Lasting Consequences and Final Thoughts

Why is he shifted like this? Not this way. Trump won. Yeah. And now he's a MAGA warrior. And I think he's he's just like a political animal. I think he sees his lucrative podcast paid for by you know illegal supplements in the future, and that's gonna be a great exit ramp for him. Hi everyone from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is on with Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. My guest today are FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez. I gathered them for a long awaited episode about FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, and his moronic behavior and his problematic actions, and they go hand in hand, just for people don't know, specifically how he's weaponized the formerly independent This is not just my opinion. The stuff he has done is really egregious, and I wanted to talk about it. Earlier this week, theal Leg Accountability Center, a bipartisan watchdog, filed complaints in Washington, D.C. in Maryland against Carr and asked for an investigation, stating that he, quote, violated his ethical obligations as a licensed attorney. In response, Carr ever moronically told Status News's Oliver Darcy, quote, I'm going to keep doing my job, whatever activist groups like this think notwithstanding, I'm just going to keep filing ahead.. End quote I don't even know what that means. And most things with Brandon Carr seem moronic, but actually they're quite focused on quashing free speech for media companies who do not tow the Trump line. And so I really want to talk about it. Commissioner Gomez is the sole Democratic Commissioner at the FCC, and she's been an outspoken critic of Carr's attempts to pressure broadcasters for political purposes. And the Knight Institute have condemned, among other things, Carr's use of the FCC's public interest standard as a tool to target viewpoints the Trump administration disagrees with. Since the early days of his appointment, he has a recurring segment on the Verge cast called Brendan Carr is a Dummy. Stay tuned through the credits to hear a Brendan inspired song from a fan. As I said, it's important to talk about this right now because this is an a agency that's being used as a cudgel by the Trump administration as outlined in Project 2025. And the chapter that Brendan Carr wrote was about the FCC and now he's running it. Our expert question today comes from Adam Mockler, a YouTuber, podcast host, and reporter at Midas Touch. Stick around. Security program on spreadsheets, new regulations piling up, and audit dread? It's time for Van Vantata. automates security and compliance, brings evidence into one place, and cuts audit prep by 82%. Less manual work, clearer visibility, faster deals, zero chaos. Call it compliance, or call it compli ance. Get it? Join the 15,000 companies using Vanta to prove trust. Go to VANTA.com slash com . What's up, y'all? I'm Skylar Diggins, seven-time W NBA All-Star, Olympic gold medalist, and mom. And I'm Cassidy Hubbard, host and reporter for nearly 20 years, covering the biggest names and stories in sports and mom . And this is And Mom, a community for athletes, game changers, and moms of all kinds. Dropping May 14th. Tap in with us . What does it take to be prepared for disaster? You have to be confident. You have to be calm. Will you be perfect? No. But the idea is that you'll have your bearings and this won't be something new to you. This week on explain it to me, how to stay ready so you don't have to get ready. New episode Sundays wherever you get your podcasts . Commissioner Gomez, Jamil and Neelai, thanks for coming on on. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for having us. This is a topic Neelai and I have been discussing a lot. I call Right, exactly. We're having a beef about that. But actually I wanna get to really substantive discussion of what's happening here because you know there have been FCC chairmen who've been controversial, but this guy is sort of winning the prize. So I'd like you to pick the most egregious thing carr has done so far and explain why it concerns you. We're gonna get into more detail as we go. So maybe keep it higher level. Let's start with you, Commissioner Gomez, uh, and then Jameel and Neli. Well again, thank you for having me here. Let me tell you that it this is not just the FCC. Of course, we've seen that this is an administration-wide campaign of censorship and control, is what I call it. Uh, and the FCC is one of the weapons that this administration uses because licensees want something out of the FCC, and so there's a lot of bullying that's happening. But the most egregious thing this FCC has done to date has been calling up the local licenses that Disney has for renew al. That is just a direct assault on the first amendment. You know, there's nothing more important to a broadcaster than their license. It is their lifeblood. And this was directly meant to threaten Disney. Absolutely. Because it's not about the local stations, right? It's about they don't like Jimmy Kimmel. They don't like the view. And explain what the local so people who don't understand . This is something that comes up every and they're local like ABC has affiliates for correct. So explain that for people who don't understand. Yes, that's right. So there's hundreds of ABC affiliates throughout the country. Disney only owns itself and operates eight of them. Key markets in key key big markets usually. FCC does not license the networks. The FCC only licenses the local broadcast stations because it licenses the airwaves over which these stations operate their stations. And it is that it is using that leverage to get at content that it doesn't like. And so the reason this is the most outrageous thing, and the FCC's done a lot against the First Amendment and to try to pressure companies into changing either what they broadcast, how they broadcast it, or even their diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, which to me also have a First Amendment component to them. But the reason this is the most egregious is because it is so unprecedented . It is directly tied to content that they don't like and it's dangerous. All right, Jim Meal? Yeah, I'm I'm not uh actually sure how to choose between all these terrible things that Brendan Carr is doing. It's it's like the opposite of having to choose between my children. But you know, I actually think that one of the most outrageous features of this assault on free speech is that it's being conducted You know, when Brandon Carr tries to justify all of these actions uh against broadcasters and against media organizations more broadly, you know, he points to free speech. He says, You know, I'm doing this to ensure that Americans' voices are heard and that nobody is silenced. And that is really just an outrageous reversal or sort of fun house mirror image of what's actually going on. You know, what Brendan Carr is engaged in is censorship. You know, he is chilling speech, he's suppressing speech directly. He's using government power to silence voices that are supposed to be free. Media organizations in the United States are supposed to get to decide within extremely broad parameters what kinds of news they cover, how they cover it, uh what kind s of commentary they offer, which voices they they platform, like all of those things are left to private individuals and organizations to decide. That's a you know, that's a feature of the first amendment. That's sort of the core idea of the first amendment is that those things are for individuals and not the government. Right. And so he's using it saying there there has to be equal voices. He was he's doing we'll get to the equal time rule in a second. Neil I think that's well I certainly agree with Commissioner Gomez that going after Disney in the particular way he's going after it, that company calling in the licenses early, which just hasn't been done in forever, that's by far the most egregious. But I, you know, we do a segment on on our show of the roadcast every week call Brendan Carr is a dummy because every week there's something and we can just pull it out of the ether. And what I would say and what I'm trying to communicate to our audience is he's not a sophisticated actor. This is a blunt instrument. And actually, maybe it's because I'm not a member of the DC Bar and I know to be polite. He's also a bad lawyer. Like the way he's going about imposing chilling