtly partisan, and profoundly unfunny,” and that “ABC and its affiliates would have been fully within their rights to fire him or simply to no longer air his program.” But Cruz added that government cannot “force private entities to take actions that the government cannot take directly. Government officials threatening adverse consequences for disfavored content is an unconstitutional coercion that chills protected speech.”

Cruz continued:

This is why it was so insidious how the Biden administration jawboned social media into shutting down conservatives online over accurate information on COVID or voter fraud. My Democrat colleagues were persistently silent over that scandal, but I welcome them now having discovered the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Democrat or Republican, we cannot have the government arbitrating truth or opinion. Mr. Chairman, my question is this, so long as there is a public interest standard, shouldn’t it be understood to encompass robust First Amendment protections to ensure that the FCC cannot use it to chill speech?

Carr answered, “I agree with you there and I think the examples you laid out of weaponization in the Biden years are perfect examples.” Carr criticized liberals for asking the Biden-era FCC to not renew a Fox station license and criticized Congressional Democrats for “writing letters to cable companies pressuring them to drop Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax because they disagreed with the political perspectives of those cable channels.”

Cruz seemed satisfied with the answer and changed the topic to the FCC’s management of spectrum. After that, much of the hearing consisted of Democrats pointing to Carr’s past statements supporting free speech and accusing him of using the FCC to suppress broadcasters’ speech.

Senate Democrats criticize Carr’s Kimmel threats

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked Carr if it “is appropriate to use your position to threaten companies that broadcast political satire.” Carr responded, “I think any licensee that operates on the public airwaves has a responsibility to comply with the public interest standard, and that’s been the case for decades.”

Klobuchar replied, “I asked if you think it’s appropriate for you to use your position to threaten companies, and this incident with Kimmel wasn’t an isolated event. You launched investigations into every major broadcast network except Fox. Is that correct?”

Carr noted that “we have a number of investigations ongoing.” Later, he said, “If you want to step back and talk about weaponization, we saw that for four years in the Biden administration.”

“Joe Biden is no longer president,” Klobuchar said. “You are head of the FCC, and Donald Trump is president, and I am trying to deal with this right now.”

As he has in the past, Carr claimed today that he never threatened ABC station licenses. “Democrats at the time were saying that we explicitly threatened to pull a license if Jimmy Kimmel wasn’t fired,” Carr said. “That never happened; that was nothing more than projection and distortion by Democrats. What I am saying is any broadcaster that uses the airwaves, whether radio or TV, has to comply with the public interest standard.”

In fact, Carr said on a podcast in September that broadcast stations should tell ABC and its owner Disney that “we are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out because we, the licensed broadcaster, are running the possibility of fines or license revocations from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion.”

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) pointed to another Carr statement from the podcast in which he said, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Schatz criticized Carr’s claim that he never threatened licenses. “You’re kind of tiptoeing through the tulips here,” Schatz said.

FCC Democrat: Agency is censoring Trump critics

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, testified at today’s hearing and said that “the First Amendment applies to broadcasters regardless of whether they use spectrum or not, and the Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcasters.”

Gomez said the Trump administration “has been on a campaign to censor content and to control the media and others, any critics of this administration, and it is weaponizing any levers it has in order to control that media. That includes using the FCC to threaten licensees, and broadcasters are being chilled. We are hearing from broadcasters that they are afraid to air programming that is critical of this administration because they’re afraid of being dragged before the FCC in an investigation.”

Gomez suggested the “public interest” phrase is being used by the FCC too vaguely in reference to investigations of broadcast stations. She said the FCC should “define what we mean by operating in the public interest,” saying the commission has been using the standard “as a means to go after any content we don’t like.” She said that “it’s still unconstitutional to revoke licenses based solely on content that the FCC doesn’t like.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) criticized Carr for investigating San Francisco-based KCBS over a report on Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities, in which the station described vehicles driven by ICE agents. Carr defended the probe today, saying, “The concern there in the report was there may have been interference with lawful ICE operations and so we were asking questions about what happened.”

Markey said, “The news journalists were just covering an important news story, and some conservatives were upset by the coverage, so you used your power as FCC chairman to hang a sword of Damocles over a local radio station’s head… Guess what happened? The station demoted the anchor who first read that news report over the air and pulled back on its political coverage. You got what you wanted.”

Carr said, “Broadcasters understand, perhaps for the first time in years, that they’re going to be held accountable to the public interest, to broadcast hoax rules, to the news distortion policy. I think that’s a good thing.”

