Former FCC staffers unite to oppose Brendan Carr

A bipartisan coalition of former Federal Communications Commission officials and staffers is taking legal action to force a vote on the agency’s News Distortion Policy, which they argue has been weaponized under Republican Chair Brendan Carr and must be repealed to protect press freedom.

On Tuesday, the group filed a petition with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, requesting a writ of mandamus that would compel the FCC to hold a vote on repealing the policy. The petition was initially submitted in November 2025, after Carr invoked the rule to pressure ABC into temporarily suspending comedian Jimmy Kimmel. Under current rules, only the agency chair can bring a matter to the full commission for a vote, and Carr has refused to do so while opposing repeal. The former officials now seek a court order to force a response, putting each of the three commissioners on the record and opening a potential legal pathway to eliminate a tool they believe has been abused for political purposes.

“The News Distortion Policy is a loaded gun that Chairman Carr is using to threaten broadcasters,” said Mark Fowler, a Republican who led the FCC in the 1980s. “Until it is repealed, we will not have a free press.” Tom Wheeler, a Democratic chair from 2013 to 2017, echoed that warning: “As long as the News Distortion Policy remains, the FCC Chair could continue to misuse it to police perceived media bias, discourage broadcasters from covering controversial stories, and punish outlets that air content the Trump administration dislikes.” The petitioners also include the Radio Television Digital News Association, former Republican FCC chairs Dennis Patrick and Alfred Sikes, Republican commissioners Andrew Barrett and Rachelle Chong, former Democratic commissioner Ervin Duggan, and four additional former senior agency leaders.

The News Distortion Policy dates back to 1949 and empowers the FCC to take enforcement actions against broadcasters that deliberately distort fact-based reporting about major news events. However, the policy only applies to broadcast TV and radio, not cable networks or online outlets. According to the agency’s website, “Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable.” The former officials argue that legal guardrails had historically ensured its “sparing and judicious use,” but under Carr, the policy has seen a revival that threatens independent journalism.

Carr has repeatedly threatened to use the policy against broadcasters he perceives as favoring political opponents or showing bias against President Donald Trump. This includes CBS, which Trump sued over an edited 60 Minutes interview with then-candidate Kamala Harris, and ABC, which aired a Kimmel joke about conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing. More recently, Carr appeared to threaten the licenses of stations that aired critical coverage of Trump’s war in Iran, though he later denied this was intentional. His actions have drawn criticism even from Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who compared Carr to a “mafioso” after the Kimmel threat.

For the court to rule in the petitioners’ favor, it must find that the FCC failed its duty to act, imposed an egregious delay, and that no adequate alternative remedy exists. The petition emphasizes that timing is critical, with midterm elections approaching. “This abuse of regulatory power to shape voter perception and control information the electorate has access to is a particularly urgent matter,” the filing states.

If the court orders a vote, the outcome seems uncertain. Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez has criticized the policy as “vague and ineffective,” but Carr has rejected repeal. Republican Commissioner Olivia Trusty, the third and final member of the partially staffed FCC, may be reluctant to break with Carr on such a high-profile issue. She has said the policy “reflects a simple principle: a station cannot truly serve its community if it knowingly distorts the news about important events.”

Attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman, who is leading the petition alongside former Biden FCC nominee Gigi Sohn and advocacy groups Protect Democracy and TechFreedom, acknowledges that the full commission may refuse to repeal the policy. But forcing a vote would at least open a legal avenue that has so far been blocked. “That would be OK with us, because we can then appeal that denial,” Schwartzman said. “The problem here is that Brendan Carr is sitting on the petition.”

The petitioners believe a new review should overturn the policy, citing recent Supreme Court rulings on the First Amendment. In the NetChoice cases, a plurality of the Court opined that there is no legitimate government interest in “correct[ing] the mix of speech” to “better balance the speech market.” The filing argues that Carr’s use of the News Distortion Policy seeks precisely that unconstitutional goal.

“When unlikely allies share an opinion, that opinion eclipses partisanship and ideology,” said Rachelle Chong, one of the former Republican commissioners. “You could not find a group of petitioners with more divergent political beliefs than this one, and yet, we all agree on one thing: The news distortion policy should be repealed.”