In the corridors of Washington, where regulatory power meets media freedom, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr is drawing a line in the sand. Appointed by President Donald Trump, Carr has rebuffed calls from a bipartisan cadre of former FCC leaders to scrap the agency’s obscure ‘news distortion’ policy. This little-known rule, dusted off from the annals of broadcast regulation, is now at the center of a storm over press freedom and political influence.

Carr’s stance came in a pointed response to a petition filed by four former FCC chairs and other ex-officials, who argue the policy is being weaponized against broadcasters critical of the administration. ‘How about no,’ Carr quipped on X, formerly Twitter, encapsulating his refusal to back down. According to Ars Technica, Carr dismissed the criticism, stating that the policy ensures broadcasters do not ‘intentionally distort’ news, a safeguard he claims is essential for public trust.

The controversy erupted amid ongoing FCC probes into major networks like CBS, where Carr has initiated investigations into alleged distortions in coverage of Trump. Former chairs, including Republicans like Michael Powell and Ajit Pai, warned in their petition that Carr’s application of the policy chills free speech. As reported by The Washington Post, they described it as ‘improperly wielding a little-used policy against broadcasters critical of President Donald Trump.’

Reviving an Obscure Rule

The news distortion policy dates back decades, rarely invoked until Carr’s tenure. It prohibits broadcasters from deliberately slanting news, but critics say its vagueness invites abuse. In a filing with the FCC, the bipartisan group—including Democrats Tom Wheeler and Mignon Clyburn—petitioned for its repeal, arguing it ‘has been used to threaten and intimidate broadcasters,’ per The Hill.

Carr, however, remains unyielding. In his response, he accused the petitioners of selective outrage, pointing out that similar concerns weren’t raised during past administrations. ‘The FCC’s news distortion policy has been on the books for decades,’ Carr wrote, as quoted in Ars Technica. He emphasized that the policy only targets intentional falsehoods, not honest reporting errors.

This isn’t Carr’s first brush with media controversy. As the author of Project 2025’s FCC chapter, Carr has long advocated for regulatory overhauls to curb perceived biases in broadcasting. CBS News notes that his blueprint includes measures to ‘overhaul the executive branch,’ raising alarms about potential censorship.

Carr’s Broader Media Offensive

Beyond news distortion, Carr has targeted public broadcasters like NPR and PBS. In January 2025, he launched probes into their operations, labeling them as outlets ‘often targeted by conservatives,’ according to MSNBC. These actions align with Trump’s vows to strip licenses from critical networks, amplifying fears of a politicized FCC.

On X, users have voiced strong sentiments. Posts describe Carr as a ‘Heritage Boy’ pushing Project 2025 agendas, with one user warning, ‘You do NOT get to shut down freedom of speech,’ reflecting widespread online backlash. Another post highlighted Carr’s role in suggesting investigations into shows like ‘The View’ for equal-time compliance, as seen in trending discussions on the platform.

Carr defended his approach in a NewscastStudio interview, deflecting questions about broadcaster investigations by reiterating the need for accountability. ‘It’s the threats that are the point,’ a Politico analysis suggested, portraying Carr’s FCC as a ‘machine for leverage’ against media critics.

Legal and Precedent Challenges

Scholars warn that Carr’s probes may exceed historical precedents. Reuters reported that the CBS investigation ‘could mark a sharp departure from agency precedent,’ with experts like communications lawyers highlighting the policy’s rare enforcement.

The petition from former officials, filed on November 13, 2025, calls for repealing the rule to protect First Amendment rights. ‘A bipartisan group of predecessors says the agency’s current chairman is improperly wielding a little-used policy,’ echoed Editor and Publisher.

Carr’s rebuttal was swift. In a statement covered by mxdwn Television, he accused critics of perceiving ‘weaponization’ only when it suits their narrative, while defending the policy as a tool for transparency.

Industry Ripples and Future Implications

Broadcasters are on edge. The probes into Comcast’s relations with NBC, initiated in July 2025, signal a wider scrutiny, as detailed in Variety. Industry insiders fear fines or license revocations could stifle investigative journalism.

On X, posts from users like journalists and activists amplify the divide. One viral thread connected Carr’s actions to Project 2025, stating, ‘This completely removes OUR First Amendment rights,’ garnering thousands of views and fueling public discourse.

Carr, confirmed unanimously by the Senate three times, positions himself as a reformer. At TechExpo 2025, he outlined his vision, per the event’s site, emphasizing fair competition in communications. Yet, detractors see a pattern of targeting Trump critics, as in his comments on Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, covered by The Hill.

Voices from the Past Weigh In

The bipartisan petition underscores rare unity among ex-FCC leaders. ‘Former FCC chairs: Carr improperly wielding ‘news distortion policy’,’ headlined The Hill, capturing their call to repeal what they term a ‘speech-chilling’ tool.

In response, Carr invoked historical context, arguing the policy predates his chairmanship and has bipartisan roots. As Ars Technica quoted, he rejected the plea from ‘four former FCC chairs, including three Republicans.’

Legal battles may loom. Scholars predict court challenges if probes lead to sanctions, potentially testing the policy’s constitutionality. Meanwhile, media watchdogs monitor Carr’s moves, wary of eroding press independence in an already polarized landscape.

The Road Ahead for Broadcast Regulation

As 2025 unfolds, Carr’s FCC could reshape media oversight. His probes into alleged distortions, from CBS to public radio, signal a proactive stance that supporters hail as accountability, while opponents decry as censorship.

X posts reflect public anxiety, with users posting about ‘the coup is almost complete’ and linking Carr to broader authoritarian trends. These sentiments, combined with media reports, paint a picture of a regulator at the nexus of politics and press.

Ultimately, the debate over news distortion probes tests the boundaries of regulatory power in a democracy. With Carr standing firm, the clash between oversight and freedom promises to intensify, drawing in lawmakers, broadcasters, and the public alike.