Carr then criticized Markey for signing a letter to the FCC in 2018 that asked the agency to investigate conservative broadcaster Sinclair. The Markey/Carr exchange ended with the two men shouting over each other, making much of it unintelligible, although Markey said that Carr should resign because he’s creating a chilling effect on news broadcasters.

Cruz similarly criticized Democrats for targeting Sinclair, prompting Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) to defend the 2018 letter. “Chairman Carr’s threats to companies he directly regulates are not the same thing as a letter from Congress requesting an agency examine a matter of public concern. Members on both sides of the aisle frequently write similar letters; that’s the proper oversight role of Congress,” he said.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

FCC chair scrubs website after learning it called FCC an “independent agency” Read More »

after-npr-and-pbs-defunding,-fcc-receives-call-to-take-away-station-licenses

After NPR and PBS defunding, FCC receives call to take away station licenses

FCC, NPR, PBS, Policy / /

The CAR complaints were dismissed in January 2025 by then-FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and then revived by Carr after Trump appointed him to the chairmanship. Carr has continued making allegations of news distortion, including when he threatened to revoke licenses from ABC stations that air Jimmy Kimmel’s show.

During the Kimmel controversy, Carr said he was trying “to empower local TV stations to serve the needs of the local communities.” The FCC subsequently opened a proceeding titled, “Empowering Local Broadcast TV Stations to Meet Their Public Interest Obligations: Exploring Market Dynamics Between National Programmers and Their Affiliates.”

The FCC invited public comments on whether to adopt regulations “in light of the changes in the broadcast market that have led to anticompetitive leverage and behavior by large networks.” This could involve prohibiting certain kinds of contract provisions in agreements between networks and affiliate stations and strengthening the rights of local stations to reject national programming.

FCC criticized for attacks on media

The “Empowering Local Broadcast TV Stations” proceeding is the one in which the Center for American Rights submitted its comments. Besides discussing NPR and PBS, the group said that national networks “indoctrinate the American people from their left-wing perspective.”

“The consistent bias on ABC’s The View, for instance, tells women in red states who voted for President Trump that they are responsible for putting in office an autocratic dictator,” the Center for American Rights said.

The FCC proceeding drew comments yesterday from the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), which criticized Carr’s war against the media. “The Public Notice frames this proceeding as an effort to ‘empower local broadcasters’ in their dealings with national networks. But… recent FCC actions have risked using regulatory authority not to promote independent journalism, but to influence newsroom behavior, constrain editorial decision-making, and encourage outcomes aligned with the personal or political interests of elected officials,” the NHMC said.

The group said it supports “genuine local journalism and robust competition,” but said:

policies that reshape the balance of power between station groups, networks, and newsrooms cannot be separated from the broader regulatory environment in which they operate. Several of the Commission’s recent interventions—including coercive conditions attached to the Skydance/Paramount transaction, and unlawful threats made to ABC and its affiliate stations in September demanding they remove Jimmy Kimmel’s show from the airwaves—illustrate how regulatory tools can be deployed in ways that undermine media freedom and risk political interference in programming and editorial decisions.

After NPR and PBS defunding, FCC receives call to take away station licenses Read More »

oneplus-15-finally-gets-fcc-clearance-after-government-shutdown-delay—preorders-live

OnePlus 15 finally gets FCC clearance after government shutdown delay—preorders live

FCC, OnePlus, oneplus 15, smartphones, Tech / /

In the Ars review of the OnePlus 15, we were floored by the phone’s incredible battery life and super-fast charging. The device’s other performance characteristics are similarly speedy, as is the OnePlus way. However, the phone is also less interesting visually compared to its predecessor, and the camera is a step down compared to the OnePlus 13, which launched not even a year ago.

OnePlus 15 side

There is somehow a 7,300 mAh battery in there.

Credit: Ryan Whitwam

There is somehow a 7,300 mAh battery in there. Credit: Ryan Whitwam

If you’re convinced, you can get in line now. Just don’t expect the phone to show up immediately. OnePlus estimates that the first units will arrive just days before the end of 2025. On the plus side, anyone who preorders now will get a free gift. You can currently choose between the OnePlus Buds Pro 3, an AIRVOOC 50 W wireless charger (fully supported on the OnePlus 15), or one of several phone cases.

While OnePlus does make great phone cases, the earbuds are the highest value option at $180 MSRP. That’s not bad for a preorder bonus! However, OnePlus notes the freebies are only available while supplies last. You can wait for the phone to appear at other retailers, and it will eventually go on sale, but you won’t get the free earbuds.

