Brendan Carr's approach at the FCC reveals a fundamental contradiction between his stated principles and regulatory actions. "The FCC should promote freedom of speech" opens his Project 2025 chapter on the FCC1, yet his recent decisions suggest a different priority altogether. Since November, Carr has demonstrated a willingness to use government regulatory power against the very speech and press freedoms he claims to defend2.
The evidence speaks clearly. Carr's FCC has launched investigations into how CBS edited a 60 Minutes interview of then-candidate Kamala Harris3, while simultaneously amplifying Trump's assertions about political bias in major networks4. These actions represent a systematic approach to controlling news media and targeting outlets that challenge the administration. I find it particularly troubling that Carr has explicitly stated broadcast networks—with the notable exception of Fox—should face investigation for "news distortion"2.
This represents more than regulatory overreach. While publicly advocating for deregulation, Carr has developed what amounts to a coercive framework that operates outside established FCC procedures, specifically targeting corporate decisions that he and Donald Trump oppose1. The investigations themselves create their intended effect—a chilling impact on press freedom that doesn't require formal sanctions to influence behavior3. When Trump recently demanded that major broadcasters lose their licenses, Carr's indication that he would seriously consider such complaints5 demonstrated how far the agency has moved from its foundational commitment to promoting free speech.
The pattern reveals an institution transformed from technical regulator to ideological enforcer, using the machinery of government to shape media coverage according to political preferences rather than legal mandates.
Project 2025: The Ideological Blueprint Behind FCC Actions
Image Source: Brookings Institution
Understanding Carr's regulatory decisions requires examining the intellectual framework that guides them. Project 2025 provides this framework—a detailed roadmap that reveals the systematic nature of what might otherwise appear as isolated policy choices.
The Architecture of Conservative Governance
Project 2025 functions as a 900-page conservative governing blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation alongside over 100 allied organizations6. The document establishes four operational pillars: comprehensive policy guidance for the next administration, a vetted personnel database, training programs for potential appointees, and a strategic playbook for the initial 180 days in office6. Heritage Foundation positions this work as the contemporary successor to their influential 1981 "Mandate for Leadership" that shaped Reagan administration policies7.
The blueprint centers on four foundational principles: repositioning the family as the primary unit of American society, dismantling existing administrative structures, defending national sovereignty, and securing what the document terms "God-given individual rights"7. Critical analysis of the document reveals what scholars describe as "an extreme white Christian nationalist ideology" woven throughout its policy recommendations8.
Carr's Contribution: Reshaping Communications Policy
Carr authored the Federal Communications Commission chapter within this broader framework5. His section outlines priorities that include "reining in Big Tech, promoting national security, unleashing economic prosperity, and ensuring FCC accountability and good governance"5. The chapter specifically advocates for legislative changes that would eliminate Section 230 protections for technology platforms while ensuring they "no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech"5. Throughout his contribution, Carr repeatedly emphasizes that "the FCC needs to change course" to implement these objectives4.
Religious Conservative Values as Policy Foundation
The document's Christian nationalist orientation becomes explicit through specific policy proposals that align regulatory authority with religious conservative principles. Project 2025 calls for maintaining "a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family"8. The plan proposes systematically "deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion" from all federal rules, regulations, contracts, and grants9.
Most tellingly, the document reinterprets core American concepts through a religious lens. The authors argue that when the founders referenced "pursuit of happiness," they actually intended "pursuit of Blessedness," enabling individuals "to live as his Creator ordained"10. This reframing transforms secular governance into a vehicle for implementing religious doctrine, providing the intellectual justification for regulatory actions that might otherwise appear arbitrary or politically motivated.
The connection between this ideological framework and Carr's specific enforcement actions becomes clear when viewed through this lens—each investigation and regulatory decision reflects not just political preference, but a systematic implementation of Christian nationalist governance principles.
Project 2025 Principles in Practice: Carr's Regulatory Implementation
Carr's tenure at the FCC demonstrates how ideological frameworks translate into concrete regulatory actions. The theoretical principles outlined in Project 2025 have found practical expression through specific policy decisions and enforcement patterns that reveal the systematic nature of this agenda.
Dismantling Diversity Infrastructure
Project 2025's explicit rejection of diversity initiatives has materialized through Carr's methodical elimination of established programs. The termination of the Office of Workplace Diversity occurred within weeks of his appointment, effectively ending institutional support for inclusive hiring practices that had been in place for years. Several mentorship programs designed to broaden representation in communications fields followed, creating a deliberate reversal of previous agency priorities.
The agency's internal demographic metrics now document this shift, showing measurable decreases in diversity representation across multiple organizational levels. This represents more than policy preference—it constitutes a systematic restructuring of institutional culture to align with the ideological framework that guides current leadership.
