1. United States
2. Mass.
3. Letter

Broadcast licenses cannot become leverage against political speech. After FCC Chair Brendan Carr issued guidance questioning whether certain late-night and daytime talk programs qualify for the longstanding “bona fide news” exemption to the Equal Time Rule, CBS blocked Stephen Colbert from airing an interview with Texas state representative and U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico. The Equal Time Rule, rooted in Section 315 of the Communications Act, requires broadcasters to provide equal opportunities to legally qualified candidates. For decades, however, programs classified as bona fide news interviews — including talk shows — have operated under a recognized exemption. That exemption has not been formally revoked. Yet the FCC recently stated it had not been presented evidence that certain talk programs qualify for the exemption and suggested the agency may review them. No rulemaking has eliminated the exemption. No enforcement action has been finalized. Nevertheless, CBS lawyers reportedly instructed Colbert to cancel the interview and initially not to mention its cancellation. On air, Colbert noted that the FCC chair had merely said he was “thinking about” revisiting the exemption — but the network acted as though the change had already occurred. That is the textbook definition of a chilling effect. When a regulator signals potential enforcement against a category of speech, and regulated entities preemptively silence lawful content to avoid risk, government power is shaping expression without issuing a formal order. The First Amendment protects against government abridgment of speech — and that protection is undermined when ambiguity and regulatory leverage induce self-censorship. The FCC has authority over broadcast licensing. It does not have authority to suppress political viewpoints. It cannot rewrite longstanding exemptions without proper notice-and-comment rulemaking. And it cannot use informal guidance to pressure broadcasters into altering editorial decisions. Congress must determine whether regulatory authority is being used, directly or indirectly, to influence lawful political programming. Specifically, Congress should: • Obtain all communications between the FCC and broadcast networks regarding candidate appearances. • Clarify the current legal status of the “bona fide news” exemption under the Equal Time Rule. • Hold oversight hearings on whether informal FCC guidance is chilling broadcast speech. • Reaffirm that broadcast licensing cannot be weaponized against constitutionally protected expression. This issue is not about comedy or partisanship. It is about institutional guardrails. If federal regulators can create enough uncertainty to cause networks to silence a lawful candidate interview before any rule changes occur, democratic accountability erodes quietly — and dangerously. Congress must ensure that the FCC regulates the airwaves, not the viewpoints expressed upon them.