Disney-owned ABC submitted license renewal applications for its eight broadcast television stations to the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday — but declared it was doing so “under protest,” calling the agency’s order “unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”
The filings, one for each ABC-owned station, urge the commission to rescind FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s order mandating the early review, which the network says has “no legitimate purpose.” In the application for New York’s WABC-TV, the network argued that the order’s “true purpose and inescapable effect are to suppress speech — to ramp up toward possible license revocation and cause the Station and others to think twice before they say something the government might dislike.”
“The Order is inconsistent with a legitimate exercise of investigative authority and is plainly incompatible with the First Amendment,” one station wrote. “Worse, the Order opens the door to an assault on the Station’s license, while the Commission searches for a legal pretext to achieve its desired goal. This effort to suppress speech under the guise of bureaucratic process must not prevail.”
ABC also warned that the consequences of Mr. Carr’s actions would fall on the public, not the company. “When a broadcaster must weigh regulatory retaliation before making editorial decisions, the public loses access to journalism that is free from government influence,” the WABC filing states.
Mr. Carr initiated the early license review process in late April, citing Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies as the basis for the probe, which he said the FCC has been conducting for more than a year. The move drew criticism from the National Association of Broadcasters, Senate Democrats and at least one prominent Republican. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a Trump ally, told Punchbowl News that “it is not the government’s job to censor speech,” adding that he does not believe the FCC should operate as “the speech police.” Mr. Carr defended his decision Thursday, saying Disney’s document production in the diversity investigation had been “disingenuous, deficient, and improper.”
“Broadcast licensees have a unique obligation to operate in the public interest,” Mr. Carr said in a statement. “The FCC will follow the facts and law wherever they may lead.”
Many critics contend the action is designed to silence editorial voices critical of President Trump. The FCC’s order came a day after Mr. Trump and first lady Melania Trump called publicly for ABC to fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke in which he referred to Mrs. Trump as an “expectant widow.” Mr. Carr has denied that outside pressure influenced the agency’s decision-making.
The eight ABC stations subject to review serve New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, San Francisco, Raleigh-Durham and Fresno — collectively reaching a large share of the national television audience. None of the licenses were originally due for renewal before 2028, with some not scheduled until 2031. According to ABC’s own filings, the commission had not demanded early renewal from a broadcaster in more than five decades and has never simultaneously required renewal applications from a group of commonly owned stations.
The review could stretch on for months or years, observers note — particularly if the matter proceeds through the FCC’s administrative court. Other parties would be permitted to argue that the agency should deny the licenses outright.
Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, has sided firmly with Disney.
“What Disney and ABC are facing is not a series of coincidental regulatory actions but a sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control,” Ms. Gomez told reporters last week.
The dispute is the latest in a series of FCC actions involving Disney and ABC since Mr. Carr took the chairmanship. The commission has separately opened enforcement proceedings related to ABC’s daytime talk show “The View,” examining whether it is subject to federal equal-time rules for political candidates — a proceeding ABC has also challenged as a threat to protected speech.
This article was constructed with the assistance of artificial intelligence and published by a member of The Washington Times’ AI News Desk team. The contents of this report are based solely on The Washington Times’ original reporting, wire services, and/or other sources cited within the report. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Steve Fink, Director of Artificial Intelligence, at sfink@washingtontimes.com
The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.
