Brendan Carr: The Impending Death of Independent Media and Free Speech at the FCC

From Legal Counsel to Conservative Champion

Carr’s path to the FCC reflects a carefully crafted career in telecommunications policy. After graduating from Georgetown University and earning his law degree from the Catholic University of America, he clerked for a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His FCC journey began in 2012 as a staffer, rising to become the agency’s general counsel before his nomination as commissioner by Trump in 2017.

Initially viewed as a traditional conservative regulator, Carr demonstrated his ability to navigate bipartisan waters by remaining on the commission during President Biden’s tenure. 

However, his recent actions, his role in Project 2025, and the power he will soon wield as chair of the FCC suggest a more radical vision for the agency’s future, one that aligns with Trump’s broader strategy of reshaping federal institutions into instruments of political control.

Dismantling Platform Protections

Project 2025’s most far-reaching proposal for the FCC involves a complete overhaul of Section 230, the law that has shaped internet platforms. The plan calls for eliminating legally established platform immunities from responsibility for the speech on their platforms in the form of defamation or libel claims and implementing strict new oversight of content moderation decisions. Those decisions are currently entirely up to the platforms themselves, who decide what to host according to terms of service and moderation rules. This would fundamentally alter how social media companies operate, giving the FCC unprecedented control over online speech and platform operations — a direct threat to the free and open internet that has enabled democratic discourse for a generation.

Creating New Control Mechanisms

At the center of Project 2025’s vision is a proposed “Office of Platform Accountability” within the FCC, representing an unprecedented expansion of government control over free speech. This new enforcement division would wield extensive investigative powers to examine tech companies’ content decisions, internal editorial processes, and relationships with fact-checking organizations such as NewsGuard, a tool that rates information’s trustworthiness, which Carr clearly despises.

Strategic Industry Control

In Project 2025, Carr proposes using the FCC’s existing regulatory powers in novel ways to achieve broader control, threatening the independence of American media. Carr’s chapter of  Project 2025 details how merger reviews and licensing decisions would serve as pressure points for content oversight. 

An example of this is currently underway in his handling of the CBS 60 Minutes controversy, where after the program aired an edited interview with Vice President Harris, he threatened the network’s broadcast licenses, stating “We need to keep every single remedy on the table.” He’s now explicitly tied this complaint to the FCC’s review of the Skydance-Paramount merger (Paramount is the parent company of CBS), demonstrating how regulatory authority could be wielded as political leverage.

While advocating for stricter content control, the plan paradoxically calls for relaxing media ownership rules that prevent consolidation and a gross imbalance in what media airs. This combination could facilitate the creation of politically aligned media groups while increasing regulatory pressure on independent voices.

Regulatory Transformation

Carr outlines several key changes to transform the FCC from a technical regulator to a content control agency.

• Expanding License Renewal Requirements: License renewals would now include comprehensive content reviews examining editorial decisions and political bias, creating a mechanism for government pressure on news coverage. This would create regular opportunities for the FCC to pressure broadcasters about their coverage decisions and editorial choices. The reviews would establish a mechanism for ongoing oversight of broadcast content, threatening journalistic independence.
• Creating Mandatory Appeals Processes: Platforms would be required to implement standardized appeals processes for content moderation decisions, subjecting editorial choices to government review. These processes would need to meet FCC-established criteria and would be subject to regular agency review. The appeals system would create a new avenue for federal oversight of platform decision-making, undermining platform autonomy.
• Implementing Content Oversight: New transparency requirements would force platforms to justify and document their content moderation decisions, creating a chilling effect on independent editorial judgment. Platforms would need to maintain detailed records of removal decisions and provide regular reports to the FCC. This would create an unprecedented level of government visibility into platform operations, threatening free speech online.

The “Censorship Cartel” Campaign

Project 2025 specifically targets what it terms the “censorship cartel” through several mechanisms. Carr has declared war against what Trump has long described as, “A sinister group of deep state bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists and depraved corporate news media [who] have been conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people.” 

