Can the FCC punish Iran war coverage? What the First Amendment says

• In response to Trump's criticism of news coverage of the war in Iran, Carr wrote in a March 14 X post that broadcasters "have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up."
• Experts said it's rare for a broadcaster to lose their FCC license and would be unheard of in response to what they described as partisan efforts.
• Carr's post stands in stark contrast to his previous statements, which include a 2019 X post saying the agency "does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the 'public interest.'"

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr is again seeking to put broadcasters on notice.

This time, Carr is focusing on the Iran war and the media's coverage of the conflict.

In response to a Truth Social statement from President Donald Trump that criticized news coverage of the United States’ war against Iran, Carr said that broadcasters "running hoaxes and news distortions – also known as the fake news – have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up."

“The law is clear,” Carr wrote in a post on X. “Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.”  

Trump later said he was “thrilled” with Carr's efforts in a March 15 Truth Social post.  

Can Carr and the FCC actually revoke the licenses of broadcasters they don't like?

It’s “exceptionally rare” for a broadcaster to lose an FCC license, said Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. An FCC chairman’s distrust of certain coverage is “simply not a permissible grounds for taking away a license,” he said.  

In interviews with USA TODAY, Corn-Revere and other experts said both the First Amendment and the Communications Act of 1934 would support broadcasters in any potential attempts to revoke their licenses.

USA TODAY reached out to the FCC for comment.  

Unprecedented to have 'politically motivated' license revocations

Though the FCC does have limited power to revoke broadcast licenses, experts said it would be unprecedented for a license to be revoked on what they described as Carr's partisan grounds.   

Institute for Free Speech President David Keating compared Carr's efforts to those the Parents Television Council took in the early 2000s to attempt to get FCC licenses revoked over indecency, calling both "politically motivated."

The nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, which has since been renamed the Parents Television and Media Council, "seeks to discourage the increasingly graphic sexual themes and dialogue, depictions of gratuitous violence, and profane/obscene language that have crowded out family viewing options," particularly on broadcast television, according to its website. It has been described as a conservative watchdog group.

Keating noted that even when NBC rigged a crash test as part of a segment on General Motors gas tanks in the 1990s, the FCC only sent the network an admonishment.

Corn-Revere said he was unaware of other examples of the FCC wielding license renewals “for such a nakedly political excuse as this.” 

Broadcast television licenses in Washington, DC, as well as Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia expire on Oct. 1, 2028, according to the FCC’s website. Broadcast radio licenses in the same jurisdiction expire on Oct. 1, 2027.  

Disfavored, false speech still protected by First Amendment

In both his X post and elsewhere, including a Senate committee hearing in December, Carr invoked policies related to news distortion and public interest standards that FCC licensees are required to follow.     

Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said Carr’s statements reflect a “gross misinterpretation” of the law and a departure from how the FCC has operated in the past. 

“The FCC can’t stop speech just because it doesn’t like it or because it doesn’t think that it’s true,” she said.  

The FCC itself said as much in 2020, when it denied a request to investigate broadcasters for airing what were deemed false statements by Trump amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 

At the time, the commission said it “does not – and cannot and will not – act as a self-appointed, free-roving arbiter of truth in journalism.”  

Leventoff noted, as the FCC also did in 2020, that free speech rights do not only apply to true statements.  

“Even if the speech were false, the First Amendment would protect it,” Leventoff said. 

Carr's efforts contrast with previous statements

Carr’s statement came a month after he announced an “enforcement action underway” against ABC in line with the FCC's equal time rules following an interview with Democratic Texas state Rep. James Talarico on “The View.” 

The equal time rule does not require networks to proactively offer broadcast opportunities to all candidates in any given election. Rather, they are required to provide such opportunities if legally qualified opposing candidates request it.   

Democratic Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s campaign previously told USA TODAY it had not made an equal time request to ABC amid Texas' Senate primary race.  

Stephen Colbert told viewers in February that CBS decided not to air his interview with Talarico because of the equal time requirement, though the network pushed back on his statements and said the show was merely provided "legal guidance." The interview was instead posted to the YouTube channel for “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” The FCC does not have jurisdiction over content posted on YouTube.   

In 2025, Carr also made comments interpreted by some as a threat to pull the ABC station licenses if Jimmy Kimmel wasn’t fired over remarks he made on the air about Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Such efforts stand in contrast to Carr's statements in past years.

During Trump’ first administration in February 2019, for example, Carr said the government should not censor speech it opposes. 

“The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the ‘public interest,’” Carr wrote on X. 

Keating called Carr’s X post in March an “illegitimate threat” and said such rhetoric contradicts the free speech platform Trump touted during the 2024 presidential campaign. 

'We hope these broadcasters don't fall for it'

Leventoff, reiterating previous statements to USA TODAY, said Carr’s efforts as of late could cause a chilling effect among broadcasters even if no licenses are revoked.  

“I think he wants broadcasters to think before they speak, and think, ‘Will President Trump like what I’m about to say?’ [and] if not, have them choose not to say it,” she said. 

The ACLU wants to avoid that outcome.  

“We hope that these broadcasters don’t fall for it,” she said. “We hope that they continue to speak and share the news as they want to.”  

Experts agreed that the law would be on broadcasters’ side if a license was revoked based on coverage of an international conflict, though they noted that the legal process can require significant time and money.  

“The process is the punishment,” Keating said.  

Corn-Revere said Carr would “quickly be embarrassed by the outcome” if he took action reviewable by a court. 

“I expect this is really going to be nothing more than a few angry tweets,” he said.  

BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at [email protected]. 

USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.

This story has been updated to include a description of the Parents Television and Media Council.