The FCC’s Power Grab: A Repeal of Last Gasp Regulations

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) plans to scrap a 39% cap on television ownership should be met with alarm. This move is not just a concern for those who value media diversity, but also for anyone worried about the erosion of democratic institutions.

Chairman Brendan Carr’s justification for repealing the cap hinges on a dubious interpretation of congressional intent. In reality, the 39% limit was set in place as a safeguard against media monopolies that could exert undue influence over public discourse. By arguing that Congress gave the agency authority to modify or waive the rule, Carr is essentially rewriting history and redefining his own agency’s role.

This move is part of a broader pattern of deregulation and consolidation under Trump’s FCC. In March, Carr granted a waiver allowing Nexstar Media Group to buy Tegna, effectively giving one company control over more than half of TV households. This was a test case for the 39% limit, and now that it has been bent, the rule is likely to be abolished altogether.

The implications are far-reaching. With no cap on television ownership, large media conglomerates will have free rein to gobble up smaller outlets and stifle local competition. News content could become increasingly homogenized, with big players pushing out voices that diverge from their editorial lines. In an era where corporate influence over media is already high, this move would be a major blow to public discourse.

The Trump administration’s own behavior provides evidence of how this plays out in practice. The President has long championed an agenda that rewards his allies and punishes those who criticize him. With a more pliable media landscape, Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting will be better positioned to amplify pro-Trump propaganda.

Journalists already face intense pressure to produce clickbait-friendly content; they now risk being beholden to a few large corporate interests rather than serving the public interest. In an era where trust in institutions is at an all-time low, this move will only exacerbate the problem.

The proposed repeal raises questions about the FCC’s accountability. If Chairman Carr can unilaterally reinterpret congressional intent and ignore the rule of law, what other limits on his power is he willing to disregard? The silence from Capitol Hill on this issue suggests that the usual checks and balances may not be enough to prevent this power grab.

The outcome remains uncertain. One possibility is a court battle over the FCC’s authority to repeal a limit set by Congress. Given the precedents already established under Trump’s FCC, it seems unlikely that the courts will intervene decisively. More likely, we’ll see more of the same: regulatory capture and policy decisions driven by partisan interests rather than public good.

The stakes are high, but they’re not new. This is a battle over the very foundation of our democracy – the right to access diverse perspectives and hold those in power accountable. The FCC’s proposed repeal of the 39% cap on television ownership is just one front in this war, but it may prove the most telling indicator yet of how far we’ve strayed from the ideals that underpin American journalism.