ABC sues over Brendan Carr’s review of its Disney broadcast licenses
By Adele Rutherford ·
The rule of law, I have found, rarely cares about whether a network has good intentions. It only cares if the procedure was followed, or more often, if it was circumvented by political will.
The Pretext of Diversity When the Process Is Already Broken
The rule of law, I have found, rarely cares about whether a network has good intentions. It only cares if the procedure was followed, or more often, if it was circumvented by political will. That is why Disney-owned ABC filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC this week. The core dispute centers on an early broadcast renewal process for eight local stations—a demand that sources like CNBC and The Guardian confirm has thrown the entire mechanism into question.
The narrative offered by the Administration, via Chairman Brendan Carr, is one of regulatory concern over "diversity, equity and inclusion" efforts. Yet, the complaint filed by ABC itself paints a far darker picture: that this process is nothing less than a retaliatory campaign. The lawsuit alleges that the FCC has weaponized its authority against any media outlet whose programming—whether it’s The View or simply critical commentary on public figures—disapproves of the current administration. Yonhap notes that Donald Trump had repeatedly pressured for license cancellation due to content deemed unfavorable, a pattern ABC claims began in the Administration's earliest days and has only intensified since.
When Regulation Becomes Political Punishment
The most damning evidence is not even found in the allegations of bias, but in the timing itself. The FCC is demanding an early application when licenses are meant to renew on an eight-year cycle (Yonhap). This acceleration forces a formal agency adjudication that ABC’s lawyers argue can only lead to adverse outcomes. A group of former FCC officials warned this move was designed to send a “chilling message” to all broadcasters, not just ABC.
This is the familiar architecture of state power using regulatory mechanisms as pretext for ideological control. We are witnessing a modern echo of Red Scare and McCarthyism—the shared mechanism being the use of accusations of political disloyalty or dissent (whether framed as "unlawful discrimination" or "ideological threat") to justify limiting institutional autonomy and speech. The goal is not public safety; it is compliance.
The Enduring Danger of Administrative Overreach
The law, at its best, provides a clear separation between the editor’s desk and the regulator’s office. When that line blurs—when an agency's investigation into Equal Airtime violations becomes inextricably linked to a network’s political critique of the executive branch—the First Amendment is not protected; it is merely cited for show.
The history of American jurisprudence shows us that when Congress abdicates its function, leaving regulation to agencies and courts, we are always one step closer to the abuses of the past. The FCC cannot lawfully grant renewal this early without violating fundamental procedural norms. This entire spectacle confirms that regulatory power, in the hands of a partisan administration, is not an impartial shield for the public; it is a highly effective cudgel wielded against inconvenient speech.