Brendan Carr, now Chair of the FCC, was the principal author of the FCC chapter of Project 2025 - you remember, the policy blueprint Donald Trump definitely hadn’t read and absolutely knew nothing about.
Since assuming leadership, Carr has transformed what was once a largely technocratic agency - spectrum auctions, licensing, indecency complaints - into something far more political. And history teaches us that control of media infrastructure is a critical step in democratic backsliding.
We’ve already seen warning signs: scrutiny surrounding late-night programming, pressure during the Paramount/Skydance merger, and selective regulatory attention. But the most revealing move may be a quiet procedural shift involving the Equal Time rule.
A Brief History of Equal Time
The Communications Act of 1934 includes the “Equal Opportunities” requirement: if a broadcast station gives airtime to one legally qualified candidate, it must offer comparable time to opponents.
Congress quickly realized this could get absurd. In 1959 it carved out four exemptions for “bona fide” news:
Newscasts
News interviews
News documentaries
On-the-spot coverage of real events
Without these exemptions, even a brief news clip of a candidate could trigger equal time obligations.
The “Jay Leno” Precedent
For decades, the question lingered: are talk shows “news interviews”?
In 2006, the FCC’s Media Bureau ruled that The Tonight Show with Jay Leno qualified. The logic: regular schedule, editorial control, guest selection based on newsworthiness - not campaign promotion.
After that, the industry settled down. The Late Show. The View. The Daily Show. Even Howard Stern. All widely treated as exempt.
For twenty years, this was the status quo.
The 2026 Shift
On January 21, 2026, the FCC’s Media Bureau issued a Public Notice that politely detonated the status quo.
The notice stated:
The FCC has “not been presented with evidence” that current late-night shows qualify as bona fide news.
Programs “motivated by partisan purposes” don’t qualify.
Networks should seek advance “declaratory rulings” instead of assuming exemption.
In other words: If you’d like to interview a political candidate, please check with the federal government first.
Nothing says “free press” like pre-clearance paperwork.
The result? On Presidents Day, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert reportedly altered its programming rather than air a planned interview with Texas legislator James Talarico. The interview eventually ran on YouTube - which the FCC does not regulate (see it here).
Regulatory uncertainty is often more powerful than direct prohibition. It produces caution. Delay. Self-censorship.
The Structural Asymmetry
Only over-the-air broadcast licensees are subject to Equal Time. Cable networks and internet platforms are not.
Today, roughly 80% of television consumption occurs via cable or streaming. Only about 20% relies on broadcast airwaves. Yet ABC, CBS, and NBC must maintain FCC licenses for their broadcast affiliates, which subjects them to regulatory leverage that cable-only outlets do not face.
In effect, the regulatory choke point applies to legacy broadcast networks - even though the bulk of content distribution has migrated to wire and fiber.
Why This Matters
In Orwell’s 1984, media control was already absolute. Modern autocrats rarely begin with overt censorship. They begin with licensing pressure, regulatory reinterpretation, and the selective application of rules. Hungary. Russia. Turkey. The pattern is familiar.
The question is not whether the Equal Time rule exists. It always has. The question is whether it will now be weaponized.
And whether Brendan Carr is the bureaucrat willing to do it.
James Talarico closed his postponed interview with these words:
“The culture wars are a smokescreen. Because the real fight in this country is not left versus right - it’s top versus bottom.”
Talarico’s line - “top versus bottom” - sounds less poetic when you notice who’s hovering at the top these days.
A growing constellation of billionaires orbiting Trump. Studio mergers shepherded by financiers. Newsrooms owned by investment funds. Regulators who can slow-walk approvals with a raised eyebrow.
When ownership concentrates upward and regulatory pressure concentrates downward, the middle does what it has to do: it calculates.
Is this interview worth it? Is this segment necessary? Do we want to poke the agency that controls our license renewal?
No decree required. Gravity does the work.
Top versus bottom indeed.
Visit quislings.info for more on our American Quislings.
One final curiosity we didn’t have room for: terrestrial talk radio uses the same public airwaves and falls under the same Equal Time rules. Yet no public notice appears to be questioning whether hours of openly partisan programming qualify as “bona fide” anything.
Thank you for providing clarity to this important issue. Keep it up