How FCC Chair Brendan Carr Became a Trump Loyalist Weaponizing the FCC Against Media Critics

In his second term, President Donald Trump has sought a bureaucracy that prioritizes his political survival above all else. Few exemplify this reimagining of government more than Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Established by Congress in 1934 to regulate radio licensing and telecommunications, the FCC has long operated as an independent agency. Its bipartisan commissioners serve fixed terms and can only be removed by the president for cause—a structure designed to shield the agency from direct political interference. Carr’s tenure, however, has upended this tradition, turning the FCC into a partisan weapon against media outlets critical of the administration.

Carr’s FCC: A Tool for Mergers, Censorship, and Political Favors

Trump has repeatedly praised Carr, calling him “outstanding,” a “patriot,” and “a very tough guy.” The praise is warranted—for Carr’s record reveals a pattern of leveraging the FCC’s regulatory power to advance Trump’s agenda and silence dissent.

• Merger Approvals Tied to Policy Rollbacks: Verizon and T-Mobile abandoned diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in exchange for Carr’s approval of their mergers.
• Paramount’s Compliance Under Pressure: Paramount, the parent company of CBS, appointed an ombudsman to “ensure a diversity of viewpoints” in its news coverage—a move widely seen as a concession to win Carr’s approval for its merger with Skydance. The company also settled a lawsuit over a 60 Minutes episode Trump disliked, with reports suggesting Paramount paid Trump off. Stephen Colbert mocked the settlement as a “big fat bribe,” a remark that led to the cancellation of his Late Show.
• Threats Against Late-Night Hosts: After ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel made a joke Trump disliked, Carr warned Disney—ABC’s parent company—that it would face FCC retribution if Kimmel wasn’t fired. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr reportedly told Disney executives. The threat triggered a review of ABC’s broadcast licenses, a move critics argue was retaliation for protected speech.

The Roberts Court’s Role in Enabling Partisan Control

Despite the FCC’s traditional independence, Carr’s actions underscore the dangers of partisan capture. His transformation from a self-described defender of free speech to a censor of media critics has been swift and alarming. In 2017, Carr tweeted that censoring late-night comedians “would represent a serious threat to our freedoms.” Yet, under Trump’s influence, he has weaponized the FCC to punish speech he disfavors.

Now, the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority appears poised to further erode the independence of federal agencies. In a case expected to be decided in the coming weeks, the Court may rule that at least some independent agencies—such as the FCC—are unconstitutional. This would strip Congress’s ability to shield these agencies from direct presidential control.

The Court’s willingness to intervene in agency independence was on display early in Trump’s first term. In 2018, the GOP-majority Court used its emergency docket to fire Democratic commissioners from the National Labor Relations Board, Federal Trade Commission, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission—despite their fixed terms and statutory protections. The decisions, opposed by the Court’s Democratic appointees, set a precedent that could embolden future presidents to reshape independent agencies in their image.

What’s at Stake: Free Press and Regulatory Capture

The implications of Carr’s FCC—and the Roberts Court’s potential ruling—extend far beyond partisan politics. If independent agencies can be reshaped to serve a president’s personal or political interests, the consequences for free speech, press freedom, and fair competition could be severe.

For now, Carr’s FCC remains a cautionary tale of how regulatory power can be hijacked. And with the Supreme Court signaling its openness to dismantling agency independence, the risks to democratic norms have never been higher.