Category Archives: broadcasting

First Amendment Updates, 2025-26

An April 23, 2026 Jimmy Kimmel joke about Melania Trump having “the glow of an expectant widow” has  escalated into an FCC investigation of the ABC network. 

According to Dr. Eliza Bechtold:

Actions taken by the administration to target broadcast networks and individuals for political speech are precisely what the First Amendment protects against. It was designed, among other things, to protect individuals, entities and the press from government interference by creating an open marketplace in which ideas compete freely.

This is particularly true for dissenting political speech, which is the core of the first amendment. This explains why government interference with speech based on “the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker” – known as “viewpoint discrimination” – is expressly prohibited.

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury April 28, 2026 for posting a picture of seashells on a beach that spell out “8647,” which supposedly means ‘get rid of’ (86) Trump (47).  The Dept. of Justice said in a news release: “This charge alleges that on May 15, 2025, by publicly posting an image over the internet via Instagram depicting “86 47”, which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”  [sic].

PBS defunding reversed — March 31 — A federal judge has permanently blocked the Trump  administration’s  federal funding cuts for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

Pentagon press policy unconstitutional — March 20, 2026 — A federal judge struck down the    Pentagon’s prior restraint press policy from September 2025,  saying that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

FCC’s  Brendan Carr

More ThreatsMarch 14-15 2026  President Trump and FCC chair Brendan Carr threaten to revoke broadcast licenses over what they claim to be  incorrect news items.  This followed a Trump social media post March 14  and March 15  claiming that damage reports from a minor incident were deliberately distorted. “Their terrible reporting is the exact opposite of the actual facts!” Trump wrote. “They are truly sick and demented people that have no idea the damage they cause the United States of America.”  (Note: First Amendment advocates have repeatedly warned that Trump’s “rage rhetoric” is dangerous.)  

Is it constitutional to threaten revocation of licenses?  In NRA v Vullo, a unanimous May 30, 2024 Supreme Court decision, Justice Sotomayor wrote for the court:

A government entity’s threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion against a third party  to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment… Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.  .

Pete Hegseth was not flattered. AFP / Pool photo.

Unflattering photos — March 10 — Defense secretary Pete Hegseth ordered photojournalists barred from Pentagon press conferences. Sources said Hegseth was upset over “unflattering” photos, although its difficult to understand which  might have flattered him in the first place.

Continue reading

Trump brags he’s “reshaping the media”

This astonishing admission of government interference with the press was posted on Trump’s social media account. Trump is openly violating the First Amendment. See @realDonaldTrump March 14, 2026.

More censorship for the Late Show


In a new interpretation of longstanding rules  released Jan. 21, 2026,  the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission said that Section 315  “Equal Time Rule”  requirements for news talk programs are in effect unless there is an exemption, which Stephen Colbert does not have.

Under the rule, broadcast media must provide equal time for all politicians running for the same office. If an interview is aired with a democratic candidate for an office,  a similar interview with republican and independent candidates  must also be aired.

The rule was widely interpreted as applying only to advertising, since strict application of US Title 47 Section 315 to news interviews on talk shows would create editorial chaos.

That’s why the law exempts bona-fine news programs and talk shows from the rule. Historically, only a very few talk shows have applied for exemptions;  apparently, the last two were  Anderson Cooper in 2011 and a California talk show in 2006.  These two cases were  considered as examples of a de-facto blanket rule that left talk show editorial decisions to the broadcasters.

What’s new is that now in 2026,  the Trump FCC is changing the rule’s interpretation and applying pressure on CBS:

Concerns have been raised that the industry has taken the Media Bureau’s 2006 staff-level decision to mean that the interview portion of all arguably similar entertainment programs— whether late night or daytime—are exempted from the section 315 equal opportunities requirement under a bona fide news exemption. This is not the case. As noted above, these decisions are fact specific and the exemptions are limited to the program that was the subject of the request.

Attorneys with the CBS network told the Late Show with Stephen Colbert that they were running afoul of the law simply by having politicians on the show.  Colbert says that CBS  ordered  him not to air an interview with James Talarico, a democratic candidate for a US Senate seat in Texas.  So the interview was placed on YouTube, which does not fall under the same broadcast media regulations.

Anna M. Gomez, an FCC commissioner appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023, condemned the censorship of the Colbert show  “This is yet another troubling example of corporate capitulation in the face of this Administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech,” Gomez said.

Republican-appointed FCC commissioners Brendan Carr and Olivia Trusty supported the new interpretation of the rules.