Stephen Colbert’s comments that network executives pulled his interview with Democratic Texas Senate candidate James Talarico over fears it would violate regulatory guidance from the Trump administration has prompted a conversation about the rules governing how media outlets treat political coverage.

The concern about the interviewwhich the late-night host referenced in his Monday night show and later posted in full online, stems from a requirement that broadcast stations give equal time to political candidates when they appear on-air.

Although there are multiple exemptions to the provision, the Trump administration through the Federal Communications Commission — which regulates the nation’s airwaves — has been moving to clamp down specifically on programs like Colbert’s, which the agency has suggested may be “motivated by partisan purposes.”

“He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert said on his program, ”The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

In a statement issued Tuesday, CBS said Colbert’s show “was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates” in the March 3 Democratic primary, “and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.” Thereafter, the network noted, it was decided “to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options.”

Talarico, a critic of President Donald Trump, posted a nearly minute-long clip of his interview with Colbert on X and called it “the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see.”

What does equal time mean?

The Communications Act of 1934, the wide-ranging legislation that for nearly a century has broadly governed use of the nation’s airwaves, includes a provision that applies specifically to coverage of political candidates. If a station gives airtime to one candidate, then the same station must offer comparable time to other candidates competing in the given contest, should they ask for it.

It also delves into campaign advertising airtime sold by stations and networks. If a station sells airtime to one candidate, then it also has to offer to sell the same amount of time to other candidates for the same office.

There are exceptions to this rule, including newscasts, “bona fide” interview programs, coverage of live events or documentaries. But if candidates host TV shows or appear in non-news, entertainment programming, that does trigger the provision.

Equal time also only applies to broadcast television and radio. So pieces on cable, streaming services or social media aren’t included.

How the Trump administration has treated equal time

The rule requiring networks to give equal time to political candidates hasn’t traditionally been applied to talk shows, but the Trump administration has made moves to change that.

In January, the Federal Communications Commission issued new guidance warning late-night and daytime hosts that they need to give political candidates equal time, with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr questioning the talk show exemption and positing that hosts were “motivated by partisan purposes.”

“The FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption,” according to the public notice.

FCC eyes talk shows like ‘The View’

The notice also said that television networks would need to apply for exemptions for individual programs.

In his comments, Colbert noted that the equal time provision applies to broadcast but not streaming platforms. Subsequently, his nearly 15-minute interview with Talarico was posted to the YouTube page for Colbert’s show, with the host noting specifically that the segment was only appearing online and not on broadcast.

Carr, appointed by Trump to lead the agency last year, has often criticized network talk shows, suggesting last year that probing ABC’s “The View” — whose hosts have frequently been critical of Trump — over the exemption might be “worthwhile.”

The FCC did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Tuesday.

What about the Fairness Doctrine?

Created by the FCC in 1949, this rule mandated that broadcasters present contrasting viewpoints when covering publicly important and controversial issues. Unlike the equal time provision of the Communications Act, this was an FCC rule, not a law.

It didn’t apply specifically to political candidates, but topics. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the doctrine on a First Amendment challenge in 1969, with the court writing that the limited availability of broadcast spectrum justified regulation.

In 1987, the FCC repealed the rule, arguing that spectrum scarcity was no longer an issue, and then-President Ronald Reagan vetoed Congress’ attempt to codify it into law.

___

Associated Press reporter David Bauder contributed to this report.

___

Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration is throwing its support behind the prediction market operators Kalshi and Polymarket in a critical legal battle between the growing prediction market industry and states that wish to ban these platforms.

The move by Michael Selig, the recently appointed chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, could have enormous implications for how sports betting is regulated in the country and, if Kalshi and Polymarket were to prevail, could erode the ability for states to effectively regulate gambling.

Any friendly decision the CFTC makes on this industry could end up financially benefiting the president’s family as well. President Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., has invested in Polymarket through his venture capital firm and is a strategic advisor for Kalshi.

The CFTC currently regulates prediction markets, and that federal oversight allows Kalshi and others to operate in all 50 states, even those where gambling is illegal. Several states have sued Polymarket and Kalshi, alleging that the companies effectively operate casino or gambling operations in violation of state gambling laws, and have ordered them to shut down or stop operating in their states.

In an opinion piece in the The Wall Street Journal, Selig wrote, “The CFTC will no longer sit idly by while overzealous state governments undermine the agency’s exclusive jurisdiction over these markets by seeking to establish statewide prohibitions on these exciting products.”