effects by pulling random words out of statutes, by inverting the idea of free speech. It's so stupid. Like, maybe that bothers me the most. Like, you don't have to figure it out. You can just say, oh, he the president doesn't like Jimmy Kimmel, the broadcast licens es have been pulled up for renewal. It's obvious what he's doing. And trying to wrap it in the language of statutory interpretation or saying that the airwaves are meant for the public interest, or pretending that Tegna and next ar are just small local broadcasters who just need some help against the big bad stuff. Explain who Techna and Nextar are. States and now they're merging. And in fact, they pushed their merger ahead, assuming they would get regulatory approval, that they had begun merging even before they were told to stop by the courts because they haven't actually gotten all the approvals. That is the level of quid pro quo we see in the Trump administration. So you just see Brendan is using the language that's meant to protect speech. He's using the language that from a statutory perspective is meant to slow down regulatory processes and make sure they're rigorous and correct. And instead, like a dummy, he's just pulling words and saying, Oh, I can use these words and I can redefine them in order to attack speech the president doesn't like. And I don't think it matters what your political persuasion is. If you just care how it works, you look at that, you say that's horrible. That means a Democrat could do it, presumably a Democratic. A Democrat could do it. I uh at this point I sort of hope some Democrats start doing it so everybody understands how dangerous it is. Right. Like a a Democrat wielding the power of what what's called unitary executive theory might be good for our country, right? If we we get to that point. Because I think everyone would understand, oh, our system is meant to have checks and balances. And Brendan in particular is an example of what happens when there are no checks and balances. Absolutely. So let's get to the news around this, the view and its network ABC and the parent company Disney. And let's add Kimmel to that because that's been, you know, an ongoing issue for President Trump, because he doesn't have a sense of humor. As we said, the FCC has been investigating the View for months and it recently called for a review of the licenses of eight of Disney's ABC local stations years before they expire, as you noted, Commissioner Gomez. Now Disney's actually fighting back because Disney slash ABC, it's the owner of ABC, accusing the FCC of violating its free speech rights. Last week, Commissioner Gomez, you sent a letter to Disney CEO, Josh DeMaro, he's the new CEO, stating that ABC was a victim of quote a sustained coordinated campaign of censorship and control by the Trump administration . Talk about why you sent the letter and what's the significance of the network's pushback, because they had been relatively quiet under Bob I ger and had made some payoffs previously related to George Stephanopoulos. That was a different thing. But talk a little bit about why you sent the letter. Yes. So I I have been calling out this administration for its first amendment violations for quite some time now. But with this letter, I've taken the fight directly to these companies and I'm sending a message directly to them saying, you know, grow a spine, understand that the rules and the facts are in your favor . And I'm very happy to see that Disney appears to have grown a spine and is in fact pushing back because it does have the facts, the public and the first amendment behind it. And you know, Disney's filing with us was very interesting. And in fact, it was kind of shocking, because if you read their filing, well let's start with the fact that the filing is brilliantly written. It is really a legal brief in defense of the First Amend ment. And it told us some shocking things that Disney claims in its response to the FCC's investigation into the view. The FCC apparently went to the other ABC stations in the market because The FCC told them to file the paperwork on the candidate appearance, which was James Tallerico. Let me just see. For people that know, the FCC is looking into whether the view violated old federal rules requiring equal airtime to rival political candidates. Back in January, Carr issued guidance essentially reminding broadcasters, but the rule hadn't been in enforced in decades. Let me play this clip of Brendan Carr in February talking about equal time and the view on Fox. Disney has a program called The View, and they've been asserting the position that the View is what's known as bona fide news in the statute. If you're bona fide news, you don't have to give candidates equal airtime. But Disney and the View have not established that that program is in fact bona fide news. So we've started an enforcement proceeding taking a look at that. And again, we're gonna hold broadcasters accountable. The days that these legacy media broadcasters get to decide what we can say, what we can think, who we can vote for are over. And I think President Trump played a key role in just smashing the facade that they still get to decide the narrative here. All right, continue, Commissioner Gomez. And then I want Neilai to weigh in on what he's attempting to do by enforcing the rule. Go ahead, Commissioner Gomez. So what the FCC did was it went to the affiliates that are not owned by ABC and told them you need to file the paperwork on the James Taylor Rico appearance. And apparently, according to Disney, told them they would not get in trouble for filing late because no one had filed that appearance. Then it turned around and it used the fact that those stations that it forced to file these appearances as evidence against Disney station. Right. So it asked them to do it. It asked them to do it. And it did not reach out to Disney in the same way. Even though they had fulfilled it. Right. Owned and operated. Yeah, if that's true, to me, that's a setup. It's a form of entrapment. And that is also part of this outrageous actions that the FCC's taking against Disney. So Neila, break that down. What is he attempting to do by enforcing this rule? This is a this is i it is a news program . It interviews people, it talks about the news. By any stretch of cable or anything else, it's a news program. But break it down. What's he attempting to do by enforcing the rule and why is he wrong? I think he's attempting to impose speech controls on the rest of Disney's content. One of the reasons that I think this is so dumb is that it kind of doesn't matter if eight broadcast stations go away. The people aren't watching them. They're watching TikTok. They're watching Disney Plus. Brendan is using the statutory power he has over broadcast stations, which are important and matter to quite a few people, but they're not important to everyone. So he's using the power he has over the broadcast stations to pressure Disney into adjusting the content that it distributes over channels where the FCC has no authority, like Disney Plus, like YouTube, like the internet. And you can see the connection very clearly. This all started with NBC back during the election when Kamala Harris was on Saturday Night Live. Saturday Live is maybe the only program in America that actually understands the equal time rule because they do have political figures on that show all the time, they have for years, and there's no chance they're gonna get the news exception. Right? They they can't even pretend. So Kamala Harris showed up on Saturday night live that right wing went crazy, Brendan started fulminating about it, but of course NBC had filed the paperwork. And I think he's been looking for an excuse to do this ever since , so that the rest of the content, which he cannot regulate, somehow comes under his control. He will threaten your business, which is even in decline, which honestly most young Americans do not care about so that you can affect the business that maybe is in growth that young Americans do care about. So Carr regularly invokes the FCC's news distortion policy and often brings it up as an agency's public interest standard. Here he is speaking with right wing podcaster Benny Johnson last September, just hours before Jimmy Kimmel's temporary suspension from ABC. Us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. And we can get into some ways that we've been trying to reinvigorate the public