Carr’s recent statements and actions regarding content moderation reveal how he intends to implement his vision. In a series of pointed letters to tech CEOs, he has demanded detailed information about their relationships with misinformation-detecting organizations like NewsGuard, characterizing these partnerships as evidence of coordinated suppression of conservative viewpoints.

“Americans deserve to know the full scope of your coordination with other members of the censorship cartel,” Carr wrote to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, demanding documents about the company’s content moderation practices. Similar letters to Apple, Microsoft, and Google accused the companies of participating in an “unprecedented surge in censorship” and threatened regulatory consequences for non-compliance.

Carr has outlined plans to use the FCC’s authority against what he and Trump perceive as Big Tech censorship through a combination of regulatory pressure, mandatory disclosures, and selective enforcement actions.

• Mandatory Relationship Disclosure: Platforms would be required to disclose all relationships with fact-checking organizations and content moderation partners, creating a chilling effect on independent fact-checking efforts. These disclosures would include financial arrangements, communication records, and decision-making processes. The requirements would create a comprehensive map of content moderation networks, potentially exposing these organizations to political pressure and retaliation.
• Investigation of Moderation Practices: The FCC would gain authority to investigate platform content moderation practices and decision-making processes, effectively giving government officials direct influence over speech online and how tech companies exercise their free speech rights. These investigations would include access to internal documents and communications about content decisions. Regular audits would ensure ongoing compliance with new federal requirements, creating constant pressure to align online speech with the Trump administration’s preferences.
• Partnership Oversight: New rules would govern how platforms can work with news organizations and fact-checkers, threatening independent journalism. These partnerships would require FCC approval and ongoing monitoring. Regular reviews would examine the impact of these relationships on content availability.
• Removal Decision Justification: Platforms would need to provide detailed justification for content removal decisions, subjecting editorial choices to government scrutiny. These justifications would be subject to FCC review and potential challenge. A new appeals process would allow the FCC to overturn platform decisions, directly inserting government officials into content moderation and their users’ free speech rights.

Strategic Industry Alignments: Making Musk Richer

Throughout his tenure, Carr has cultivated relationships with key industry figures, most notably Elon Musk. His criticism of the FCC’s rejection of nearly $900 million in federal funding for Musk’s Starlink satellite service demonstrates the alignment of interests between traditional telecommunications policy and new media control objectives. These relationships will play a crucial role in implementing Project 2025’s vision of communications control and undoubtedly lead to lucrative government contracts worth billions of dollars for Musk and his companies under Carr’s watch.

Despite positioning himself as a champion of rural connectivity, in Project 2025’s FCC chapter, Carr focuses more on controlling content than expanding access. Carr’s opposition to the Biden administration’s $42 billion broadband expansion plan, coupled with his support for Musk’s Starlink over traditional infrastructure development, suggests a preference for market-based solutions that could leave many rural and disadvantaged communities behind while centralizing control over communications infrastructure.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The transformation envisioned by Project 2025 raises significant constitutional concerns:

• First Amendment Challenges: The expanded content control regime would face significant First Amendment scrutiny, as it represents unprecedented government intervention in speech. Courts would need to evaluate whether new FCC authority exceeds constitutional limits on government speech regulation. Legal challenges would likely focus on the balance between regulation and free speech rights.
• Platform Regulation Issues: New rules governing platform operations would face judicial review under existing precedent protecting editorial independence. Courts would need to evaluate whether the FCC has the authority to impose content requirements on digital platforms. 
• Broadcast Regulation Precedent: Existing case law on broadcast regulation would inform legal challenges to new FCC authority. Courts would need to determine whether traditional broadcast regulation principles apply to digital platforms. 

The Stakes for Democracy

Project 2025’s communications agenda represents more than just a policy shift — it presents a fundamental threat to democratic discourse in America. Transforming the FCC from an independent technical regulator into a mechanism for controlling public debate creates a framework for unprecedented government influence over public discourse — a direct challenge to democratic principles of free speech and press independence.