I woke up this morning to multiple reports on TV, social media, and online papers, that the Trump Administration has threatened to revoke broadcasting licenses of news outlets that post “distortions“ about the US/Iran conflict.

Speaking of distortions, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have described the conflict with Iran using several terms intended to minimize the scale of the military action, alongside justifying it as a necessary, short-term operation. They call it an excursion, a contained military operation, a decisive mission, retribution, and a necessary step. They also deny that it’s a war, saying instead that this is not a regime-change war, a protracted war, or a forever war.

In a press conference on March 13, 2026, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth criticized journalists for producing “unflattering” and “fake” coverage of the war. He explicitly demanded a “patriotic press” that focuses on military successes rather than troop deaths or administration missteps. He even suggested alternative, more positive TV headlines, such as “Iran increasingly desperate”. Several news agencies, including Fox News, The Atlantic, NBC, ABC, and NYT reported that Trump “workshopped” the Iran war plan over phone calls, encouraging reporters to view the strikes as necessary, “precise” and “overwhelming“.

On March 14, 2006, FCC Chair Brendan Carr posted on his X account:

“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. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not. And frankly, changing course is in their own business interests since trust in legacy media has now fallen to an all time low of just 9% and are ratings disasters. The American people have subsidized broadcasters to the tune of billions of dollars by providing free access to the nation’s airwaves. It is very important to bring trust back into media, which has earned itself the label of fake news. When a political candidate is able to win a landslide election victory after in the face of hoaxes and distortions, there is something very wrong. It means the public has lost faith and confidence in the media. And we can’t allow that to happen. Time for change!”

In an additional post on X, Carr cited: Supreme Court in Red Lion quoting NBC v. United States, 319 U. S. 227 (1943), which says:

“No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because ‘the public interest’ requires it ‘is not a denial of free speech.’

I will revisit Carr’s citation after a review of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

On March 14, 2026, President Trump posted several times on Truth Social attacking the media, which he characterized as “Fake News” for their coverage of military actions and diplomatic efforts. 

His primary quotes from yesterday included:

• On Military Success: “The Fake News Media hates to report how well the United States Military has done against Iran, which is totally defeated and wants a deal — But not a deal that I would accept!”
• On Coverage of Tanker Strikes: He called headlines about damaged U.S. tankers in Saudi Arabia “intentionally misleading,” stating: “The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (in particular), and other Lowlife ‘Papers’ and Media actually want us to lose the War. Their terrible reporting is the exact opposite of the actual facts!”
• On Ukraine Negotiations: In a Sunday post (March 15) referencing his recent activities, he wrote: “It’s incredible how the Fake News violently distorts the TRUTH when it comes to me. There is NOTHING I can say or do that would lead them to write or report honestly about me.”
• On Political Opposition: He added that the media and “their PARTNER, the Radical Left Democrats,” would criticize any deal he made, even if he got Russia to “give up Moscow,” concluding, “That’s why they are the FAKE NEWS!”

What does the First Amendment say about the press?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Key Constitutional Principles regarding Free Press:

• Prohibition of Prior Restraint: The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the government generally cannot prevent (or censor) the press from publishing information before it is released, even if the information is controversial, uncomfortable, or classified.
• Protection from Government Control: The amendment prohibits the government from licensing, taxing specifically, or controlling what the media publishes.
• No Special Immunity for the Press: While the press is free to publish, the Supreme Court has ruled that journalists are not exempt from generally applicable laws. For example, the press can be subpoenaed and must comply with valid laws regulating employment, taxation, and labor.
• Freedom to Criticize Government: A core purpose of the clause is to allow for the criticism of public officials and government affairs without fear of retaliation.

