FCC chief defends Jimmy Kimmel remarks in heated Senate hearing
Democrats allege the FCC chair used federal power to pressure broadcasters; Carr insists actions were in the public interest at Congress' direction.
WASHINGTON — The head of the Federal Communications Commission defended his handling of comments about ABC's Jimmy Kimmel in a tense Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Wednesday, saying he was enforcing the public-interest standard at the direction of Congress.
Democrats pressed Carr on the Sept. 10 remarks about Kimmel's ABC program, the suspension that followed, and warnings to local broadcasters that aired the show. Senator Tammy Baldwin told Carr that he had used his federal office to "take Jimmy Kimmel off the air in a clear attempt to chill free speech" and argued the FCC should not be a political weapon against the president's critics. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who chairs the subcommittee, pressed Carr on whether the government can threaten private entities for disfavored content, saying the actions were chilling and potentially unconstitutional. Cruz also cited the period when Carr warned Disney and other broadcasters about Kimmel.
Carr defended his action, saying he was enforcing the public-interest standard at the direction of Congress and noting that Democrats in Congress had previously pressed cable companies to drop Fox News, One America News Network and Newsmax because they disagreed with those networks’ political perspectives. He added that the FCC has not used the public-interest standard to revoke broadcast licenses for more than three decades, a point some lawmakers cited to critique the agency's approach. The discussion touched on the broader issue of whether regulatory tools should be used to influence programming.
Some Democrats argued that government pressure on broadcasters to drop certain outlets raises concerns about political bias and free speech. Carr countered that enforcement is a matter of policy and that the agency must apply the rules when asked by Congress, regardless of channel or viewpoint. The hearing also highlighted partisan fault lines over how far federal regulators should go in policing content and licensing.
President Trump has repeatedly pressed Carr to take action against U.S. broadcasters and has said he will have a role in whether a proposed merger between Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery should go forward. In the hearing, other lawmakers echoed concerns that the government could use regulatory pressure to influence which voices are carried on air.
In July, the FCC approved an $8.4 billion merger between CBS parent Paramount Global and Skydance Media after Skydance agreed to ensure CBS’ news and entertainment programs were free of bias and to hire an ombudsman to review complaints and end certain diversity programs. In January, Carr reinstated complaints about a CBS interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, a debate moderated by ABC News between then-President Joe Biden and Trump, and Harris’s appearance on Comcast-owned NBC’s Saturday Night Live shortly before the election.
Senator Ted Cruz later argued that government coercion and threats against private entities were dangerous and inconsistent with constitutional protections. Other administration voices, including FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Biden appointee, testified as part of the broader oversight of broadcast regulation and the use of the public-interest standard.
The hearing also touched on the fate of media consolidation and how regulatory decisions could influence future mergers. The committee noted ongoing scrutiny ahead of potential actions on a Netflix-Warner Bros. Discovery deal, while emphasizing that enforcement actions must adhere to established legal standards and avoid politicization.
Beyond the Kimmel episode, the exchange raised questions about whether the FCC’s tools are being used to pursue a political agenda or to safeguard the public interest in a rapidly changing media landscape. Some lawmakers highlighted past episodes in which pressure was applied to other outlets, arguing that the line between safeguarding public interest and stifling speech can become blurred in high-profile political moments. Supporters of Carr argued that bold enforcement sometimes draws political fire but remains necessary to keep broadcast standards intact.
The exchange concluded with acknowledgment from several members that the FCC’s public-interest standard remains a rarely used lever, and that any future actions would require careful legal scrutiny and congressional guidance. The session underscored a broader dynamic: as media ownership reshapes the landscape—from broadcast to streaming giants—the role of federal regulators in shaping what viewers see and hear remains a flashpoint in US politics.