FCC commissioner calls Trump's threat to pull broadcast licenses 'a campaign of censorship'

The only Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission said on Friday that the FCC doesn’t have the constitutional power to revoke the license of a broadcaster that airs content President Trump doesn’t like.

"The FCC does not have the legal authority, the constitutional right, or the ability to revoke a license just because the president does not like what that broadcaster is broadcasting," Anna Gomez said in an interview with Here & Now’s Peter O’Dowd. “The reason that we don't have that authority is because the First Amendment prohibits us from censoring broadcasters that way, as does the Communications Act, which specifically prohibits us from censoring broadcasters. And why is that important? The fourth estate is such an important part of our democracy. It holds power to account whether we like it or not.”

Trump floated the idea of revoking the licenses of broadcasters that air critical coverage of him came after ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel for comments he made about the Republican response to the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. After those remarks, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr suggested he’d wield the power of the federal government to cancel the licenses of local stations that air Kimmel’s show.

We just heard President Trump say last night that broadcasters who criticize him should perhaps lose their license. Have you ever heard a president say something like that?

"This is unprecedented. This is what I call a campaign of censorship and control of all broadcasters. This administration is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression, not because it glorifies violence or breaks the law, but because it challenges those in power and reflects views they oppose."

How much of this is about the local stations or the owners of the stations making the decision to pull a show based on content they disagree with, and how much of it is about the pressure that the federal government, through the FCC, is putting on those stations to do it? 

"I think it can be both things. I think it can be about local stations pulling content that they disagree with, which is, as you note, their right. And it's about the government pressuring broadcasters to the point where they are now engaging in censorship in advance.

"And that is what's so harmful to our democratic principles; we need companies to think twice about capitulating this way. It is up to those companies to stand up to defend their First Amendment rights instead of capitulating."

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is making the point that stations are required to operate in the public interest. What is the public interest standard? And do you think that could be used as a justification to revoke a license? 

“So, this administration keeps wielding the public interest as if it's a power to simply say anything they don't like is against the public interest. That is just not right.

"Traditionally, when we look at the public interest, what we are looking at is three pillars. The first is localism. Are these stations serving their local communities? The second is diversity of viewpoints. And then finally, competition. We want a vibrant, competitive market.

"But this administration just keeps saying it's against the public interest if they don't like something, so I have called for the FCC to initiate a rulemaking to define exactly what the public interest is so that we don't have this overreach."

What would be a legitimate reason to take a local station's license away in your mind? 

"It is extremely rare for the commission to take away a local license, but it has been done.

"For example, when we issue a license, we require the licensees to actually serve the public. Well, we have had occasions where a broadcaster simply goes dark for a year. That is a valid reason to revoke a license."

Carr said on Fox News Thursday night that he doesn't think, 'This is the last shoe to drop. This is a massive shift that's taking place in the media ecosystem. I think the consequences are going to continue to flow.' How do you interpret a comment like that? 

"What we are seeing is this administration intimidate broadcasters to get them to change what it is that they broadcast, whether it's airing of comedians or by telling news organizations that they have to alter their editorial practices. All of this is unprecedented and improper."

Are you saying that news organizations, broadcast news organizations, should be prepared for the FCC to come knocking on their door? 

"We have already seen that this administration has both initiated investigations and restarted investigations into how broadcasters make editorial decisions in their news programs. So I think this is top of mind for every broadcaster and every corporation that owns a broadcaster."

“This is the cowardly corporate capitulation that is fraying our constitutional values, and it's very dangerous and it is improper.

Do you fear for your own career by speaking out like this? 

“I have been surprised that I am still in this position because I have been very vocal about my concerns about this administration. But I have to speak out. This is too important. Our democracy is too important to me and to our country for me not to dissent and to raise the alarm that we are losing our constitutional liberties little by little the more that this administration asserts this type of control."

This interview was edited for clarity.

Kalyani Saxena produced and edited this segment with Micaela Rodríguez. Michael Scotto adapted it for the web