The Dictatorship

What to know about the ‘equal time’ rule and Colbert’s Talarico interview

Published

4 months ago

February 19, 2026

What to know about the ‘equal time’ rule and Colbert’s Talarico interview

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

The Dictatorship

California voters to decide billionaire tax measure in November

Published

23 minutes ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

California voters to decide billionaire tax measure in November

Jun. 25, 2026, 10:25 PM EDT

California voters will consider a controversial proposal in November to temporarily raise taxes on billionaires after the labor union backing the measure announced Thursday it would forge ahead despite pressure from critics to withdraw it.

The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, mainly to fund the state’s Medicaid system after federal cuts.

“I am all in on this,” union President Dave Regan said on a Zoom call, adding that opponents of the proposal are “totally out of touch.”

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and many traditional allies of the union oppose the measure. They argue it is a temporary fix for an ongoing problem and that it would push the ultrawealthy to leave the state, taking the money they would contribute in income taxes with them. Newsom, who is considering a presidential run as he prepares to leave office in January, has generally opposed tax increases during his time as governor.

A coalition of healthcare, education and housing groups — including the California Medical Association and California School Boards Association — banded together last week to fight the tax.

“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the coalition said in a statement.

Brian Brokaw, a Newsom political adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said it would “make California’s biggest challenges worse.”

“Driving away the state’s sustainable tax base for a one-time grab is bad policy and an even worse deal for 40 million Californians who will be left holding the bag,” he said in a statement.

Under the proposal, the state would spend the money generated from the tax over multiple years. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the proposal would generate tens of billions of dollars in the first few years, but that income tax revenues would subsequently decline by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Many of the Silicon Valley tech moguls who oppose the measure have already moved their assets to other states or threatened to do so to avoid the possible tax. They have also spent millions to try to defeat it.

Since the proposal was announced in October, Google co-founder Sergey Brin has donated $82 million to a political committee called Building a Better California that backs a variety of initiatives designed to blunt the billionaire tax proposal. It has raised more than $118 million, counting Brin’s contributions, from fewer than a dozen donors.

California relies on its top 1% of earnersfor nearly half of its personal income tax revenue.

The union offered to scale back its proposal last week, asking Newsom to back a 2% tax on billionaires instead. But the governor’s office said the lower rate didn’t change his stance.

The proposed tax may have piqued the interest of many Democrats because it comes at a time when they are particularly concerned about affordability, income inequality and federal cutbacks to government programs, said Martin Gilens, a political science professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“There’s kind of a perfect storm that sort of bolsters preexisting inclinations to be sympathetic to the idea of raising taxes on the well-to-do,” he said.

But there’s a catch. Support for ballot initiatives often declines as the election nears, and if the measure passes, it’s likely to face legal challenges, Gilens said.

The Dictatorship

Flattery, secrecy and chaos: Bill Pulte’s first week as intel chief

Published

23 minutes ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Flattery, secrecy and chaos: Bill Pulte’s first week as intel chief

Jun. 25, 2026, 7:15 PM EDT

Since taking office one week ago, Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, has busied himself on social media posting flattering photos of President Donald Trump, trivia about a former counterintelligence agent and praising his current staff.

What the Trump loyalist with no intelligence experience has not done is address the public about his plans, or calm the unease and confusion inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is being described by top officials as “chaotic” amid firings of senior personnel with threats of more to come.

One image posted to the official X account of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, apparently artificial intelligence-generated, features Trump raising a clenched fist in the air with two B-2 stealth bombers in the sky behind him. Another is an image of the president, his fist clenched, glowering as he stands behind the Oval Office’s Resolute Desk.

In another post, Pulte, who was expected to gut the workforce of the National Counterterrorism Center, instead declared the staff there “true professionals and American patriots” after he said he spent time with them, adding “it is a privilege to work beside them.”

And in an apparent attempt at levity, Pulte reposted a message reminding Americans that Tuesday was “National Typewriter Day” and informing them of the role that a former Army counterintelligence agent played.

“Fun CI fact,” the post reads. “Former Army CI Special Agent Leroy Anderson composed ‘The Typewriter’ on October 9, 1950.”

But Pulte’s arrival has sparked anxiety and fear among the office’s workforce, three former U.S. intelligence officials told MS NOW, granted anonymity to address a sensitive topic.

They said that a half dozen political appointees were removed from their posts and several dozen staffers were sent back to their home intelligence agencies. Beyond that, little else is known about Pulte’s plans.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MS NOW that his requests for more information from the office, known by the acronym ODNI, have been rebuffed.