Polymarket and Kalshi and other prediction markets allow participants to buy and sell contracts tied to the probable outcome of an event. Customers can wager on everything from whether it will rain in Los Angeles tomorrow to who will in the NBA championship to whether the U.S. and Iran will go to war. The contracts are typically priced between one cent and 99 cents, which roughly translates into what percentage of those customers believe that event will happen.

While customers can bet on anything, roughly 90% of Kalshi’s trading volume goes toward wagers on sports, while roughly half of Polymarket’s trading is tied to sports. Kalshi said it saw more than $1 billion in volume trade on the Superbowl.

The biggest of the lawsuits comes from Nevada, where the Nevada Gaming Control Board sued or issued enforcement actions against Kalshi and Polymarket, saying they are operating unlicensed sports betting operations in the state. A federal judge agreed with the NGCB and issued a temporary restraining order against Kalshi from operating in the state.

In response, Kalshi has appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which is why the CFTC is weighing in through what is known as a “friend of the court” briefing.

As the regulator of commodities, futures and derivatives, the CFTC has historically overseen markets like oil futures, agricultural products, gold, and other financial products. At roughly 700 employees, the CFTC is much smaller than the Securities and Exchange Commission, with roughly 5,000 employees. But as the CFTC has become the favored regulator of cryptocurrency companies and prediction markets proponents, it has taken on a much larger role in financial markets in the last five years.

By stepping into the lawsuit, the Trump administration is taking an unusually broad definition of commodities and futures. Selig has shifted his position from what he told Senators at his confirmation hearing, where he said that it would be best for the CFTC to defer to the courts on the core legal issue facing Kalshi and Polymarket.

Last week Selig announced the the regulator would create an “Innovation Advisory Committee” to help the CFTC draft regulations on issues such as cryptocurrencies and prediction markets. The 35-member panel includes the CEOs of Polymarket, Kalshi, Coinbase, Robinhood, FanDuel and DraftKings. While there’s some representation from traditional finance, the panel has no representation from consumer advocates or public interest groups.

Selig now says that prediction markets effectively do the same thing as other futures contracts, where customers can hedge against bad weather or changes in energy prices, and they are not betting against the house, which is what happens with sports book companies. The states that have taken legal action against Kalshi and Polymarket argue that while these companies do offer customers the ability to bet on future events, the vast majority of their business is sports betting. Further, most prediction markets allow customers 18 years or older to use their platforms, while state gambling is limited to those 21 years or older.

Selig now says states cannot preempt federal regulators.

“To those who seek to challenge our authority in this space, let me be clear, we will see you in court,” Selig said in a video statement.

Some members of the GOP pushed back on Selig’s announcement, including the Governor of Utah, which has some of the strictest gambling laws in the country.

“Mike, I appreciate you attempting this with a straight face, but I don’t remember the CFTC having authority over the “derivative market” of LeBron James rebounds,” said Gov. Spencer Cox, in a statement on Twitter. “These prediction markets you are breathlessly defending are gambling — pure and simple.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House border czar Tom Homan said Sunday that more than 1,000 immigration agents have left Minnesota’s Twin Cities area and hundreds more will depart in the days ahead as part of the Trump administration’s drawdown of its immigration enforcement surge.

A “small” security force will stay for a short period to protect remaining immigration agents and will respond “when our agents are out and they get surrounded by agitators and things got out of control,” Homan told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” He did not define “small.”

He also said agents will keep investigating fraud allegations as well as the anti-immigration enforcement protest that disrupted a service at a church service.

“We already removed well over 1,000 people, and as of Monday, Tuesday, we’ll remove several hundred more,” Homan said. “We’ll get back to the original footprint.”

Thousands of officers were sent to the Minneapolis and St. Paul area for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “Operation Metro Surge.” The Department of Homeland Security said it was its largest immigration enforcement operation ever and proved successful. But the crackdown came under increasing criticism as the situation grew more volatile and two U.S. citizens were killed.

Protests became common. A network of residents worked to help immigrants, warn of approaching agents or film immigration officers’ actions. The shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal officers drew condemnation and raised questions over officers’ conduct, prompting changes to the operation.

Homan announced last week that 700 federal officers would leave Minnesota immediately, but that still left more than 2,000 in the state. He said Thursday that a “significant drawdown” was already underway and would continue through this week.

Homan said enforcement would not stop in the Twin Cities and that mass deportations will continue across the country. Officers leaving Minnesota will report back to their stations or be assigned elsewhere.

When asked if future deployments could match the scale of the Twin Cities operation, Homan said “it depends on the situation.”