interest and some changes that we've seen. But frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action, frankly, uh on Kimmel, or you know, there's gonna be additional work for the FCC ahead. Okay, hard way or easy way, 'cause he's such a scary figure. In a March post on X, Carr also threatened to deny or revoke broadcast licenses from broadcasters that are quote running hoaxes and news distortions, also known as the fake news. This is a response to critical coverage of the Iran war that Trump disliked. Jamil, from a legal perspective, what is exactly news distortion and how does Carr attempting to use it as policy chill free speech? Because it's obvious it's kind of a clottish att Aaron Powell Yeah. I mean so news distortion is supposed to be this very you know narrow rule that prohibits deliberate and material distortion of the news by media organizations, senior leadership. But this is a power that has not been used in generations. So it's distortion meaning you're putting up what is actually fake news, correct? Aaron Powell Yeah. I mean I I think that you know one thing that's really important for people to understand is that, you know, the Supreme Court has sometimes suggested, sometimes said, that the government has broader authority to regulate broadcasters because broadcasters are relying on government issued monopolies over spectrum. And there's a limited amount of spectrum. And so you know there's a certain amount of prioritizing that the government has to do, and they can prioritize with the public interest in mind. And that is a kind of framework that applies only to broadcast and not to other, you know, on other media. But whatever, you know, the and there's been this debate for a long time about what is the scope of the government's power to regulate broadcasters, you know, how does that differ from the scope of the government's power to regulate other forms of media? But whatever the answers to that question, I I I don't think there's you know any arguments at all that the government has the power, that the FCC has the power to regulate on the basis of viewpoint. The Supreme Court has never suggested that. to And the contrary, even in cases like a case called Red Lion from the nineteen seventies, which upheld uh what was called the Fariness Doctrine. Even in in that case, which is sort of the broadest articulation of the government's power to regulate broadcast . Even in that case, the court emphasized that the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech on the basis of viewpoint. But that is precisely what Brendan Carr is engaged in on a you know almost daily basis. Mm-hmm. So every episode we get an ex uh a question from an outside expert. Here's yours. Hey, Adam Mockler here with the expert question. I may not look like or be an expert on this topic, but I do run a political YouTube channel with a few million followers where we talk about American politics, so freedom of speech and the chilling effect on the press is something I oftentimes think about. My question to Commissioner Gomez, to Mr. Patal, and Mr. Jaffer would be the following. Brendan Carr has built this entire career as this free speech warrior, but right when he got into power, he wielded it to try to revoke the broadcast licenses of a few large stations and shows, right? What is the actual mechanism by which he can enforce this? Is there an enforcement mechanism or is what they're going for more of a chilling effect on the speech of people? Sometimes I can't tell with subministration when they're just bullying people for a you know a chilling eff ect versus when they're actually trying to fundamentally change the system. Which one do you think it is in this case? Aaron Powell Yeah I mean I I think there are absolutely real sanctions associated with some of the threats that Brendan Carr and other administ ration officials are making. I mean, just to take one example, withholding approval for a merger can, you know, can have billion dollar implications. And that's a very real sanction. Now, I wouldn't separate that from the chilling effect. The chilling effect is a result of the fact that at the end of this process there might be a real sanction. But the chilling effect is much, much broader than you know, go goes much further than just the institu tions who are that are directly targeted. You know, when Brendan Carr targets you know Paramount or Skydance, you know, other media organizations are watching very carefully because they know that they could be next. And the chilling effect results in, you know, people deciding, you know, sometimes this is called anticipatory obedience. Like even without the threat, people deciding, you know what, maybe it's better if we don't air Jimmy Kimmel or we don't air Stephen Colbert. And they just dec ided on their own without anybody needing to make the threat. And that's the real risk, I think, that we're getting into the situation where we're censoring ourselves. Right. All right. Commissioner Gomez. Yeah. I I've been saying um all along that it's the threats that are the point. Nobody wants to get dragged before the FCC in an investigation over the content of their broadcast. You know, I started a a tour of the country where I go to local communities and I talk about the threats to the First Amendment from this administration. And I every single stop, every single one, there's a broadcaster there that says, what am I allowed to say? And my what I always say to them is, it is not my job to tell you that. My job is to ensure that you have the platform to give us a viewpoint. And we want diverse viewpoints. But this administration is pushing toward in a lot of ways, including through these mergers, having one viewpoint that the public sees and hears. And that in of itself is a first amendment violation. It's a first amendment violation of viewers and listeners not being able to see and hear the content of their choice. Right. And in that case, the sanctions are not because uh in this case Disney's pushing back, right? And probably they'll win in court, presumably. They will absolutely win. And that's why I say the FCC's a paper tiger, because if challenged, if this goes to court , the FCC will lose because the First Amendment prohibits us from censoring content. And the Communications Act, which is our authorizing vehicle, which I realize is kind of boring and wonky, specifically has a section that says you can't censor and so they'll lose, but it'll take time for Disney to do so. And sometimes it's not a thing. Brendan Carr is not using magic word like statutory interpretation to regulate broadcast, because he really cares about broadcast. He's using this like bad lawyering, dummy approach the law to threaten Google, to threaten Verizon. Right? These are the actual distribution points of the content people actually watch. And Google is a defense contractor. Right? There's a lot of ways a unified Trump administration can threaten Google into changing the YouTube algorithm. And this stuff, which seems removed from most Americans, which is about television most people aren't watching, which is about radio stations most people aren't listening to, it is just a test balloon for, hey, how can we pressure Verizon or ATT into throttling content we don't like on their networks, into picking networks we do like, into making sure video on X loads more crisply and clearly than video on TikTok or whatever, which is, if you will recall, you know, uh a hundred years ago, people were warriors for net neutrality because that was the biggest threat to free speech on the internet that the pick the carriers would pick and choose. So here we are, you have an FCC threatening media distribution platforms, broadcast, television, and radio stations with the power they have in a capricious way that may not survive legal challenge, but will certainly cost a lot of money. And the best choice might to just to cave. And Kara, you know this better than anyone, our tech titans do not have spines. If they have to pick between lucrative defense contracts and throttling content on their platforms, what do you think they're gonna pick? Oh, absolutely. No question. But this is why I sent the letter to Disney because Disney has in fact now shown courage. And Disney has stood up in the past for first amendment rights and won. And I think that they need to get credit for that. And we need to encourage that kind of behavior because it is only I don't