The FCC is not the content police. It is a licensing and public‑interest regulator whose legitimacy depends on independence from partisan pressure. When the chair of that agency publicly threatens action against broadcasters, the threat alone can alter programming decisions. That is the very definition of a chilling effect.

Recently, ABC affiliates preempted Jimmy Kimmel Live!, but brought the show back following public pressure. FCC Chair Brendan Carr publicly threatened broadcasters over Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks, saying, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” while vowing “more to come.”

Within this climate, Chair Carr has also suggested that The View might not qualify for the bona fide news exemption. This change could entangle the show in equal‑time obligations and open the door to selective enforcement. These are not abstract legal debates. They are concrete, real‑world signals to producers and editors that critical voices may invite governmental retaliation.

As the author of Project 2025’s FCC chapter, Chair Carr helped advance a blueprint to concentrate political control over communications policy. A chair who both designs a partisan agenda and threatens enforcement against disfavored speech cannot credibly claim to lead an independent agency.

The First Amendment is not a suggestion. It is a binding promise that the government will not use its power to punish individuals or organizations for their speech.

The Senate Commerce Committee Democrats have now called for Chair Carr to testify under oath. That hearing must happen immediately. Congress owes the public a clear, on‑the‑record examination of whether the FCC has been wielded as a weapon against speech, and whether future threats are already chilling the press.