ABC can beat Trump FCC's license threat if owner Disney is willing to fight

Schwartzman said it has been “many decades” since the FCC invoked the early renewal provision against a large broadcaster. The process itself doesn’t change a license’s actual expiration date, and ABC’s eight TV stations are scheduled for renewals between 2028 and 2031. “This simply accelerates a process that takes years,” Schwartzman said. “The idea is that if you know there is a problem, start the proceeding now.” The FCC order didn’t mention Kimmel but said the agency “has been investigating Disney’s ABC stations for possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules, including the agency’s prohibition on unlawful discrimination.” This seems to be a reference to Disney’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices, which FCC Chairman Brendan Carr claims are a form of discrimination. Although the FCC probe is ostensibly over alleged violations of anti-discrimination rules, it’s widely seen as retaliation against ABC because of Trump and Carr’s many comments alleging that the network is biased. Carr threatened ABC station licenses in September 2025 over comments made by Kimmel, and Trump sued ABC in 2024 over statements made by George Stephanopoulos. Trump subsequently obtained a $15 million settlement. “Even after paying off the president last year, ABC is once again under attack by this administration,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote yesterday. “This should be a lesson to all who capitulate to the president: You cannot buy his favor, you can only rent it.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized Carr’s 2025 attack on Kimmel and weighed in yesterday on the license proceeding. “It is not government’s job to censor speech, and I do not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police,” Cruz told Punchbowl News. The comparative renewal process was eliminated by Congress “with a sweep of its legislative hand,” as Sterling noted. The 1996 update added a “standards for renewal” section with strict limits on when the FCC can deny a license transfer. Sterling wrote: It requires that a license be renewed if the licensee fulfills three requirements: (A) the station has served the public interest, convenience or necessity; (B) the licensee has not been found guilty of “serious violations” of the Act or FCC rules; and (C) the licensee has committed “no other violations” of the Act or FCC rules, “which, taken together, would constitute a pattern of abuse.” These generalized standards—none of which speak directly to the quality of the program service provided—are very easy to meet for the vast majority of stations. Only if a licensee is found not to meet these standards, and then only if “no mitigating factors justify the imposition of lesser sanctions,” can the FCC deny a license. And only after such a denial may the FCC even begin to consider a different licensee. Put simply, the “comparative” aspect of renewals was eliminated. Renewals became all but automatic, making the eight-year term more a matter of minor administrative review than any real threat of a loss of license for outlets that broadcast for decades. This section of the law “creates a strong presumption in favor of renewal,” Schwartzman said. “It is much harder to deny a broadcast renewal than any other kind of wireless license.” He noted that the section applies only to broadcast licenses, and not other kinds of licenses such as cellular or satellite. The FCC bears the burden of proof “at every stage” of the legal process, the office of FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez said yesterday. Gomez is the commission’s only Democrat and has consistently criticized Carr’s attacks on media. “Any action premised on a broadcaster’s content or editorial choices runs directly into the Communications Act’s prohibition on censoring broadcaster content and the First Amendment, barriers courts have consistently upheld,” Gomez’s office said. “The government cannot weaponize the licensing process to punish speech it disapproves of and attempts to do so have consistently failed.” The FCC is likely to make its legal case based on alleged violations of anti-discrimination rules, rather than the content of ABC programming. But “even if the FCC grounds its case in a different legal theory, the broader pattern of political threats against broadcasters is part of the public record, and Disney can use that record in its defense,” Gomez’s office said. “Courts take motivation seriously, and the motivation here is clear.” The biggest question may ultimately be whether Disney and ABC fight tooth and nail or make concessions to Carr. For now, the company says it will fight. In a statement yesterday, Disney said that ABC and its stations have a long record of complying with FCC rules and serving the public interest. “We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels,” Disney said.