know. I but I was pretty pleased that he did this. Like I think he's, you know, about had it. I think they all see the end, I suppose, and so what's the difference? And at some point, you know, Brandon Carr is gonna end up a you know, a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, I guess. And that'll be that. But I think it was a good first move. It was an indicator. That said, as you said, what they're really going for is something else. I do think, Commissioner Gomez, you're correct that they're a paper tiger, but they can still cause problems elsewhere, right? It's a message, even if they have no real power. But they do in it's a messaging situ ation . We'll be back in a minute. Hey, I'm Matt Bouchel, comedian, writer, and floating head you may or may not have seen on your for you page and I'm starting a brand new podcast. Wait, wait, don't swipe away. It's called That Sounds Like a Lot as in that feeling when you check your phone in the morning, you read through headlines and you immediately think, oh that sounds like a lot. I can't deal with all this. But guess what? I can deal with it. And I'm gonna get into it every Friday. I'll break down whatever chaos is happening in the world, then I'll sit down with a comedian. You can be progressive and not be like fucking annoying. Maybe an actor. They go feminism is gone too far. You go, why? Cause the Sadie Hawkins dance happened? Maybe a filmmaker. Since leaving that show, I'm challenged sparingly. I just kinda hang out and try to do that. You're the one with a charmed life. Could be a politician, basically anyone who responds to my cold DMs. We're recording the whole thing in a beautiful studio, so yes, you can watch it on YouTube or you can listen wherever you get your podcast. This is not the place to get the news, but it is the place to feel a little better about it. That sounds like a lot, part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Hi, I'm Maria Sharapova, host of the Pretty Tough Podcast. Each episode, I sit down with high-achieving women to discuss the pursuit of excellence without apology. This week on the show, comedian and best-selling author Chelsea Hamler gives her tips on independence and aging gracefully. I would argue that 50, now that I am 50 and I understand life more than I did when I was 30 or 40, is that you get so much more wisdom and you get so much more experience that you actually feel like you're beginning again. Check out Pretty Tough, new episodes on Wednesdays. You can watch it on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app . Hi, I'm Maria Sharapova, host of the Pretty Tough Podcast. Each episode, I sit down with high achieving women to discuss the pursuit of excellence without apology. This week, journalist Dean at USC and now, along with her husband Bob Iger, owner of the Angel City FC women's soccer team. Will obey. I said, Bob, are you interested in doing this? And he said, absolutely. But I was definitely the d riving force, I think, in the conviction about Angel City. Check out Pretty Tough, new episodes on Wednesdays. You can watch it on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app. Let's talk about this guy about Brendan Carr's path to the FCC chairman and how the agency is changing Carr began his career as a DC attorney at a firm representing telecom clients, including ATT and Verizon. In twenty twelve, he joined the FCC as a staff attorney. Former chairman Ajit Pai promoted Carr to be the agency's general counsel at the start of Trump's first term in two thousand seventeen. And then when he became that he was quite thirsty to get on my podcast, I recall. And I didn't usually do individual especially I just didn't have them on very much. But compare the FCC of Trump's first term to the current one, and how did Carr evolve into what former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has described as an activist chairman? Because I recall he was somewhat of an irritant, but not really. He was sort of a I don't know, a a regular Republican, I suppose. Go ahead, Jameel. I mean I guess you know, part of what's happened is that the second Trump administration is very different from the first Trump administration. It's not just about Brendan Carr, right? Now we have this sort of all government assault on free speech, again, in the name of free speech. And at the Knight Institute, we have this case where we're representing technology researchers who have been threatened with deportation because they are criticizing the major social media platforms' content moderation policies. And it's this crazy, crazy policy that the Trump administration has put in place, again, in the name of free speech. They want to deport these tech researchers for what they're saying in their research. But I think that that's kind of ref that reflects the sort of larger philosophy that the Trump administration is is trying to put in place across the board. It's not just the FCC. There's this effort to there's this sense, I think, among MAGA types, or let me just say the Trump administration at least there's a sense that, you know, we are being silenced. Our people are being silenced. And when they say silenced, what they really mean is, you know, other people are criticizing us, other people are disagreeing with us. And they are trying to shut all of that speech down. And that's what you see with the FCC and the broadcasters, but you also see it with the Trump administration and legacy news media, that you, you know, the associated Yeah, the Federal Trade Commission's gone after content moderation and and the advertising companies that refuse to put their clients' ads in certain places they don't want to platforms before any line answers can you explain how the commission works so people understand like he came to the chairmanship and some chairmen try to get some sort of comedy between all of you and others don't. But explain how it works. You're the single Democrat, is that correct? Yes. Normally there's five commissioners and there would be there can't be more than three of the same party. So there would be two minority commissioners. But right now we only have three commissioners, so we have two Republicans and me. And you know, on a day to day basis, we actually And why is that? Why aren't there a full five? Um well one Republican and one Democrat resigned last year. And the there has been no other the way that it works is of course the president nominates the commissioners and the Senate confirms them. And there's been no nomination from this White House since . So we've been operating with a two to one, I'm the one, majority for the last year. And Neil, why is he shifted like this? You and I both know he was not this way. Not this way. Trump won. Yeah. And now he's a MAGA warrior. And I think he's he's just like a political animal. I I I think he sees his lucrative podcast paid for by you know illegal supplements in the future. And that's going to be a great exit ramp for him if he can be one of these characters and whatever comes next. The thing I'd point out is I've known a lot of various commissioners of the FCC over the past 15 years running the verge. And they're mostly sorry, Commissioner Gomez, pretty technocratic, right? Like we're doing spectrum policy. We want to make sure Americans have cheaper, faster broadband, especially in rural places. And that's what they all talk about. And you have them on your podcast and no one listens because it's pretty boring, which is why I think you didn't have Brendan on your podcast in the past. The the shift here into content regulation, into saying we're gonna go after the platforms who do content moderation ways we don't like, and we're gonna go after broadcasters for speech they don't like, is all encompassing in the Trump administration. It is direct from Project 2025. Brennan Carr wrote the FCC chapter in Project 202 Project 2025, taken as a whole, I don't know if anyone wants to rewind their brain, was not a coherent document. It was self-contradictory in many places, but the one through line was we will exert power over this n ation. And we will make sure people say what we want them to say and punish them when they say what we don't want them to say. So for people don't know, Carr wrote the chapter, as Neil I said, on on the FCC for the Conservative Policy Agenda Project 2025, which is which Trump said he didn't but seems to be following rather closely. He focused on in his part, focused