Brendan Carr’s FCC Power Play: How One Weak Man Threatens America’s Free Speech
After Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks on the Charlie Kirk shooting, Carr used FCC leverage to pressure ABC—showing how quickly constitutional rights can be trampled.
Note: There is a video where I discuss this further at the end of the article for paid subscribers
Brendan Carr’s actions this week are a textbook example of how government intimidation can erode the First Amendment. Yesterday, after Jimmy Kimmel criticized the President’s reaction to the killing of Charlie Kirk, Carr publicly threatened ABC and its parent company Disney. He suggested that the network’s broadcast license could be jeopardized, framing his threat in terms of the FCC’s “public interest obligations.” That is not merely commentary—it is an official signaling of regulatory retaliation aimed at silencing a viewpoint.
The effect was immediate and chilling. ABC affiliates, including giants like Sinclair and Nexstar, quickly moved to pull Kimmel’s show. Sinclair reportedly demanded a formal apology and even “meaningful personal donations” to Charlie Kirk’s family and Turning Point USA. ABC followed by suspending Jimmy Kimmel Live indefinitely. These steps were not the product of ordinary editorial discretion. They were the predictable reaction of corporations with billions of dollars in merger approvals and licenses at stake, bowing to the implied threat of federal punishment.
The First Amendment exists to protect precisely this kind of unpopular or controversial speech. It does not exist to shield only polite conversation or majority-approved jokes. Kimmel’s remarks—satirical, caustic, perhaps debatable—are fully within the realm of protected commentary. What Carr did was to leverage his regulatory power to punish speech he dislikes. That is government censorship in everything but name.
I know Brendan Carr from my own time working alongside him in Congress. He is desperate to be known, eager for the spotlight, and in this case, acting more like a social media provocateur than a steward of constitutional freedoms. His public bullying of a comedian betrays not strength but weakness. A confident official answers speech with speech. A weak one reaches for the coercive power of the state.
This incident is not just about one late-night host. It is about whether political appointees can strong-arm corporations into silencing dissent by threatening their economic interests. When an FCC chair uses the leverage of broadcast licensing and merger approvals to punish protected speech, every broadcaster, writer, and actor in America should see the danger. If it works once, it will be tried again.
The response must be loud and sustained. Viewers should boycott ABC and Disney until the show is restored and a public commitment to editorial independence is made. Writers, actors, and production unions should refuse to create content for a company that caves to political coercion. And Democrats, if they regain the presidency, should make clear that any corporation that complies with such threats to advance a merger or protect licenses will face antitrust scrutiny and potential breakups. Only a decisive political and consumer backlash will deter future abuses.
Free speech is not a luxury to be enjoyed only when convenient. It is a core American freedom that protects the caustic, the satirical, and the uncomfortable. Brendan Carr’s conduct is a warning of how quickly that freedom can be undermined when officials confuse their own political preferences with the public interest. This is no time for silence. The country needs to speak out, boycott, and demand that constitutional rights be defended without compromise.