The FCC’s investigations into media companies under Trump-appointed chair Brendan Carr raise concerns about press freedom. Targeting DEI programs while ignoring others, the probes appear more about political pressure than regulation, echoing tactics that weaken independent journalism.
“I am writing to inform you that I have asked the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to open an investigation into Comcast and NBCUniversal. In particular, I want to ensure that your companies are not promoting invidious forms of discrimination in violation of FCC regulations and civil rights laws.”
So wrote Brendan Carr, Trump’s newly appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission, in a letter to Comcast CEO Brian Roberts. Invidious discrimination is a legal term that refers to mistreating a group of people in a malicious or damaging way. Historically it has been used in civil rights cases like Brown v. Board of Education. Still, the reverse is true: invidious discrimination is being used to justify dismantle DEI programs. Carr says that Comcast and NBCUniversal are engaging in reverse discrimination.
Although there is no legal precedent for the notion of discrimination, the argument provides a pretext for the government to intervene with news organizations in troubling ways.
But, not every news organization is being called out for its DEI programs. Fox News and its parent company Fox Corporation have DEI policies in place. For instance, the company created an “Inclusion Index” to track corporate culture, and offers learning opportunities for managers that incorporate elements of inclusive leadership and psychological safety. But so far, Fox hasn’t received a letter from the FCC Chair.
While these investigations target DEI on the surface, media experts warn they may be part of a broader pattern: leveraging federal agencies to weaken news organizations critical of the administration. The FCC’s selective actions suggest that this isn’t about enforcing regulation. As other investigations and lawsuits suggest, it’s about exerting political pressure.
More Than Just DEI?
Traditionally, the FCC’s role has been to regulate communications infrastructure—spectrum allocation, broadcast licensing, and telecommunications competition—not editorial decisions. But under Carr, some, including The Guardian and Media Matters for America, question whether these investigations are part of a broader effort to pressure, intimidate, and reshape the media landscape to align with the administration’s interests.
“This is the path that Viktor Orbán took in Hungary,” said Matthew Gertz of Media Matters, a media watchdog, told The Guardian. “You use the power of the state to ensure that the media is compliant, that outlets are either curbed or sold to owners who will make them compliant.”
In just weeks, Carr has initiated a wave of investigations into news organizations, including NPR, PBS, and CBS News. According to Carr, the investigations into NPR and PBS will help Congress decide whether to continue funding these outlets. At issue are both of these networks’ airing underwriting announcements, which Carr argues amounts to illegal advertising. (NPR announced the closing of its DEI office on February 11.)
The CBS News investigation is even more disturbing. The FCC sent a “Letter of Inquiry” to CBS, demanding an unedited transcript of a 60 Minutes interview with presidential candidate Kamala Harris. The Trump campaign had accused CBS of selectively editing the interview to favor Harris. On February 5, the FCC formally opened a docket to investigate the matter. The following day, President Trump took to Truth Social to criticize CBS and called for the network’s broadcasting licenses to be revoked.
A Chilling Effect on Journalism
Even if these investigations don’t lead to CBS News losing its license or NPR and PBS losing their funding, the mere existence of FCC scrutiny can have a chilling effect on newsrooms. When regulators are openly hostile to certain media outlets, journalists and editors may feel pressure to soften their coverage to avoid becoming the next target.
Legal experts have raised concerns that this is a dangerous precedent — one that mirrors tactics used by authoritarian leaders to silence dissent. “Valid FCC investigations can have a positive impact on the information ecosystem,” Rebecca Hamilton, a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, told The Guardian. “But these latest probes appear aligned with a broader effort to punish media outlets Trump dislikes.”
Erosion of independent journalism doesn’t happen overnight. It happens incrementally, through lawsuits, regulatory pressure, and financial strain. When major news organizations are forced to devote resources to fighting government investigations, it diverts attention from actual reporting, weakening their ability to hold power to account.
Trump has long expressed his disdain for the press, calling journalists the “enemy of the people” and threatening to revoke network licenses as early as his first term. What’s different now is that he has appointees like Carr in key regulatory positions willing to act on those threats.
For media companies, the danger is clear: comply or face consequences. Whether through FCC action, legal battles, or advertiser pressure, this administration is shaping an environment where independent reporting may come at a steep cost.