on reigning in big tech, banning TikTok and calling out what he viewed as censorship of conservatives on social media. So So to what extent the policy goals he outlined have shifted, but they've shifted in some way more so. You think he's doing it the back door to get to social media? I think we're running test balloons using the the power that's there to regulate content on broadcast networks, which is a very loose power. I again I think they'll lose if they take these to court. But you at least have this notion that the FCC has some authority over broadcast stations, right? And you can go point at them and poke at them really hard. There's not any statutory equivalent to social media. There's not any statutory equivalent to Google search. But there's lots of power the government can exert over those in other places. Right. In other places. And you can run at boy, we're gonna ban TikTok. It would be horrible if we took TikTok away from the American people unless Larry Ellison showed up to buy it and run the algorithm his way. And we're going to force the Chinese government into some kind of deal, which to my knowledge, no one quite understands yet, that turns TikTok over to some entity that has some connection in the Trump administration. And you can just see, oh, we're running this playbook. We're running an all-of-government speech control playbook. And Brendan Carr, his personality is whatever Donald Trump to some extent, but whatever Russ Vogt wants him to do, because that is actually the He also seems to like the limelight. So the FCC historically has been independent and relatively quiet, I would say. Obviously carr's behavior including wearing a gold lapel pen depicting Trump's silhouette once last year called that into question. The agency's independence also came up last December when Carr was questioned by New Mexico Democratic Senator Ben Ray Luhan during the Senate oversight committee hearing. Let's hear an excerpt of that. Chairman Carr, yes or no, and please yes or no. Is the FCC an independent agency ? Senator, thanks for that question. I think that's yes or no is all we need, sir. Yes or no? Is it independent? Well, there's a uh test for this in the law in the the key portion of that test? Yes, yes or no, Brendan? The key portion of that test is. Okay, I'm gonna go to Commissioner Trustee. So just so you know, Brendan, on your website, it just simply says, man, the FCC is independent. This isn't the FCC is independent. Yes or no? Is not. Okay. Is not a good idea So are your website wrong? Is your website lying? Uh possibly. The FCC is not an independent agency. Okay, can I read this to you? The FCC's mission on the homepage of the FCC Is this true or is this a lie? I I can I'm happy to answer your question. Okay. Chairman, I have a little bit of a time. I'll get to the FCC is not an independent agency formally speaking. Soon after CARS said that the FCC removed the word independent from its website. Uh Jamil, why are the agencies like the FCC created to be independent and how does the politicization of the SEC fit into the broader shift of the role of agencies under the Trump administration? Yeah. Well well so I mean I think we're seeing exactly why these kinds of agencies should be, you know, in in independent. You know, the alternative is the agencies are partisan and are suppressing the kind of speech that the president wants them to suppress and answer able in this very political, immediate political sense to the president. But the Supreme Court is very quickly making it clear that they don't believe in independent agencies. They believe in uh a unitary executive in which the president is essentially the decider for any agency in the in in the executive branch and that the leaders of those agencies are removable at the whim of the president. That's the Supreme Court's current view . And I think that you know you can trace some of what's going on now in the FCC to that, you know, that particular vision. But you know, one thing that I think is really important, and you know, we've focused a little bit, I think justifiably on Disney's decision to push back. But Disney's decision is actually an outlier, right? There's so many of these media organizations that have not pushed back. And you can blame a lot of this on Brendan Carr and on the Trump administration, and you should blame a lot of it on Brendan Carr and the Trump administration. But the other side of it is media organizations have First Amendment rights that to a large extent they are failing to assert. And you know, Disney is an exception. Uh I would say the Associated Press is another exception, but those exceptions are few and far between. Go ahead, Commissioner Gomez. I think it's important to remember why we're an independent agency. When Congress was looking at creating what was what was our predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, it thought about putting it in the executive branch in the commerce department. And it was actually the commerce secretary at the time who said that was not a good idea, that it was dangerous to have the most powerful regulator of the broadcast medium, which at the time was radio , subject to the whims of one person. And that is why Congress created the the then FRC, then the FCC, as a multi-member, bipartisan or multipartisan, I guess. It doesn't have to be bipartisan agency. So that it would be an expert agency not subject to partisan whims, as as Jamil noted. And what we are seeing today is exactly what happens when we are controlled at by the whims of one person . We'll be back in a minute. Behind every F-35 jet is a Canadian company. Horizontal tails built in Winnipeg, engine sensors from Ottawa, and stealth composite panels crafted in Lunimberg to name just a few. Thanks to thousands of skilled Canadian workers, the F-35 aircraft is delivering unmatched capabilities for 20 Allied nations around the world and will generate more than $15.5 billion in industrial value for Canada. This ad is sponsored by the F-35 Partner Team, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and RTX. Learn more at www.f35.com/slash Canada. Okay, so today we're driving to southern New Jersey and heading to a data center. Couple weeks ago I read a story in nj.com and it was all about how there's a data center going up in Cumberland County, the poorest county in New Jersey, that's receiving some community pushback. And this immediately got my attention because data centers are going up all across the country. I feel like we should be hearing politicians talk more about this, but we haven't really heard a consensus. Are data centers really a necessary evil? Let's find out. This is technology we've never seen before. Right. Experiment. We're gonna experiment down here with that and we're the guinea pigs right and we're the guinea pigs exactly exactly one thing that happens in this country is there's no planning for the future is it benefiting people or is it benefiting the elite and the money that's going into their pockets. This is not about abstract politics, it's about people's everyday lives. That's this week on America Acts Release . Hi, Kara here on my podcast. I spent a lot of time talking to people at the top of their game, but there's a whole That's why I want to tell you about a new podcast at the Vox Media Podcast Network. It's called Anne Mom and is hosted by WNBA star Skylar Diggins and reporter Cassidy Hub arth. The show dives into what it actually looks like for women to perform at the highest levels of their careers while also navigating motherhood, something I know a thing or two about. Not polished, not sugar-coated, and on their own terms. It's the kind of honest, complicated conversation we need more of, especially in sports. The first episode of Anne Mom is out now with special guest Sean Johnson. Check it out on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's talk about what else Brendan has on his agenda at the behest of President Trump, clearly. Paramount's planned acquisition of Warner Brothers is one of the latest mega mergers moving forward under the Trump administration. Konsur Gomez, why don't you recently call for a review of the foreign ownership interests in the deal? First explain the FCC's role in reviewing mergers like Paramount, Warner Brothers. It can go lots of places and go to the FTC, the Justice Department. Are you concerned the mer ger won't get adequate review under car? We actually