Domestic Green Energy Independence Meets Reality
Both the Biden Administration and the second Trump administration converged on a rare point of
Since ABC’s decision to remove Jimmy Kimmel’s show from the air, many entertainers, politicians, and media figures have claimed that the move—believed to be a preemptive step to avoid licensing issues with the Trump Administration—violates the First Amendment. Others argue that President Trump’s threats to networks are unprecedented efforts to suppress free speech. Both of these opinions are understandable, but are incorrect and miss some key points. I am not going to comment on Kimmel's comments, but on the bigger question: what did the Disney decision signal about the future of broadcast TV and radio entertainment platforms?
FCC Regulatory Power and Its Limits
The Federal Communications Commission Act of 1934 gave the FCC power to regulate broadcast TV and radio, as well as telephonic and telegraphic communications, under the standard of “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” In Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the FCC’s “fairness doctrine.” In so doing, it explicitly supported federal government restrictions on free speech on broadcast TV because broadcasters are granted an exclusive license by the federal government to use specific frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. The trade-off for that grant of exclusive bandwidth is the acceptance of FCC regulation.
The "fairness doctrine," codified in 1959 and first enforced in 1963 under President Kennedy, required broadcasters to cover controversial issues in a balanced way, discouraging one-sided editorializing. The "fairness doctrine" was repealed in 1987, largely because Reagan-appointed commissioners believed it chilled conservative speech. Nothing has replaced it, but the Supreme Court doctrine affirming FCC regulatory authority over TV and radio affiliates that are granted exclusive broadcast licenses remains in place.
FCC jurisdiction applies only to local broadcast TV and radio stations licensed to use specific frequencies of the public airwaves. It does not apply to networks that aggregate and supply content to local affiliates. ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and the cable or streaming platforms are not subject to FCC regulations, only their broadcast TV and radio affiliates.
Disney or any other media conglomerate could easily showcase Kimmel's show on multiple non-broadcast digital platforms beyond FCC reach. Media companies have a great deal of freedom in presenting content, which has been obscured in the public commentary. In fact, if someone subscribes to YouTube TV and it carries Jimmy Kimmel's programming on ABC's online version, the FCC has no regulatory authority. In this case, viewers access ABC on a laptop or a smart TV, which are not using the scarce electromagnetic spectrum bandwidth.
FCC Commission Chair Brendan Carr's statement was vague, and, to many, threatening in giving the appearance of an overreach. If all he intended to communicate was that the FCC would eventually issue new regulations governing broadcast TV and radio content, that would be within the FCC's authority. But it would take an extended period of time for those regulations to be proposed, made available for comment, and implemented.
It would be difficult for the FCC to revoke local affiliate broadcast licenses, based on a decision by the affiliate to carry Jimmy Kimmel's show, since the "fairness doctrine" has been repealed. An FCC decision to refuse to approve a media merger would not be grounded in any sustainable legal theory.
What May Really Have Driven ABC's Decision
In a Variety interview, media executive Shari Redstone observed that the economics of late-night television no longer work, given shrinking viewership and financial strain on media companies. Disney and ABC may have found Kimmel’s political commentary alienating to parts of its audience, but the deeper issue is profitability.
According to multiple sources, Kimmel's Nielsen ratings, which determine how much advertisers are willing to pay for spots on his show, had been declining, as have the ratings of every other late night entertainment program. The decline is from 2.4 million viewers in 2015 to 1.6 million in 2024. One estimate is that his September, 2025, numbers had dropped to around 1.1 million viewers.
Moreover, the 18-49 audience dropped by 72% between 2015 and 2025.
Like CBS’s decision to cut costs with Stephen Colbert or NBC’s retooling of late-night, ABC’s move reflects harsh economics, but the political fallout from his commentary gave it a convenient basis to suspend his show. We also know that both owners of affiliate TV stations, like Sinclair and Nextstar and advertisers, as well as their viewers, reached out to Disney to demand that they suspend Kimmel's show. Some affiliates announced that, regardless of what Disney decided to do, they would not air Kimmel's show.
The Disney decision was likely an acceleration of a decision they would have made anyway. Given long-term entertainment consumption trends and the cost of producing his show, it is unlikely that Kimmel would have stayed on the air with a format like his at his current salary.
The New Audience Ecosystem
Scheduled TV programming of all kinds, except for sporting events, has declined. In fact, streaming exceeded cable TV for total viewers.
The landscape today is far removed from the 1969 world in which the FCC secured unanimous Supreme Court approval of its content regulation power over broadcast TV. Audiences now consume programming in layered ways, in addition to the declining number who consume it on scheduled broadcast TV or radio:
- On-Demand Full Episodes: Networks recapture audiences who missed the live airing through Hulu, YouTube TV, or network apps. These incremental views extend relevance.
