The Dictatorship

What Brendan Carr’s media threats are really about

Published

3 months ago

March 17, 2026

Mar. 16, 2026, 6:27 PM EDT

Brendan Carr, the Federal Communications Commission chair appointed by President Donald Trump, has threatened to take away TV licenses over news coverage he doesn’t like. Legally, he can’t do that.

But in the age of Trump, a threat can sometimes be as effective as the law — which is probably why Carr keeps jawboning media owners and reporters with statements unlikely to hold up under legal challenge.

In a presidency known for flouting norms, this is yet another way the Trump administration exercises power.

The most recent incident occurred on Saturday. Reacting to Iran conflict coverage, Carr warned broadcasters that airing “hoaxes and news distortions” could lead to the loss of their federally granted licenses. Broadcasters are at risk, Carr posted on X, if they don’t “correct course before their license renewals come up.”

Carr wasn’t overly specific, but he didn’t have to be. As FCC chair, Carr has issued several warnings that echo his patron’s complaints about the three legacy broadcast TV networks: ABC, CBS and NBC. (The FCC grants licenses to individual broadcast stations, not national broadcast networks; cable networks such as MS NOW or BLN and streaming services including Netflix aren’t licensed at all.)

Indeed, Carr’s Saturday post quoted Trump’s own social media complaint that some news reports about the military action he initiated against Iran were “intentionally misleading.” Trump endorsed Carr’s threats Sunday in another Truth Social rantthis one suggesting that media outlets that report inaccurately during wartime should be tried for treason — a crime punishable by death.

Carr’s fist-shaking at broadcasters generates headlines and alarm, but it’s notable that his threats have resulted in exactly zero license-revocation hearings to date. Carr, an experienced telecommunications lawyer, surely knows that taking away any station’s license would involve a yearslong legal battle — one that he’d be highly likely to lose once the FCC’s decision were subject to independent judicial review.

That’s because broadcasters have broad free-speech protections that prohibit the government from penalizing them for what they put on the air. “The FCC can issue threats all day long, but it is powerless to carry them out,” Anna Gomezthe FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, posted Sunday on X. “Such threats violate the First Amendment and will go nowhere.”

The FCC can issue threats all day long, but it is powerless to carry them out. Such threats violate the First Amendment and will go nowhere.

Broadcasters should continue covering the news, fiercely and independently, without fear of government pressure.

— Anna M. Gomez (@AGomezFCC)”https://twitter.com/AGomezFCC/status/2033216662498103531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>March 15, 2026

In its nearly 100-year history, the FCC has rarely gone after a license. Typically, the commission acts only in instances in which a station owner has been convicted of a felony or has repeatedly lied to the agency, according to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a veteran media attorney. Not once has the FCC sought its highest penalty for a station that, as Carr put it, “distorts” the news.

Contrary to what Trump and Carr suggest, the agency can’t penalize a broadcaster for merely reporting inaccurately or holding an opinion the president and FCC chair dislike. To meet the FCC’s own standard of distortion, the agency must find that a station deliberately tried to trick viewers or listeners by, say, re-enacting a drug bust and presenting it as the real thing or using “file” footage as if it were part of a breaking news story. The FCC has cited stations only eight times over the past 50 years, mostly in the 1970s and 1980s.

Still, Carr’s devotion to Trump’s media bashing produces results. After late-night host Jimmy Kimmel commented on the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September, enraging conservatives, Carr threatened ABC’s station licenses. Here, too, the threat was legally dubious, but ABC’s parent, The Walt Disney Company, took Kimmel’s show off the air for a few days after local affiliates said they would preempt the show themselves.

The backdrop to all this is another action Carr took shortly after taking office. In January 2025, Carr revived a previously dismissed complaint alleging news distortion by CBS News over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris in 2024 — one that was already the subject of a lawsuit filed by Trump. The investigation effectively tied up the FCC’s approval of an $8 billion proposed merger between Skydance Media and CBS’ parent company, Paramount. To remove the regulatory roadblock, Paramount settled Trump’s lawsuit by paying him $16 million and making other commitments, such as installing an ombudsman to review CBS News’ reporting. Once the suit was settled, the FCC approved the Skydance-Paramount merger.

If Carr thought he had the law on his side, presumably he’d initiate proceedings and face whatever challenges arise in court. But he has a short cut to his and the president’s preferred outcome.

Even the prospect of regulatory trouble can lead to preemptive and conciliatory action. In December 2024, Disney agreed to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit against Disney-owned ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos, a move widely read as a decision not to challenge the power of the incoming president and risk an uncertain fate at an FCC headed by a key Trump ally.

Carr has also publicly accused Comcastthe parent company of NBC News and former parent of MS NOW — both a frequent target of Trump bashing — of news distortion in reporting its outlets did about Kilmar Abrego Garciathe Maryland immigrant wrongfully deported last year by the Trump administration.

Carr’s weaponization of news distortion prompted a bipartisan group of former FCC officials to petition the agency last year to repeal the policy. So far, the agency hasn’t acted on the petition.

The FCC licenses hundreds of radio stations, including those that broadcast conservative talk radio programs, most of them routinely supportive of the Trump administration. There’s no record of Carr second-guessing anything these stations have broadcast. Nor has he questioned the reporting of local TV stations owned by Sinclair Inc. and Nexstar Media Group, the two companies that temporarily declined to air Kimmel’s late-night program after Carr’s criticism. Nexstar is seeking the FCC’s approval to buy a rival station owner, Tegna Inc., for $6.2 billionin a major consolidation of the business.

If Carr thought he had the law on his side, presumably he’d initiate proceedings and face whatever challenges arise in court. But he has a shortcut to his and the president’s preferred outcome: He’s put the bully in the bully pulpit.

Paul Farhi is a former media reporter for The Washington Post, where he was a staff writer for more than 35 years. He writes about the media industry for The Atlantic, The Daily Beast and Columbia Journalism Review, among other outlets.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

6 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

6 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

6 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.