Nicole Polisar
Associate Editor
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2027
The struggle to balance government oversight, corporate power, and free expression has placed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the heart of America’s media debate. The FCC plays a central role in U.S. media regulation, overseeing licensing, national ownership limits, and broadcasters’ statutory “public interest” obligations. The FCC’s national television ownership rule prevents any one company from controlling stations that reach more than 39% of U.S. households. This mandate was designed to ensure that no single corporation could dominate the public airwaves. Yet, as recent events surrounding FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna Inc., and the temporary suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live reveal, these safeguards are under mounting pressure. What began as a technical question of regulatory compliance has evolved into a broader confrontation over free speech, political influence, and the fragility of democratic guardrails in American broadcasting.
Pushing the boundaries of media ownership
Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr expressed openness to lift what he termed “artificial limits” on how many stations a company can own. In August 2025, Nexstar Media Group, the country’s largest local television owner, announced plans to purchase rival broadcaster Tegna Inc. in a deal valued at roughly $6.2 billion. If approved by the FCC, the combined company would control a far greater share of American households than current law permits.
On September 17, 2025, during a podcast appearance, Chairman Carr criticized ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel as “talentless” and urged ABC affiliates to reconsider broadcasting his program. Within hours, Nexstar announced that its ABC-affiliated stations would preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live. Shortly thereafter, Walt Disney-owned ABC suspended the show entirely. The following day, President Donald Trump weighed in during an interview about his treatment by the press, stating: “They [the networks] give me only bad publicity or press. I mean, if they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It’ll be up to Brendan Carr. I think Brendan Carr is outstanding.” A debate over ownership limits quickly broadened into questions of free speech, corporate power, and government overreach.
Regulatory compliance and the first amendment
At first glance, the FCC’s ownership cap is a technical compliance issue – no single company can own too many TV stations. But this rule exists for deeper democratic purpose: preventing monopolies and ensuring diverse voices in the marketplace of ideas. By dismissing ownership caps as “artificial limits,” Chairman Carr is not just debating market efficiency; he is challenging a regulatory structure designed to protect pluralism in speech.
When the FCC chair criticizes programs, and regulated broadcasters respond by suppressing that content – while political figures such as Trump explicitly call for license revocation based on coverage they dislike – the chilling effect on free expression becomes undeniable. Regulatory compliance is a guardrail against political capture of the media ecosystem. Eliminating or undermining these protections risk entangling the government in editorial decisions that the First Amendment was written to prevent.
Why regulatory compliance matters in media ownership
The FCC’s ownership cap is not merely a market restriction, but a compliance safeguard against concentrated influence. Without a cap, companies like Nexstar could dominate the broadcast market, leaving fewer checks on how political or corporate interests influence what the public sees and hears.
The Kimmel incident illustrates this danger. Compliance rules meant to ensure diversity of ownership and local accountability were overshadowed by political pressure. Instead of serving communities with a variety of voices, broadcast stations aligned with corporate interests and government criticism to preempt speech critical of those in power.
Brendan Carr said it best himself, “Political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech. It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people in to the discussion. That’s why people in influential positions have always targeted it for censorship.” In this light, regulatory compliance is not a burden, but a constitutional necessity to prevent government interference and maintain a free and diverse media landscape.
A call to action
Immediately following Kimmel’s termination, the public reacted with widespread boycotts of Disney-owned streaming services like Hulu and Disney+. These actions reflect consumer frustration, not only with the silencing of Kimmel, but with the broader trend of corporations pandering to regulatory authorities at the expense of free expression. Within days, Disney lost nearly $5 billion in market value, and after six days off the air, Kimmel’s show was reinstated.
Disney, and media corporations more broadly, must remember who ultimately sustains them: the viewers and subscribers. Regulatory compliance should not be treated as an obstacle to be dismantled, but as a framework that protects democratic values. If ownership caps are repealed or if licensing authority is wielded as a weapon to punish disfavored viewpoints, the broadcast marketplace risks becoming less free, less diverse, and less accountable to the public they serve. Ultimately, as this controversy shows, compliance in media ownership is not merely an economic matter – it is integral to preserving the First Amendment itself.