- Short Clips: The real engine of reach. Viral monologues or interviews on TikTok or YouTube often attract more viewers than the live show itself.
- Reruns and Extended Slots: Re-airings and rebroadcasts provide modest additional viewership and residual ad revenue.
- Secondary Platforms: Podcasts, highlight reels, and themed collections diversify reach, engaging people who never sit down for video.
The “audience pyramid” now extends well beyond broadcast. For networks and advertisers, the total sum matters—not just live ratings. The FCC cannot even regulate online clips or streaming platforms drawing on content from broadcast TV programs, unless that content violates other FCC rules. In legal terms, those are “information services,” not broadcasters. While online content may be subject to copyright or obscenity laws, it lies outside FCC purview.
Disney or any other media company can relaunch Kimmel's show and clippings from it as a cross-platform offering. All these companies know the playbook they would need to employ. Those who want to afford him the ability to speak freely can put him on platforms beyond FCC authority. He could probably reach a wider audience than his show was attracting on scheduled late night broadcast TV.
The Presidential Tradition of Media Intimidation
Trump’s attacks on broadcasters—threats to challenge licenses and branding networks “enemies of the people”—sound dramatic, but they are far from unique. Past presidents have pressured or punished media outlets, especially broadcast TV, because it is federally licensed. The difference is that, with a handful of exceptions, they engaged in intimidation behind the scenes.
Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy complained privately about radio and TV coverage to media outlets, but their complaints were done privately. Lyndon Johnson notoriously made intimidating late-night calls to network executives. In 1967, he berated CBS chief William Paley over the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, which CBS eventually canceled. Richard Nixon was one of the few openly hostile Presidents, but he also directed aides to explore FCC action against networks critical of Vietnam or Watergate.
Barack Obama praised press freedom publicly but privately pursued leak prosecutions under the Espionage Act and secretly monitored reporters. Fox News journalist James Rosen was even labeled a “criminal co-conspirator” in a warrant application.
The Biden Administration, both directly and through intermediaries, attempted to suppress content on social media platforms, especially relative to commentary on Covid and "climate change" to counteract what it considered to be "misinformation."
FCC Commission Chairs have openly attacked broadcast TV in the past. Newton Minow, President Kennedy's FCC Commission Chair, described TV in 1961 as a "vast wasteland." He did not threaten regulation, but the message was clear and, like Carr, he was criticized for interfering with freedom of the press.
The FCC has even intervened directly in attacking comedy content. In the 1970s, it threatened license revocation against a station airing George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” routine. The Supreme Court upheld FCC authority, but the controversy boosted Carlin’s cultural standing.
None of these forms of intimidation are defensible. Each poses different kinds of threats to democracy. But they predated broadcast TV and radio and will continue relative to any medium that Presidents attempt to use to get their messaging across in a less filtered way. Trump's Truth Social platform, which is designed to bypass broadcast TV, cable and other social media gatekeepers, hearkens back to the tactics of Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln and Harding who had significant financial interests in newspapers that they could reliably use to communicate their messages.
Why History Matters
The history of presidential-media clashes is not just trivia—it shapes how we interpret today. FCC Commission Chair Carr's license threats may feel ominous, but the value of FCC’s authority has shrunk. Viral online clips now define influence more than any broadcast slot. Unlike any previous media environment, there are too many platforms through which people promoting or opposing points of view can get through to audiences. Attempts to intimidate broadcasters increasingly feel like shadow boxing against a fading foe.
The Fairness Doctrine Debate
Some argue for reinstating the fairness doctrine to curb hyper partisan commentary in all media. While superficially appealing, the "fairness doctrine" chilled free speech the way it was administered and its 1987 repeal had bipartisan political support.
Even if clear one-sidedness exists on broadcast TV, it is not the biggest problem. It is the cacophony of voices on the many media platforms where FCC authority does not extend. Unless Congress revisits Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which shields social media from liability for user content, the battle will continue outside the FCC’s reach.
Conclusion: A Fragile Freedom
The Jimmy Kimmel decision has occurred in a different environment from CBS' decision to cancel the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour. Today,the tactic of threatening revocation or non-renewal of broadcasting licenses looks increasingly futile. A viral clip can eclipse an entire broadcast, and online platforms lie beyond FCC jurisdiction. The more Presidents or the FCC threaten more regulation of broadcast TV and radio, the more they will drive content providers to platforms beyond current regulatory authority.
The fragility of the 1st amendment today lies in the freedom of influencers and others to use social media platforms to spew out hateful and false commentary. Hateful social media content can make Americans more receptive to devaluing the 1st Amendment and seek out leaders who convince us to suppress not only that content, but content which might make us uncomfortable, but which has an absolute right to be in the marketplace.