By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Speaking aboard Air Force One, President Trump suggested revoking the licenses of broadcast television networks critical of him. This followed ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” due to the host’s comments. Trump referenced negative media coverage, particularly from Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, asserting these networks are biased. He deferred to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, emphasizing his patriotism and hinting at potential action regarding network licenses.
Read the original article here
It’s a chilling prospect, isn’t it? The idea that the former president, and perhaps the current one again, might consider weaponizing the regulatory power of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to silence voices critical of him. That’s the core of the issue: Trump floating the idea of pulling broadcast licenses from networks that are perceived as “against” him, specifically after a situation involving Jimmy Kimmel. It feels like a page ripped straight from a playbook of authoritarianism, a direct assault on the First Amendment.
The sentiment expressed here is that this is not just a political tactic; it’s a blatant act of fascism. It’s the erosion of free speech, the suppression of dissent, and the consolidation of power under a single individual. Teddy Roosevelt’s words, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President… is morally treasonable to the American public,” ring especially true in this context. The fear is that this is the beginning of a slide into a government where criticism is punished and only sycophancy is rewarded. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s warning about private power becoming stronger than the state is relevant, as the media is essential to a functional democracy and the former president’s actions feel like he is trying to control it.
The immediate trigger seems to have been Jimmy Kimmel’s situation, as if the former president’s reaction set the stage. The comments suggest that networks like ABC, after Kimmel was suspended, have seemingly “caved” to pressure. It raises questions: What exactly constitutes being “against” Trump? Does it mean criticizing his policies? Questioning his decisions? Reporting on investigations? And what about the potential impact of such a move? Would it simply embolden him further? As this conversation suggests, any concession to such demands is an opening for further encroachment on free speech.
The reactions range from outrage to a sense of inevitable doom. Some propose immediate action: a general strike, a refusal to comply with any attempt to silence critical voices. The stakes are high, and the concerns about potential legal repercussions, and even the practicalities of resisting such an overreach, are clearly front of mind. The question of enforcement is pertinent: if a license is pulled, can networks simply continue broadcasting? What happens when the government tries to enforce its will? What are the options?
One of the most alarming aspects is the role of the FCC. The notion of a commissioner actively working to reshape the “media ecosystem” in the wake of an election is unsettling. This smacks of state-sponsored media, of propaganda, of a chilling disregard for the principles of objectivity and fairness. It’s the perversion of a regulatory body, turning it into a tool for political control. The very idea that broadcast licenses could be revoked based on content is a threat to the freedom of the press. The fact that they could be revoked by “a lawless sitting shit pickle of a government” is a further concern.
The comments also highlight the potential for a domino effect. What if one network folds? Will others follow suit? What are the financial incentives at play? Do the networks fully understand the implications of such a situation? The stakes are high, and the implications reach far beyond the financial interests of media corporations.
The concern for the country is that this isn’t just about individual personalities or specific incidents. It’s about the erosion of democratic norms. It’s about a government that seeks to control the flow of information, to silence its critics, and to cultivate a culture of fear and obedience. The reactions here suggest that this erosion of democratic norms will continue if the former president gets his way. The focus here is on how this potential action seems to contradict even his own stated principles and policies. And even his own executive orders.
The discussion doesn’t stop at criticism; there’s a call to action. It is clear that the former president’s actions are creating an environment in which the networks should prepare to fight. Should they refuse to pay fines? Should they simply broadcast anyway? Should they go to court and challenge any attempt to revoke their licenses? The answers are complex, but the urgency is clear.
The bottom line: If the former president’s actions begin, the implications will become far-reaching. The comments suggest that this is about more than just a political dispute. It’s about the very survival of democracy, of the ability to speak truth to power, and of the freedom to hold those in power accountable. It’s a battle that, if not fought, could reshape the American landscape.