Important Legal Interpretations:

• Incorporation to States (1925): While the First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law,” the Supreme Court later ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment extends this restriction to state and local governments as well.
• “Actual Malice” Standard (1964): In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Court ruled that public officials cannot sue for libel unless they can prove “actual malice”—meaning the publisher knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
• “Pentagon Papers” Case (1971): The Court ruled that the government could not block the publication of classified Vietnam War documents, affirming the high barrier against prior restraint.
• No Absolute Right to Confidential Sources: In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the Court ruled that journalists do not have a First Amendment right to refuse to reveal their confidential sources to a grand jury.

Note: The First Amendment applies to government actions, not to restrictions imposed by private individuals or companies (e.g., private social media platforms).

Let’s examine Supreme Court in Red Lion quoting NBC v. United States, 319 U. S. 227 (1943):

In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), the Supreme Court quoted NBC v. United States (1943) to reinforce the principle that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is more than just a “traffic policeman” of the airwaves.

• Broad Regulatory Authority: The Court affirmed that the FCC’s power is not limited to managing technical interference. Instead, it has a mandate to protect the “public interest” in general program format and the types of programs broadcast.
• No Right to Monopolize: The Court quoted NBC to establish that: “No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because ‘the public interest’ requires it ‘is not a denial of free speech'”.
• Prevention of Monopolistic Domination: It referenced the 1943 finding that government control was necessary to ensure the public interest was not “subordinated to monopolistic domination in the broadcasting field”.

These citations served as the foundational precedent for the Court’s ultimate ruling in Red Lion: that because broadcast frequencies are a scarce resource, the rights of viewers and listeners to receive diverse ideas are paramount over the rights of individual broadcasters.

While FCC Chair Brendan Carr is correctly quoting the language from these cases, legal experts and critics argue that he cannot legally revoke broadcast licenses based on critical news coverage. The “Scarcity Doctrine” was based on the idea that there were limited FM/AM frequencies. Critics today argue that in the age of the internet and cable, “scarcity” no longer exists, making Carr’s reliance on a 50-year-old Case potentially legally obsolete.

The primary reasons his authority is likely limited in this context include:

• First Amendment Protections: Constitutional law generally prohibits the government from censoring or punishing free speech—especially reporting on or criticizing a war. Free speech advocates, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), argue that demanding the press act as a “state mouthpiece” under threat of punishment is unconstitutional.
• Misapplication of “Public Interest”: While Red Lion and NBC allow the FCC to regulate licenses in the “public interest”, the Supreme Court has never interpreted this as a license for the government to dictate what constitutes “correct” news or to retaliate against “fake news” distortions.
• Limited FCC Scope: The FCC licenses individual local broadcast stations, not entire national networks (like ABC, NBC, or CBS) or print publications such as The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. To clarify: the FCC can’t pull “the NBC network” off the air, they could theoretically target a “local NBC affiliate station” in a specific city.
• History of Non-Revocation: Historically, the FCC has almost never denied a license renewal based on content. Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez recently stated the FCC is “powerless to carry out” such threats, labeling them a violation of the First Amendment.

Critics have described Carr’s recent warnings as “hollow” threats meant to exert political pressure rather than legally sound enforcement actions.

While the legal path to revoking a license is steep and littered with roadblocks, we must ask ourselves: does the threat alone do the damage? The goal may not be a legal victory, but a “chilling effect.” We saw this in late 2025 when Nexstar and Disney pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! following administrative pressure. By threatening the bottom line of parent companies—who often have other mergers or deals pending before the FCC—the administration can sometimes achieve “compliance” without ever stepping into a courtroom.The real danger isn’t necessarily a station going dark; it’s a newsroom growing quiet. When ‘public interest’ is redefined as ‘patriotic praise,’ the First Amendment doesn’t just protect the press—it protects our right to know the truth, however ‘unflattering’ it may be. In a time of conflict, we don’t need a silent press; we need a courageous one. After all, the airwaves belong to the people, not the platform.

---

I welcome civil debate and differing perspectives. However, dehumanizing language, personal attacks, or misinformation will be removed. Let’s focus on ideas, not insults.

---

Copyright © 2009-2026 Maria Appleby for Maria’s Musings: Tales My Heart Tells. All Rights Reserved.