Yesterday, TechFreedom filed an opposition to petitions to deny renewal of ABC’s broadcast licenses. Some petitions explicitly ask the FCC to punish ABC for its speech in the name of “balance” or “fairness,” echoing threats from FCC Chair Brendan Carr and President Donald. Other petitions ask the FCC to deprive ABC of its licenses because of an alleged violation of the FCC’s employment non-discrimination rules. TechFreedom explains why the Constitution and the Communications Act bars both, and why the law and longstanding FCC practice do not allow the FCC to conduct this proceeding, or to terminate ABC’s licenses early without respecting key safeguards.

“This is the most egregious abuse of power in the 92-year history of the FCC,” said Berin Szóka, President of TechFreedom. “In 2020, President Trump spent months undermining public trust in the presidential election. He then tried and failed to overturn that election. Now, he’s doing the same thing—and he’s using the FCC to bludgeon broadcasters into compliance. Even Republicans have decried the ‘mafioso’ tactics used by FCC Chair Brendan Carr as ‘right out of Goodfellas.’ This proceeding is Carr at his most shameless, ruthless, and dangerous.”

“Carr is effectively creating a new Fairness Doctrine,” warned Szóka. “but one vastly more dangerous than the old one. Republicans fought the Fairness Doctrine for decades, recognizing the dangers of the FCC meddling in media. The Reagan-era FCC ended such interference, recognized that the First Amendment protects all private media, and that ‘fairness’ is not something the government can judge—a view the Supreme Court has embraced. The practical result has been an explosion of media from all perspectives. But Trump sees dissent of any kind as ‘bias.’ So Carr has abandoned decades of conservative principle to turn the FCC into the very thing he said, in 2019, it shouldn’t be: ‘the speech police.’”

“ABC’s employment practices are a red herring,” said Szóka. “Even if the FCC can require ABC to change its practices prospectively, it cannot punish ABC for its past understanding of the FCC’s rule because the Commission has not provided fair notice that ABC’s practices were illegal. It could not impose even small monetary penalties, let alone decapitate ABC by shutting down its stations. Both the Constitution’s Due Process Clause and the First Amendment require the Commission to provide a clear explanation of what the rule requires, and bar the kind of arbitrary enforcement on display here.”

“This entire proceeding violates the Communications Act,” concluded Szóka. “Carr has claimed the power not merely to deny renewal of ABC’s licenses years before they expire, but also to terminate the current licenses early. This would be a license revocation, and it would require satisfying Section 312. Principally, the FCC would have to show that ABC’s violations were willful and repeated, and would bear the burden of proof—which the Commission could not do. Moreover, in 1996, Congress required that decisions about license renewal be made only after a license has expired. Initiating the license renewal process now, years before ABC’s licenses expire, is not remotely ‘essential’ to any valid purpose, as the FCC’s rules require. This proceeding is simply another way of punishing ABC for its speech.”

Separately, TechFreedom also joined Protect Democracy and a bipartisan coalition of former high-ranking FCC officials in another opposition to petitions to deny renewal of ABC’s broadcast licenses, which highlights our coalition’s 2025 petition asking the FCC to repeal its news distortion policy. 

###

Read these comments and share them on Twitter and Bluesky. We can be reached for comment at media@techfreedom.org. Read our related work, including:

About TechFreedom: 

TechFreedom is a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

</>