FCC’s Gomez Testifies About First Amendment Concerns
At last week’s appearance before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce, FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez testified about her concerns with
the way the commission is operating. She took issue with FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s interpretation of how the Commission should ensure that licensees operate in the public interest. She stated, “For months, this FCC has asserted an apparent roving mandate to police speech that this Administration does not like, invoking an undefined and unchecked concept known as the ‘public interest’ standard.
Instead of functioning as a principle intended to serve the public, this standard is being treated as a license to weigh in on content, viewpoint, and editorial judgment.
This is not what the FCC was created to do. The Commission’s job is not to police content, root out media bias, or guarantee favorable coverage for any administration. Its responsibility is to regulate communications infrastructure and markets, not censor the speech that flows through them.
The First Amendment protects against government interference with speech, and the Communications Act prohibits the FCC from engaging in censorship. In a free society, the government does not decide what speech is acceptable or aligned with its views. When the government’s media regulator claims the power to judge content or police bias, we move away from oversight and closer toward censorship and control.
That is why it is so important for the FCC to clearly define what it means by the public interest standard, something I have called on it to do repeatedly. It is also why Congress must insist on guardrails that prevent content-based regulation and protect against the FCC acting as an arbiter of speech.”
Federal Communications Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued a statement criticizing the Commission’s threats against ABC that, in part, led to the suspension of the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” program. Her statement is as follows: “We cannot allow an inexcusable act of political violence to be twisted into ajustification for government censorship and control. First, an ABC reporter was told that his coverage amounted to hate speech and that he should be prosecuted simply for doing his job. Then, the FCC threatened to go after this same network, seizing on a late-night comedian’s inopportune joke as a pretext to punish speech it disliked. That led to a shameful show of cowardly corporate capitulation by ABC that has put the foundation of the First Amendment in danger.
pursuit of pure profit. It embraced this Administration’s radical notion that discriminatory behavior should be tolerated and even embraced, while efforts to expand opportunity for everyone should be rejected.
the country, particularly in rural and underserved areas. However, Americans are increasingly skeptical of media institutions, with trust in media at historic lows. That reality cannot be ignored. It is not unreasonable for taxpayers to expect transparency, accountability, and balance from any outlet receiving federal support. Nor is it unreasonable for Congress to reassess whether public funding models established in a different media era remain justified today, especially when Americans have more access to more content from more sources than ever before. This action does not signal the end of public media. Instead, it presents an opportunity for innovation, partnerships, and more localized decision-making. As a regulator, I will continue to support policies that promote access and competition in media, without presupposing that one model of funding or content creation should be immune from public scrutiny or reform.”
defund, or threaten news outlets that support the government’s views, and there’s a reason for that. This has never been about saving money. It’s about silencing those who report the news accurately, without fear or favor. The true cost of this one-sided attack on free speech will be felt most by small and rural communities across the country. Much like the disappearance of local newspapers, cutting off support for public stations could create a new kind of ‘news desert.’ In many hard-to-reach areas, these stations may be the only source for the public to receive emergency alerts, traffic updates, and information about local events and ways to stay engaged in their own neighborhoods. Defunding them strips away these essential services and further isolates the very communities these stations seek to serve. The FCC is playing a dangerous game with its own baseless attacks on public broadcast stations. Its role should be to protect and expand the public’s access to timely, accurate news that is free from political interference. I will continue fighting this FCC’s politically motivated efforts to investigate and harass these stations.” 
Commission and Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington abruptly announced his departure from his commissioner role earlier this week. President Trump nominated Olivia Trusty for the open seat that existed prior to Starks’ and Simington’s departures but that has been stalled in the Senate. Interestingly, FOX News reports that Simington’s chief of staff Gavin Wax is being floated as a potential nominee, according to “a source close to the FCC.” Regardless, the Senate needs to get at least one nominee confirmed soon as the Commission’s ability to do business is disrupted. 
Global, the parent company of CBS, have begun charging what’s known as ‘reverse’ retransmission fees to broadcasters. The networks demand a share of broadcasters’ revenue for the right to use their content. This practice was once unheard of, but some networks now regularly require more than 100% of broadcasters’ retransmission fees as ‘reverse’ fees, leaving broadcasters to sustain themselves solely on whatever ad sales they can make with their limited inventory (also capped by the networks, and often amounts to only a few minutes of airtime per hour). This funnels more and more money out of local markets and local journalism and into the hands of mega media corporations, who threaten broadcasters with content blackouts if they don’t get sky-high payouts.” They go on to argue that the “problem gets even worse with providers like YouTube TV and Hulu Live. Under their affiliate agreements with the networks, local affiliates can’t even negotiate for online providers to carry the content. The networks do it for them and pay the affiliates whatever they deem reasonable (sometimes, nothing). This gives the networks total control over streaming distribution while robbing local stations of revenue and autonomy in the rapidly growing online video space. What was once a mechanism to support hometown news is now a corporate racket. Instead of investing in local reporters, meteorologists, and producers, local broadcasters’ funds are siphoned to bloated national newsrooms that churn out anti-Trump propaganda and woke talking points. Meanwhile, higher cable bills pass the cost to everyday Americans.” 
lies in its ability to deploy high-end, labor-light, automation-heavy processes at scale. It’s a productivity story now, driven by robotics, industrial AI, and, most crucially, advanced 5G infrastructure deployed as an industrial platform — not just as a consumer gimmick.” He adds, “Compare this with our own policy environment, where even the best private sector players are hamstrung by outdated regulations, capricious permitting processes, and the dogma that government shouldn’t pick winners — especially in telecom or manufacturing. That ideology might have made sense in the 1990s, but it’s lethal to the future of our telecommunications industry now, and in consequence, our manufacturing future.” 
making companies think twice about the way they describe internal diversity programs. They’re afraid the government may retaliate against them simply because of actions that are responsive to how consumers use their services or choose to buy their products. Sadly, the hard-fought lessons of the civil rights movement are being erased – or worse, distorted – to claim that fairness for all requires discrimination against some. That could not be further from the truth.” Gomez says she’s concerned about the Commission weaponizing “its regulatory authority to enforce government mandates that seek to eliminate voluntary efforts by private companies to increase fair and equal employment opportunities.” 
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.” 
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.”