OnePlus 15 finally gets FCC clearance after government shutdown delay—preorders live Read More »

“how-about-no”:-fcc-boss-brendan-carr-says-he-won’t-end-news-distortion-probes

“How about no”: FCC boss Brendan Carr says he won’t end news distortion probes

brendan carr, FCC, news distortion policy, Policy / /

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr says he won’t scrap the agency’s controversial news distortion policy despite calls from a bipartisan group of former FCC chairs and commissioners.

“How about no,” Carr wrote in an X post in response to the petition from former FCC leaders. “On my watch, the FCC will continue to hold broadcasters accountable to their public interest obligations.”

The petition filed yesterday by former FCC chairs and commissioners asked the FCC to repeal its 1960s-era news distortion policy, which Carr has repeatedly invoked in threats to revoke broadcast licenses. In the recent Jimmy Kimmel controversy, Carr said that ABC affiliates could have licenses revoked for news distortion if they kept the comedian on the air.

The petition said the Kimmel incident and several other Carr threats illustrate “the extraordinary intrusions on editorial decision-making that Chairman Carr apparently understands the news distortion policy to permit.” The petition argued that the “policy’s purpose—to eliminate bias in the news—is not a legitimate government interest,” that it has chilled broadcasters’ speech, that it has been weaponized for partisan purposes, that it is overly vague, and is unnecessary given the separate rule against broadcast hoaxes.

“The news distortion policy is no longer justifiable under today’s First Amendment doctrine and no longer necessary in today’s media environment… The Commission should repeal the policy in full and recognize that it may not investigate or penalize broadcasters for ‘distorting,’ ‘slanting,’ or ‘staging’ the news, unless the broadcast at issue independently meets the high standard for broadcasting a dangerous hoax under 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217,” the petition said.

News distortion policy rarely enforced

The petition was filed by Mark Fowler, a Republican who chaired the FCC from 1981 to 1987; Dennis Patrick, a Republican who chaired the FCC from 1987 to 1989; Alfred Sikes, a Republican who chaired the FCC from 1989 to 1993; Tom Wheeler, a Democrat who chaired the FCC from 2013 to 2017; Andrew Barrett, a Republican who served as a commissioner from 1989 to 1996; Ervin Duggan, a Democrat who served as a commissioner from 1990 to 1994; and Rachelle Chong, a Republican who served as a commissioner from 1994 to 1997.

“How about no”: FCC boss Brendan Carr says he won’t end news distortion probes Read More »

fcc-to-rescind-ruling-that-said-isps-are-required-to-secure-their-networks

FCC to rescind ruling that said ISPs are required to secure their networks

FCC, Policy, salt typhoon, Security / /

The Federal Communications Commission will vote in November to repeal a ruling that requires telecom providers to secure their networks, acting on a request from the biggest lobby groups representing Internet providers.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the ruling, adopted in January just before Republicans gained majority control of the commission, “exceeded the agency’s authority and did not present an effective or agile response to the relevant cybersecurity threats.” Carr said the vote scheduled for November 20 comes after “extensive FCC engagement with carriers” who have taken “substantial steps… to strengthen their cybersecurity defenses.”

The FCC’s January 2025 declaratory ruling came in response to attacks by China, including the Salt Typhoon infiltration of major telecom providers such as Verizon and AT&T. The Biden-era FCC found that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a 1994 law, “affirmatively requires telecommunications carriers to secure their networks from unlawful access or interception of communications.”

“The Commission has previously found that section 105 of CALEA creates an affirmative obligation for a telecommunications carrier to avoid the risk that suppliers of untrusted equipment will ‘illegally activate interceptions or other forms of surveillance within the carrier’s switching premises without its knowledge,’” the January order said. “With this Declaratory Ruling, we clarify that telecommunications carriers’ duties under section 105 of CALEA extend not only to the equipment they choose to use in their networks, but also to how they manage their networks.”

ISPs get what they want

The declaratory ruling was paired with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would have led to stricter rules requiring specific steps to secure networks against unauthorized interception. Carr voted against the decision at the time.

Although the declaratory ruling didn’t yet have specific rules to go along with it, the FCC at the time said it had some teeth. “Even absent rules adopted by the Commission, such as those proposed below, we believe that telecommunications carriers would be unlikely to satisfy their statutory obligations under section 105 without adopting certain basic cybersecurity practices for their communications systems and services,” the January order said. “For example, basic cybersecurity hygiene practices such as implementing role-based access controls, changing default passwords, requiring minimum password strength, and adopting multifactor authentication are necessary for any sensitive computer system. Furthermore, a failure to patch known vulnerabilities or to employ best practices that are known to be necessary in response to identified exploits would appear to fall short of fulfilling this statutory obligation.”

FCC to rescind ruling that said ISPs are required to secure their networks Read More »