Media Investigations as Enforcement Tools
Carr has deployed regulatory investigation powers in ways that mirror Project 2025's directive for the FCC to "investigate broadcasters that engage in political favoritism." The formal inquiry into CBS News regarding editorial decisions in political coverage exemplifies this approach, with "news distortion" serving as the stated justification for federal scrutiny of journalistic practices.
These investigations function as enforcement mechanisms regardless of their formal outcomes. The process itself creates compliance pressure on media organizations, effectively extending regulatory authority into editorial decision-making that has traditionally remained outside FCC jurisdiction. The selective nature of these inquiries—targeting networks perceived as oppositional while exempting those viewed as supportive—reveals the political calculations underlying regulatory enforcement.
Technology Platform Regulation Through Ideological Lens
Carr's approach to technology companies demonstrates how regulatory authority can be reframed to serve ideological objectives. Investigations into content moderation practices at major social media platforms operate under allegations of political bias, while proposed frameworks would limit Section 230 protections for platforms that remove certain categories of content.
This regulatory strategy aligns directly with Project 2025's goal of ensuring tech companies "no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech." The approach redefines traditional regulatory concerns about market competition or consumer protection as questions of political fairness and ideological balance.
The pattern across these areas shows regulatory power being systematically redirected from its traditional technical and economic functions toward enforcing compliance with Christian nationalist principles embedded in Project 2025's framework.
Christian Nationalist Values as Enforcement Strategy
The pattern of enforcement decisions under Carr reveals how religious conservative ideology shapes regulatory priorities. Traditional FCC standards have given way to enforcement that serves ideological rather than technical purposes.
Media Regulation Through Moral Authority
Carr frames media regulation as a moral imperative rather than a technical function. He positions declining public trust in media as justification for intervention, claiming that more Americans trust gas station sushi than the legacy national media11. This rhetorical approach transforms the FCC from communications regulator into cultural arbiter. When Carr accuses networks of "misleading the American public"12 and cites "news distortion" as regulatory concern, he establishes government authority over editorial judgment—a fundamental shift from the agency's traditional role.
The moral framing serves a specific purpose. It provides cover for targeting outlets that challenge conservative narratives by positioning regulatory action as protecting public virtue rather than suppressing dissent.
Enforcement Bias in Practice
Carr's enforcement record demonstrates clear selectivity. Upon taking office, he revived complaints against ABC, NBC, and CBS that had been previously dismissed12. NBC faced scrutiny for featuring Kamala Harris on Saturday Night Live. ABC drew criticism for debate moderation. CBS encountered investigation over 60 Minutes editing12. Each case involved editorial decisions by mainstream outlets.
Public broadcasting faced particular attention. Carr has called for Congress to "cut off all taxpayer subsidies" to NPR and PBS13, targeting institutions that provide news coverage independent of commercial pressures. The timing and selection of these actions suggest strategic rather than procedural motivations.
Conservative Media Exemption
The enforcement pattern becomes clearer when examining what Carr ignores. Fox Corporation maintains extensive DEI programs, including an "Inclusion Index" for measuring corporate culture14, yet receives no investigative letters. More telling, Carr supported dismissing complaints against the Murdochs despite Fox News paying $787.50 million to settle defamation claims over election coverage12.
This selective approach creates a regulatory environment where ideological alignment determines enforcement attention. Conservative viewpoints receive protection while mainstream outlets face scrutiny for standard journalistic practices. The result is government power applied according to political preference rather than legal standard.
Legal and Constitutional Implications of Carr's Regulatory Strategy
Carr's enforcement approach raises serious legal questions that extend far beyond immediate policy disputes. The constitutional implications of his actions create risks that legal experts are only beginning to understand, and some potential consequences remain unclear.
Constitutional Conflicts with Free Speech Protections
The legal framework governing the FCC establishes clear boundaries that Carr's investigations appear to cross. By law, "the FCC is barred from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view"15. The Communications Act explicitly "prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material" and from "making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech"15. Yet Carr's investigations into editorial decisions at major networks directly challenge these prohibitions.
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, warns that the FCC may be "interfering with the First Amendment rights of the companies to take the views that they want to take"16. Former FCC Chair Pai previously stated he could "hardly think of an action more chilling of free speech than the federal government investigating a broadcast station because of disagreement with its news coverage"17. These aren't abstract legal theories—they represent fundamental constraints on government power that Carr's approach tests in unprecedented ways.
Regulatory Coercion Through Merger Approval Power
Carr has discovered a particularly effective tool in the agency's merger review authority. He openly stated that companies seeking FCC approval should "get busy ending any sort of their invidious forms of DEI discrimination, "18, threatening to block mergers from firms maintaining diversity programs. This strategy could impact billions of dollars in telecommunications deals, including Paramount's merger with Skydance Media and Verizon's acquisition of Frontier Communications.