“I’ve been calling over there all day and can’t get my calls returned,” said Himes.

He later said, “I spoke directly to their office of congressional affairs. They said they had nothing for me.”

“It seems like it’s totally chaotic at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on a podcast Wednesday. “There was word that there was going to be firings and then he said he changed his mind. We don’t know.”

Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior CIA official and now an MS NOW contributor, said that staff in the intelligence community do not know what to think.

“Everyone is in the same boat and unsure of what is going on,” he said. “That said, there is no love lost for the DNI, as many believe that there is redundancy that does need to be cut.”

The other former U.S. intelligence officials said they agree that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in need of reform. The agency was created after a lack of information sharing among U.S. intelligence agencies played a role in the failure to stop the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ODNI’s mission is to ensure that the country’s now 18 different intelligence agencies share information with one another.

But the former intelligence officials said Pulte is patently unqualified to design or carry out those reforms.

“As with many things Trump alights upon, there is a sliver of truth here but he goes about addressing it in the worst possible way,” a former senior U.S. intelligence official told MS NOW, granted anonymity over concerns of retaliation. “But mass firings without any kind of sense of what you are trying to accomplish is addressing it in the most ham-handed way.”

That former official, as well as Warner and Himes, have said they fear that Pulte’s mission is to use his position as the nation’s top intelligence official to help Trump interfere in the midterm elections in November.

Pulte, who simultaneously serves as the Trump administration’s top federal housing official as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, used government mortgage information to file several criminal referrals against Democrats whom Trump considered enemies, including Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York State Attorney General Letitia James. None of Pulte’s referrals have resulted in criminal convictions.

One fear expressed by Warner and some former intelligence officials is that Pulte may try to falsely claim that his office has found evidence that foreign governments are secretly funding Democratic candidates.

One way he could do that, they say, is by falsely claiming foreign actors have hacked U.S. voting machines and altered vote totals in favor of Democrats. And Pulte and FBI agents could seize voting machines, ballots and election records in November — as Gabbard did in Fulton County, Georgia, last year at Trump’s behest — as part of voter fraud investigations that please the president.

“I have to tell you, I was extraordinarily concerned about the former director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, interfering in our election,” Warner told NPR earlier this month. “The concerns I had with Tulsi Gabbard now, upon reflection, look small versus the concerns I have with Bill Pulte.”

David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.

The Dictatorship

Barack Obama says Trump gives him a ‘room in his head’

Published

23 minutes ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Barack Obama says Trump gives him a ‘room in his head’

Jun. 25, 2026, 5:37 PM EDT

Former President Barack Obama slammed President Donald Trump for obsessing over him while serving in the nation’s highest office.

“I obviously, you know, have a room in his head. A suite in his head,” Obama said an an episode of the podcast “All The Smoke,” posted Wednesday.

“Look, first of all, when I was president, the last thing I had time to do was worry about what somebody said, or what my predecessor did,” Obama told the two hosts, former NBA players Matt Barnes and Stephen Jackson. “They’re gone. I’ve got work to do.”

Trump has a long history of publicly insulting the former president, often invoking Obama’s middle name, Hussein.

Trump has also heavily promoted the false and racist “birther” conspiracy theory, which claimed that Obama was ineligible to serve as president because he was born in Kenya rather than the United States.

Earlier this year, Trump drew criticism after sharing a racist artificial intelligence-generated video on his Truth Social account depicting the former president and former first lady Michelle Obama as apes. The video was later deleted, and Trump did not apologize.

Before launching the war against Iran with Israel on Feb. 28, Trump repeatedly criticized the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 diplomatic agreement primarily negotiated by Obama that also limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for sweeping economic sanctions relief.

More recently, Trump trashed the newly debuted Obama Presidential Center in Chicago as a “very unattractive building” and “total disaster,” adding that when his presidential library opens, it will be “on time, on budget, best location in Miami.”

Without mentioning Trump by name, Obama criticized leaders who fixate on their predecessors, characterizing their priorities as misplaced.

“If you’re doing the job right, everyday, you’ve got five, ten things that are real hard. And you have to be constantly focused,” Obama said.

“The idea that I’d be worrying about somebody who came before and me trying to measure, ‘What’s he done today?’ Constantly worrying about that is a strange thing to me. It shows me somebody who’s not focused on the American people and the job they’re supposed to do.”

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.