have a limited role in the uh Warner Brothers transaction because there are no licenses being transferred here. Normally, like in the next RTEGNA merger that we talked about earlier, the FCC approves that con that transfer of the licenses and it looks at, you know, how does this affect competition and viewpoint diversity, or at least we normally do. But I call what happens with this administration is there's this thing called the billionaire buddy bypass, where we actually don't have a rigorous review of any of these transactions and instead they get approved, not at the commission level, so I don't get to vote on them in the dark of night. But with regard to Warner Brothers, the only thing we look at is the foreign ownership. And that is because it will alter CBS's foreign ownership. In this case, you know what really concerns me about this, and it is true that the FCC very often waives the statutory limit on foreign ownership of broadcast stations. What really worries me here is the fact that these are not just, you know, some Italian company . These are foreign wealth funds controlled by the governments that are not themselves terribly friendly to the press and to the freedom of speech. And not only that, but Paramount has requested a waiver of up to a hundred percent of indirect ownership. It's it's a technicality. And we know that Ten cent, which is a Chinese company, which means it's also controlled by the government , pulled out so that it wouldn't draw too much attention, but has said, you know, Bloomberg has reported that they're now back in. And if the FCC says, sure, you can be owned a hundred percent by foreign controlled foreign government controlled companies then what we are doing to our content is unimaginable so I did call I called for it to be very transparent I called for the DOJ . We have a thing called Team Telecom, which is the security agency's review of foreign ownership that the FCC actually takes their recommendations very seriously in how to handle these types of things. But again, I'm So the FCC approved the six million dollar merger of Tegna and Nexter, which would create the country's largest television broadcaster, a federal judge recently blocked the merger as, Neil I noted. Neil I give us some more context for the deal, why it happened, what's the consequences and how it will impact consumers. Yeah. There's this longstanding rule, I'm sure Commissioner Gomez can explain it in more detail, that no company should own more than 39% of the broadcasters in a given region. Right? So if you're just a regular person, you know, 30 years ago and you get all of your content from broadcast television radio, the same person shouldn't own all of it. And this, in terms of government regulation is pretty good. Right? Like you can say, okay, not one person shouldn't own all the media that you're being fed. There should be competition for viewpoint, for entertainment, whatever. And so we're going to make sure that there's diversity in what you're getting over the airways. This is a pretty good rule. The argument here is that what doesn't matter because Mark Zuckerberg owns everything that you watch anyway, and you should allow these companies to get even bigger so they can compete. This is Brendan's argument. Where I think this fails, that was Brendan's argument. And so he's allowing Tegna and Nextdoor to merge, and they're going to own significantly more than 39% in almost every region that counts. Like in some cases almost all of it. And his and maybe you say, well, they have to compete with Meta, but they don't actually have the distribution, right? What they own is a bunch of local news stations. And so what you're going to get in all of these places is your local news, the most impactful news to most Americans, will be under control of one company with one allegiance to the president, and there will be no other competition because as we all well know, there is not a lot of competition or money in local news. So all of these local state governments that are corrupt in the mega era, all these local county governments that are signing corrupt deals to build data centers, they will not have the force of local journalism pushing back on them to inform their communities. Instead, what we're going to get is a bunch of Facebook groups and a bunch of really weird local journalism that advances the interests of the administration. And I think that is just straightforwardly dangerous. I'm not sure there's a regulatory approach to that. Like it is true that most people open their phone and get all of their content from TikTok and meta. Sure. But the but the but the idea behind it is sound is what you're saying. Aaron Powell Even if they're it should be left out. The Mark Zuckerberg part should be left out of this. Let's not make them speak. A bunch of local news. Like you get there's a lot of other ideas you could have, but the idea that you're gonna let these two companies, which have clear allegiance to the president, get bigger to compete with Mark Zuckerberg, like I said, he's not sophisticated. You you roll that up to anyone in America and say, is that gonna work? And they say, no, that's stupid. So let's shift to DEI, one of Brandon's biggest bugaboos since taking office. Here he is at a news conference. I really enjoy playing these because he's such a moron. Following the April open commission meeting, he's responding to a question about the FCC's investigation into Comcast DEI policies and whether MBC, which is owned by Comcast, could face calls for early license renewal. And again, I want people to hear what he's saying in a group so you understand what he's at. We've been very consistent across the board about what we view as invidious forms of DEI discrimination. As deals have come before the FCC, we have required people to look at their uh policies and make sure they don't have what we think is invidious forms of DEI. Look in in ways DEI is a tough concept because some people look at DEI and they view it as sort of just traditional non discrimination. Uh but there's other ways that you can do DEI policies that we view as the opposite of that, which is actually discrimination. So when you have debates over DEI, you can really be talking about two different things. When we talk about DEI, we talk about using protected characteristics, race and gender, to discriminate against people based on that. And so this idea that we care about invidious forms of DI discrimination isn't new, isn't limited even to the broadcast segment. We've done it with Verizons made commitments, charters made commitments, um, other broadcasters do it, we're doing it across the board. Could DEI be interpreted as actual discrimination and are the FCC probes into companies DEI policies within the agencies remit. This doesn't seem to be his job. It's a Trump administration thing for sure. But it's not a lot of Yeah, I mean it's definitely a Trump administration. I I think this is extremely cynical and dishonest. Nobody who has spent any time paying attention to this can possibly think that this is a good faith effort to enforce the civil rights laws. What's really going on is that the administration here and in many other contexts is weaponizing the civil rights laws to achieve the kinds of censorship that we've been, you know, talking about. That's what's going on with universities around the country. It's what's going on with the law firms too, you know, the Trump administration imposed these sanctions on law firms that represented people whom Trump sees as political enemies. And in order to impose those sanctions, they weaponized the civil rights laws. And the same thing with the universities. They're saying, you know, that it it's because of the universities' violation of civil rights laws that we're canceling hundreds of millions of dollars in grants. But really, it's just a lever. You know, it's a lever to get these important knowledge producing or free speech institutions to change their editorial decisions. Editorial decisions in sort of the broadest sense, you know, to so that universities stop teaching particular classes or stop hiring particular kinds of people or stop admitting particular kinds of people so that law firms stop representing people who Trump doesn't like and so that media organizations stop, you know, uh plat forming Stephen Colbert. That that's what all this is really about. I think that the D the invocation of discrimination here is