House Democrats Want FCC’s Brendan Carr Investigated
According to a report in Forbes, House Democrats are seeking an investigation into FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s involvement in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy agenda should Donald Trump return to the White House. U.S. Rep Jared Huffman (D-CA) and 16 other House Democrats want an ethics investigation saying they believe Carr’s work on Project 2025 is “misusing his official position as an
executive-level employee of the FCC to craft and advance a political playbook to influence the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.” The Democrats say he may have violated ethics laws for federal employees and the Hatch Act. Carr tells Forbes that he sought counsel from FCC ethics officials prior to working on Project 2025 and they “approved of me participating in my personal capacity, which I did.” He also says they approved him using his FCC title in his biography. Forbes reports, “Carr’s chapter on the FCC calls for the agency to ‘change course’ and focus on reining in big tech and promoting national security. The FCC commissioner proposes overhauling legal protections that shield tech companies from liability for content posted on its platforms and supports Congress passing legislation similar to laws in Texas and Florida that punish social media companies for suspending or banning users based on their ‘viewpoints’ – part of broader claims by conservatives that social media companies are biased against them. Project 2025’s FCC agenda also calls for banning TikTok as part of a crackdown on infrastructure from China and calls for tech companies to provide greater transparency.” Read the Forbes story here.
the FCC’s requirement to do a foreign ownership review and Audacy’s request that the FCC grant a limited waiver of that review in order to more speedily exit Chapter 11. This request is under heavy scrutiny due to the political aspects of the case. Carr recently told the Post that the FCC should not allow a “Soros shortcut” – a term used by the Media Research Center in its Petition to Deny filed with the Commission – but must follow FCC procedure. Audacy argued in its opposition to the Petition to Deny that there is nothing unique about this request, saying that the FCC “granting a limited waiver deferring its foreign ownership review to facilitate a licensee’s prompt emergence from bankruptcy is consistent with the Communications Act.” Audacy adds that the notion that the limited waiver is new “completely ignores longstanding precedent establishing the Commission-approved special warrant process used in a number of prior transactions to allow licensees to emerge from bankruptcy promptly, while affording the Commission sufficient opportunity to review foreign ownership issues post-emergence.” 
AI-generated content in political ads; 2) Proposing to apply the disclosure rules to both candidate and issue advertisements; 3) Requesting comment on a specific definition of AI-generated content, and 4) Proposing to apply the disclosure requirements to broadcasters and entities that engage in origination programming, including cable operators, satellite TV and radio providers and section 325(c) permittees. Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel says, “As 
artificial intelligence tools become more accessible, the Commission wants to make sure consumers are fully informed when the technology is used. Today, I’ve shared with my colleagues a proposal that makes clear consumers have a right to know when AI tools are being used in the political ads they see, and I hope they swiftly act on this issue.” However, Republican Commissioner Brendan
Carr opposes the move, saying, “There is no doubt that the increase in AI-generated political content presents complex questions, and there is bipartisan concern about the potential for misuse. But none of this vests the FCC with the authority it claims here. Indeed, the Federal Election Commission is actively considering these types of issues, and legislators in Congress are as well. But Congress has not given the FCC the type of freewheeling authority over these issues that would be necessary to turn this plan into law. And for good reason. The FCC can only muddy the waters. AI-generated political ads that run on broadcast TV will come with a government-mandated disclaimer but the exact same or similar ad that runs on a streaming service or social media site will not? Consumers don’t think about the content they consume through the lens of regulatory silos. They just view content on screens. Will they conclude that the absence of a government warning on an online ad means that the content must be real? I don’t see how this type of conflicting patchwork could end well. Unlike Congress, the FCC cannot adopt uniform rules.”
Indeed, TikTok has been caught engaging in a pattern of illicit surveillance and making false statements about personnel in Beijing accessing sensitive U.S. user data. These facts were laid bare for the world to see when the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a TikTok oversight hearing last year. And that is why there is now a broad, bipartisan consensus that TikTok cannot continue to operate in the U.S. in its current form. I want to applaud the strong, bipartisan leadership that Members of Congress have shown in advancing this bill, which would definitively resolve the serious national security threats TikTok poses by banning the app or requiring that it genuinely sever ties to the CCP. This is a smart, threat-specific bill that would address a clear and present danger. I hope that this bill will soon become law.”
