Issue Brief: Can the FCC Strip Broadcasters of Their Licenses Over War Coverage?

March 16, 2026

Issue Brief: Can the FCC Strip Broadcasters of Their Licenses Over War Coverage?

WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 18: Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Brendan Carr participates in a FCC meeting at the Federal Communications Commission headquarters on February 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Commission met to discuss oversight of the FCC Lifeline program, broadband deployment on the 900 MHz band, capping noncommercial educational reserved FM band applications, and reforming intercarrier compensation. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr sparked a First Amendment controversy this weekend when he warned that TV broadcasters could lose their licenses over what he called “hoaxes and news distortions” in their coverage of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. Carr’s threat, posted on X, came in response to President Trump’s tirade against media outlets and was unusually direct in linking wartime reporting to potential license consequences. This Issue Brief outlines key facts and the legal framework to understand as this story develops.

What happened?

On Friday, March 13, 2026, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing U.S. officials, that five U.S. Air Force refueling aircraft were struck and damaged during an Iranian missile strike on the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. President Trump took to Truth Social to call the report “fake news,” claiming that the planes were “all in service, with the exception of one, which will soon be flying the skies.” He accused media outlets of misleading coverage and said they should “be brought up on Charges for TREASON.” He also said he is “thrilled” that Carr is “looking at the licenses” of “Highly Unpatriotic ‘News’ Organizations.”
Carr then posted on X, in response toTrump’s criticism, warning that “broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up.” He added: “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.”
Separately, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth scolded reporters during a Friday briefing, singling out CNN and saying, “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.” Hegseth called for “patriotic” reporters to write more positive coverage of the military campaign.
In a CBS News interview on Saturday, Carr doubled down, saying that broadcast licenses are “not a property right” and emphasizing that “broadcast is different” from cable and streaming. Carr and his allies have also pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1969 decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC for the proposition that “no one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency.”

Which laws could the government rely on?

The Communications Act of 1934, Section 309: This foundational statute requires the FCC to grant broadcast licenses based on the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Carr argues that broadcasters who air “hoaxes and distortions” are not serving the public interest and therefore risk their licenses at renewal time.
The FCC’s News Distortion Policy: Since 1969, the FCC has treated intentional “news distortion” as a narrow, high-threshold theory tied to the public-interest standard. Under this policy, the FCC will only act where there is evidence of deliberate intent to distort, extrinsic evidence beyond the broadcast itself (such as written instructions from station management or evidence of bribery), involvement by station management, and a significant event.

Notably, the FCC has never revoked a license under this policy, and since 1982, it has been invoked only once. In 1993, NBC’s Dateline aired a segment called “Waiting to Explode?” alleging that GM pickup trucks were prone to catching fire in collisions. Producers had secretly rigged the test trucks with incendiary devices to guarantee a fireball on camera. GM sued, NBC publicly apologized on air, and the FCC’s response was a letter of admonishment (not a revocation).
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969): This is the Supreme Court case Carr has leaned on most heavily. The dispute arose when a Pennsylvania radio station aired a segment by Reverend Billy James Hargis attacking journalist Fred Cook. Cook demanded reply time under the FCC’s “fairness doctrine,” which required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial public issues. When the station refused, the FCC ordered it to give Cook airtime. In a unanimous 8–0 decision, Justice Byron White held that because the broadcast spectrum is inherently scarce, the government may condition licenses on serving the public interest. White wrote that it is “idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish,” and that “it is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.” The Court treated broadcasters not as owners of the airwaves but as licensees obligated to serve as fiduciaries of the public’s interest in receiving diverse viewpoints.
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978): The Supreme Court held that of all forms of communication, broadcasting “has received the most limited First Amendment protection,” citing its pervasiveness and accessibility to children. This case is sometimes invoked to argue for broader FCC content authority over broadcasters. However, this case concerned indecency, not news coverage, and it does not establish a general FCC power to punish disfavored viewpoints.

What legal defenses do broadcasters have?

The First Amendment: While the Supreme Court has allowed some content regulation of broadcast (obscenity, for example), it has never sanctioned revoking a license based on the political viewpoint expressed in news coverage. In FCC v. League of Women Voters of California (1984), the Court emphasized broadcasters’ right to exercise “the widest journalistic freedom consistent with their public duties,” holding that any government restrictions must be “narrowly tailored to further a substantial governmental interest.”
Section 326 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 326): This anti-censorship provision explicitly states that “nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship” and that “no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech.”
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 309(k): Congress amended the license renewal process to require the FCC to grant a renewal if the station has served the public interest, has no serious violations of the Communications Act or FCC rules, and has no pattern of abuse. This significantly raised the bar for denying renewals and eliminated the prior “comparative renewal” process, which had allowed challengers to contest a station’s frequency. License terms were also extended to eight years.
Retaliatory motive as a legal defense: Any government action against a licensee for its coverage would face a strong legal challenge based on retaliatory intent. Courts would likely examine the timeline, including Carr’s threats coming immediately after Trump’s criticism, as evidence that the action may have been motivated by political disagreement rather than legitimate regulatory concerns.
The Broadcast Freedom and Independence Act of 2025 (S.867): Introduced in response to earlier threats from the administration, this bill would explicitly prohibit the FCC from revoking any license “on the basis of viewpoints broadcast or otherwise disseminated.” While not yet law, it reflects the growing bipartisan concern about political weaponization of the FCC.

What are the potential consequences if licenses are revoked?

While experts widely agree that license revocation over news coverage is extremely unlikely, it is worth understanding what would happen if it were attempted.

Local impact: The FCC does not directly license national networks such as ABC, NBC, or CBS. Instead, it licenses the local stations that carry its programming. A license revocation would take a local station off the air in its market, affecting local news, emergency broadcasting, and community programming, not just the national network’s content.
Cable networks are unaffected: Cable networks like CNN, MS NOW, and Fox News do not hold FCC broadcast licenses and therefore fall entirely outside the FCC’s licensing authority. Carr’s threats apply only to over-the-air broadcasters.
Timing: Broadcast television license renewals begin as early as June 2028 (with rolling deadlines thereafter). Any attempt to deny renewals would likely take years to litigate.
Self-censorship: Perhaps the most immediate and realistic consequence is not formal government action but the chilling effect on editorial decision-making. Media companies facing regulatory scrutiny may pull back on aggressive coverage of the Trump administration. This allows the government to achieve through intimidation what it cannot accomplish through formal legal channels. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez has observed that the threat itself “is the point.”
Public trust: Both sides of this debate frame their position around public trust. The administration argues that biased media coverage itself erodes trust, while critics argue that government threats to punish unfavorable coverage are far more corrosive to public confidence.

How can the public weigh in on this issue?

Readers who feel strongly about this issue (regardless of which side you fall on) have several avenues for making their voices heard.

File comments with the FCC: The FCC accepts public comments on proceedings through its Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at fcc.gov/ecfs. When broadcast license renewals come up for consideration, the public can file formal comments or petitions to deny.
File FCC consumer complaints: The FCC’s Consumer Complaint Center at consumercomplaints.fcc.gov accepts complaints from members of the public.
Contact your representatives: Members of Congress oversee the FCC through the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Support press freedom organizations: Groups such as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Radio Television Digital News Association are actively engaged on this issue and accept public support.
Participate in the license renewal process: When broadcast licenses come up for renewal (the next cycle begins in 2028), the public can file formal petitions to deny or informal objections.