transparently pretextual. Wait, can I just point out his mention there of Verizon? Yeah. That's some of the most dangerous stuff that he's talking about. I know we're very focused on media companies and free speech and the actual content regulation, but Verizon killed all of its DEI policies in order to win merger approval to buy Frontier. T-Mobile killed all of its DEI policies in order to win merger approval to buy Lumus. Now, these are tiny telecom deals, and I know no most people don't care about telecom deals and they're all the most boring people in the world, but this is just naked corruption. Right? These are companies that operate physical plants in the United States, right? They have big networks, they have to hire lots of workers, they gotta send people to your house. Th this is where DEI helps actually, right? You want a big diverse workforce to go service your big diverse customer base across the country. And we're getting rid of the programs in order to security merger approval so we can further financialize our economy and all this. Like you can just see how bad it is. It's not first amendment in maybe in this context, but it's bad. Right. Right. So I'm going to shift again to the another recent area of interest. The NFL is facing scrutiny from the FCC and the DOJ over its antitrust exemption. Carr recently said, however the inquiry may not lead to any action, I'm not sure what he's doing here. First Commissioner Gomez, why? And then Neely or Jamil , why? Like what is the reasoning? This is obviously being pushed by Rupert Murdoch and others uh other broadcasters who are trying to get it, you know, up on the tech companies. First you, Commissioner Gomez. I think the intent behind the public notice, I mean I wasn't part of it, but n there is a lot of concern about the health of local broadcasting. They are losing advertising dollars to streamers. They and they are losing a lot of money when they lose the NFL it in their local broadcasts. So it's trying to understand the market and what levers there are. And again, I think this one I agree. I don't know that there's any action the FCC can take other than shining a light on the fact that there is a problem here for the local broadcasters uh if they lose such an important source of funding. Right. I mean I I sort of agree. At the same time I'm like, oh well, you should have run your businesses better, kind of thing. Like on some but local broadcasters are different than uh Rupert Murdoch or something else. Neil I or Jamil? I think this is one of those moments where mega populism kind of runs into reality. And it's like, oh, that you we should use some government power to make sure that we've given sports leagues this antitrust exemption so they can all bargain collectively, all these rich owners can bargain collectively and get the best deal from all these streamers and broadcasters. And actually regular Americans have to pay thousands of dollars to watch every game that their local teams and their local communities that they pay usually huge tax incentives to build the stadiums for and then you even to watch the games you're you're priced out and the tickets are getting more expensive. There's something to be done there, but in the context of how car operates, how this DOJ operates, I don't think shaking down the NFL is going to work. I think I think you're actually gonna run up against a very motivated billionaires. We're all pretty Republican in posture, and they're just gonna call the president and say, Don't you like Tom Brady? And it's gonna go away. billionaires he's talking to. So let's talk about the end game. The FCC regulates broadcast is becoming increasingly relevant, as Neil I has pointed out correctly. According to Neilson, broadcast television accounted for about twenty percent of US total viewing, which is amazing with streaming overtaking both broadcast and cable The rules that carr has resurrected date back to a time when broadcast spectrum was scarce and it was important to have it. Neil, you've made the case that carr wants to get the FCD to start regulating the Internet. Earlier you said his actions so far was. a It test balloon for this. Is there a legitimate argument for doing that since it's primarily how content is distributed today? decoder podcast. And we our debate was whether the tech platforms shield themselves in the first amendment to avoid all regulation and whether that had gone too far. And I'm still of the opinion that all government speech regulations are bad. And I you know, I'm a journalist. Like I'm allergic to them. I think that you should have a diversity of viewpoints and voices, and they we should all fight it out. And the challenge to that is the tech platform s algorithmically control all the media that people consume. And so I, you know, I've always joked that Mark Zuckerberg just has a dial in his office and he's like, make Instagram more mega, and then it's more MAGA. And we all have to hear the song about wanting a guy who's six foot five with blue eyes for a month before the election. And maybe you believe that that's a conspiracy, or maybe you don't. But there's no transparency into what happened there. And I really think that this government is putting pressure on a bunch of big tech companies who are all uniformly turning into defense contractors right now with with through AI and saying, hey, make sure people like us. And the pushback I'd give is maybe it's not working. Maybe young people actually still hate AI. I think the Times released a poll as we're speaking that the president's approval rating is lower than it's ever been in his second term. And the idea that social media is actually providing pushback, the people are actually seeing what's happening in their lives and they're talking about it and they can overcome these algorithms. I think you have to be a little too optimistic to believe it. Right? There's still ways for all of that to change. But that's the dynamic that I'm paying a lot of attention to So Commissioner Gomez, does that make what you're doing irrelevant? How do you look at that, even though this is being used as a tool to deliver us into that future that Neelai is talking about? No, I think the FCC still plays a very important role. You know, when you see a lot of news on your TikTok feed, that is actually being written by local journalists. So local broadcasters matter very much. And I would also just like to point out that on top of all the issues that we're having with local broadcasting and the health of local broadcasting, we defunded public media. They seem to be surviving, thank goodness. But there are pockets of this country that only get broadcasts through public media. There's no other provider. So that's that's not good, even during times of disasters. So my point is there's still an important role for the FCC, there's still an important role for broadcasters, but we do need to be very cognizant of the fact that we no longer have just three broadcasters. We have media everywhere, producing content everywhere. And so we need to take that into account as we think about what we do. I think it's important to have, for example, consumers, viewers, listeners to know when political ads are using AI . And that's something the FCC in fact did propose to do. Now that is content regulation, but it's a very targeted, very specific. It's not telling them they can't do it. It's just saying you need to have something that says this is generated by AI. Much like political ads also say, you know, they have that end that says, my name is such and such and I approve this message, that's actually an FCC rule. So I do think there's still an important role. But we don't regulate streaming. We don't regulate the internet. We regulate cable to a very limited extent. We do not regulate content. Except for maybe a couple things about about political advertising. So you know, we need to evolve into where we are today technologically and understand that the rules that mattered when there were only three voices that this country listened to have been thrown out the window because of all the alternative content people Right. So I just have two more questions, one for Jamil and then one for all of you. President Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 is credited with helping pave the way for the rise of Rush Limbo and the modern partisan media. Now carr is invoking news distortion as we noted a relic of the Fairness