Senior counsel Andrew Schwartzman characterized this as "government reaching into places it does not belong"16. The implications extend beyond individual transactions. Companies now face a choice: align with the administration's ideological preferences or risk significant financial consequences. This creates what amounts to a regulatory protection racket, where business decisions become subject to political approval.
Precedent and Future Administrative Power
Perhaps most concerning, we don't fully understand how future administrations might use these precedents. Legal scholars note that "erosion of independent journalism doesn't happen overnight. It happens incrementally, through lawsuits, regulatory pressure, and financial strain"14. What happens when different political actors control this machinery?
The judicial system shows signs of pushback. The Fifth Circuit recently ruled aspects of the FCC's enforcement process unconstitutional20, signalling potential limits on agency overreach. As one legal analysis concluded, "with the elimination of Chevron deference and the rise of the major questions doctrine, courts are likely to be more skeptical of agency actions, "21 potentially constraining the FCC's regulatory authority as we move forward.
However, court decisions take time, and damage to media independence occurs in real-time. The current enforcement regime establishes troubling precedents that risk normalizing politically-motivated regulation across future administrations, regardless of their political orientation. That uncertainty should concern anyone who values independent media, regardless of their political views.
The FCC's Transformation: From Regulator to Ideological Enforcer
Brendan Carr's leadership at the FCC reveals a troubling transformation. His public commitment to free speech principles contradicts his regulatory actions targeting media outlets that challenge the administration. This contradiction exposes the actual agenda—not speech protection, but speech control aligned with the Christian nationalist framework outlined in Project 2025.
The enforcement pattern demonstrates ideological motivation rather than regulatory consistency. Liberal-leaning networks face investigations for editorial decisions while conservative outlets engaging in identical practices remain untouched. What appears as regulatory oversight functions as ideological punishment, creating a system where political alignment determines regulatory treatment.
These actions threaten the First Amendment protections that have historically governed American media. The investigations themselves generate the intended chilling effect on press freedom, independent of their formal outcomes. Media organizations may self-censor to avoid regulatory scrutiny, eroding the foundation of independent journalism through anticipatory compliance.
The precedent concerns me most. Once regulatory powers become tools for enforcing ideological compliance, future administrations can deploy similar tactics against different targets. Each investigation strengthens the infrastructure for government control of media content, normalizing politically-motivated enforcement that extends beyond any single administration.
Carr has fundamentally altered the FCC's role from technical regulator to moral arbiter, abandoning its legal mandate in favor of Project 2025's vision of government reshaped around Christian nationalist values. Courts may eventually constrain these overreaches, but significant damage to media independence could occur in the meantime.
The stakes extend beyond regulatory policy. Free press remains essential to democratic governance, and the FCC's current direction threatens this cornerstone institution through regulatory pressure disguised as oversight. Americans must recognize these actions for what they represent—not the protection of speech, but its control according to ideological preferences that have no place in federal communications regulation.
References
[1] - https://www.brookings.edu/articles/not-deregulation-but-heavy-handed-regulation-at-the-trump-fcc/
[2] - https://www.thefire.org/news/brendan-carrs-bizarro-world-fcc
[3] - https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext-fcc-brendan-carr-donald-trump/
[4] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fcc-brendan-carr-project-2025-what-to-know/
[5] - https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/media/brendan-carr-trump-fcc-nominee-project-2025
[6] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-project-2025-trump-conservative-blueprint-heritage-foundation/
[7] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do
[8] - https://civilrights.org/project2025/
[9] - https://www.au.org/the-latest/church-and-state/articles/destroying-life-and-liberty-a-christian-nationalist-playbook-outlines-a-broad-scheme-to-overthrow-american-democracy-and-install-a-theocracy/
[10] - https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/robert-p-jones-on-christian-nationalism-and-project-2025/
[11] - https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-04-28/trump-fcc-brendan-carr-upsets-media-status-quo
[12] - https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2025-01-24/trumps-fcc-chairman-resurrects-bias-complaints-against-broadcasters-abc-cbs-and-nbc
[13] - https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5281162/fcc-npr-pbs-investigation
[14] - https://admonsters.com/regulating-the-press-the-fccs-targeted-investigations-raise-alarms/
[15] - https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/the_fcc_and_freedom_of_speech.pdf
[16] - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/business/tmobile-fcc-dei-corporate-america.html
[17] - https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-opens-preliminary-inquiry-into-fccs-political-targeting-of-newsrooms
[18] - https://nypost.com/2025/03/21/business/fccs-carr-warns-dei-policies-at-paramount-verizon-could-threaten-mergers/
[19] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-21/fcc-s-carr-threatens-to-block-m-a-for-companies-with-dei-plans
[20] - https://www.ctia.org/news/its-time-to-reform-fcc-enforcement
[21] - https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-navigating-the-2025-regulatory-landscape-key-insights-on-fcc-policy-and-telecommunications-industry-shifts
