FCC chair eyes The View as potential target after Kimmel suspension
Carr signals possible review of The View’s eligibility under the equal time rule as political pressure and questions about broadcast regulation intensify
WASHINGTON — The indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! has sparked a renewed debate over the federal equal time rule, with FCC Chair Brendan Carr signaling the commission may review whether ABC's The View still qualifies as a bona fide news program exempt from the rule.
Carr spoke on The Scott Jennings Podcast, saying it may be worthwhile for the FCC to determine whether The View remains exempt from the equal time regime that guides how broadcasters allocate airtime to political candidates. He noted that the answer could hinge on how the program presents news and discussions.
The remarks come amid a wave of criticism from Republicans and some right-leaning groups calling for a crackdown on media outlets they say have biased coverage. Democratic lawmakers have criticized what they describe as administration pressure on ABC and have introduced legislation to strengthen free speech protections. President Trump has floated the idea of punishing networks for perceived bad press, though there is debate over whether he has the authority to revoke licenses. In the same interview, Carr suggested that the equal time issue remains a complex area shaped by regulatory interpretations and legal standards.
The View hosts did not discuss Kimmel’s suspension on Thursday and have previously commented on political violence in broad terms. Earlier this year, the White House raised the possibility that The View could be canceled after co-host Joy Behar criticized Trump for accusing former President Obama of treason. Behar referenced the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and suggested Trump was jealous of Obama, a moment that drew pushback from some at the White House while not triggering a direct broadcast threat at the time.
The View has long been a focal point in conversations about what counts as news versus entertainment in regulatory terms. The equal time rule, part of the Communications Act of 1934, requires broadcasters who sell air time to one political candidate to offer the same opportunity to others running for the same office. Over the years, Congress and the FCC have carved out exemptions for bona fide newscasts, news interviews, documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events. The Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960 spurred a long-running debate about what counts as news versus candidate advertising, and a 1975 FCC ruling later affirmed that debates could be treated as on-the-spot news coverage. The Supreme Court has upheld the broader principle that broadcasters need not provide equal air time in every situation, especially for live or event coverage.
The FCC can revoke a broadcaster’s license for willful or repeated violations of the equal time rule, but enforcement in this area has evolved with policy changes over decades. In 1987, the Fairness Doctrine, which required balance in presenting controversial issues, was abolished, shifting the landscape for how networks handle political content. Carr noted that much of late-night programming has been treated in case law as bona fide news programs, but he left open the possibility that The View could be reassessed and that the exemption status could be questioned depending on regulatory interpretation.
If the FCC were to determine that The View no longer qualifies as exempt, the ruling could have ripple effects across talk shows on television and radio, potentially altering how political discourse is regulated in the broader media landscape. Critics say such a shift would expand regulatory leverage over content, while supporters argue it would strengthen accountability and public-interest responsibilities for programs that shape political conversation. The practical implications would depend on how the commission and courts interpret the rule and apply it to evolving formats in a changing media environment.
The broader political context includes ongoing debates about media influence, regulatory power, and free speech protections. As lawmakers weigh potential legislative fixes and regulatory signals, observers say the coming weeks will be pivotal in determining whether this episode signals a longer-term shift in how broadcast content is regulated in the United States.
Analysts caution that the current push appears to be as much about political signaling as about immediate regulatory action. Any formal move by the FCC would likely face legal challenges and require careful navigation of precedent and statutory text. Still, supporters of tougher media standards say the episode exposes gaps in how public-interest obligations are enforced in a media landscape dominated by a few large platforms. Opponents warn that aggressive regulatory steps could chill legitimate criticism and reduce the diversity of voices in broadcast conversations.
As the debate unfolds, observers say this episode reflects broader tensions between political actors and a regulatory framework that has evolved through decades of court decisions and Congressional actions. The coming weeks are expected to reveal whether Carr or other administration allies intend a substantive shift in how talk shows and similar programs are treated under the equal time rule.