Doctrine era as a regulatory tool to police broadcasters speak. Looking ahead to the midterm elections, Jamil, how could the FCC's policies impact political coverage that the commissioner was just talking about. Yeah I mean I I do worry that the FCC's threats to broadcasters and more broadly the Trump administration's threats at you know directed at all sorts of media organizations will have an effect on not just, you know, what uh news organizations cover over the next few months, but how they cover those things at as well. And, you know, we I mentioned this earlier in this conversation, but you know, s at this point I'm not even sure that the Trump administration has to make the threats explicitly in order for media organizations to sort of adapt their editorial decision making to, you know, the perception of what Different I I share Neil I's sort of instinctive opposition to media regulation, but I I also think there are different kinds of media regulation. And Neil I himself was defending the thirty-nine percent rule just y you know a few minutes ago. And I think there are all sorts of structural regulation that wouldn't give government officials the ability to intervene uh at the level of viewpoint or even content, but would be sort of structural regulation that would change uh you know, what what all of us know about the social media platforms decision making, for example, or what all of us know about how AI models work, or would change diversity of, you know, sort of diversity rules and like how many how many new sources we have in any particular environment. And those kinds of structural rules are I think worth spending you know, th those are worth worth thinking more about and we should we should be open to those even if we are for good reasons sort of allergic to the idea of the government deciding, you know, whose voices get heard. We should set up like a five member bipartisan commission. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. That would be a great thing. So Commissioner Gomez, you wrote on X quote, the days of the FCC as a paper tiger will come to an end. There's a chance that Carr's probes will amount to nothing and that his reign is ultimately temporary, even reflected on his legacy in a recent interview with the Financial Times, saying, quote, I got my time, I got my shot, I took my shot. This man needs to stop seeing movies, and quoting from it just really needs to stop. But what are the potential lasting consequences of his actions at the FCC, besides being an irritant? And what changes could be permanent? Let's start with you, Commissioner Gomez, and then Neil I and uh Jamil . You get the last word. Well first of all I I absolutely agree with everything Jamil s just said. The one thing I would like to point out by the way is that the thirty nine percent cap is statutory. It is not an FCC rule and it is not for the FCC to let companies violate that. But that's not what you just asked me. You know, I really do worry about the effect on the psyche of broadcasters in the long term, where they will always be more afraid now of the FCC and what FCC actions, how they may harm them. Even Wall Street is looking at these early renewals that the FCC is doing because it lessens the value of the licenses. And that in the end harms the the the finances of these local broadcasters. So I do believe this will come to an end. I'm glad Disney is suing because if they or I shouldn't I'm glad it looks like they're going to sue, because if they do, they will win, and hopefully that'll put an end to what we're seeing. Aaron Powell I I think it's two things. One, again, he's such a dummy. There's stuff he's done that we haven't even talked about that has made the FCC appear more capricious and more poorly run and more useless than ever before. He issued an order banning all of the routers that weren't made in the United States. Oh, the routers, I forgot the routers. Right, all the Wi-Fi routers. If you don't make them in the United States, it can't be sold anymore. Well, none of the routers are made in the United States. And then Netgear and Eero, which is owned by Amazon, magically got waivers . And there's some process. I I've done some reporting. Some process occurred and some you know statements were made by both those companies of government that said they're promised to build the routers in the United States in the future. But that's nothing, right? Like nothing actually occurred. We did not actually protect the safety of Americans from supply chain attacks on the Wi Fi routers. We just did some stuff to do something that looked like corruption. And that for the FCC, that legacy of corruption, that's gonna be the that's gonna be what Brendan leaves behind. This is a corrupt agency that operates through bribes and kickbacks and does what the president wants. And Brendan can own that. And I think he's done it so so bluntly and so stupidly that you can just look at it and say that's the legacy. You don't have to dance through it. More broadly, and it has come up several times in this conversation from all of us: the notion of the unitary executive that the president just controls the country and he can just do whatever he wants by firing, hiring and firing these agency officials by you know fulminating about what he wants and issuing an executive order and the agencies are gonna do it. That's gonna last for a long time. And I again I I started out by saying this. I really hope that the next Democrat who comes into power just goes full tilt at it. That we don't have this Joe Biden return to normalcy style attempt to reset the country, that we actually see what it looks like for the other side to run at it this hard so that both sides understand this is a danger. And to reset it, we need to rethink how all these agencies work. Maybe we need to empower the FCC to make more structural changes to protect speech, to protect the local news. But fundamentally what we, need to do is restore some independence to the parts of our government that need to think long-term and not just for political gain in a short cycle. And I hope optimistically, Brendan running around like a bull in a China shop spouting movie quotes whenever he can to Benny Johnson is gonna create the conditions for that change. Okay. All right, Jamil , that's an excellent argument. Yeah, I mean I I think that the longer term effect that I'm I'm most concerned about is it has to do with democratic culture. Like it doesn't have to do with the power of the agency or First Amendment doctrine, which I actually think first amendment doctrine has held up pretty well in this particular context, the the longer term effect that I'm worried about is comes out of the failure of so many media organizations to stand up you know for for their first amendment rights. And I think that this creates a kind of it's not a legal precedent. Trump had been found liable for rape when in fact Trump had been found liable for sexual assault and Trump sued ABC for millions of dollars, sixteen million dollars or something like that. And they got a settlement from ABC. And there's no legal decision there. There's no judicial opinion saying that ABC violated the First Amendment or that you know ABC doesn't have the right to say this particular thing. But there is this factual precedent of a major media organiz ation handing over uh obscene sums of money to the president in response to I wouldn't say it was a frivolous lawsuit, but it was a very weak lawsuit. And then we saw the same thing with you, know, CBS settling uh a case with Trump, Meta settled a case with Trump. You know, one after another, all of these nominally powerful media organizations settled these weak or frivolous cases with the with the president and just turned over huge sums of money to him. And I I really worry about that set of factual precedents and what it's going to mean the next time government officials try to exercise this kind of power. Right. That's a really good point. I mean the companies really ultimately are at fault here. Um in many cases. Yeah, I would agree. Anyway, this has been really great. I just want to say I really appreciate it because I think people should understand what's happening here. And also, Brendan, you're invited. I think you're a moron. Prove me wrong. Uh you're you're welcome to come on, as I've said many times for equal time, even though I'm not bound by that, but I certainly would. And you may not