War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr issued a pointed warning to U.S. broadcasters regarding their coverage of the escalating U.S.-Israel-Iran war. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Carr stated that broadcasters airing “hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news” should “correct course” before their license renewals, or risk losing them.

He emphasized that broadcasters must “operate in the public interest,” invoking the FCC’s legal standard for using public airwaves, and warned that non-compliance could lead to revocation.

Carr did not name specific networks or stations, framing the admonition generally. His post attached or referenced a screenshot of President Donald Trump’s Truth Social message from earlier today. Trump accused major outlets, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, of “intentionally misleading” reporting on the conflict. Specifically, Trump disputed headlines claiming Iranian strikes had destroyed tanker (refueling) aircraft at a Saudi base (Prince Sultan Air Base), asserting the planes sustained minimal damage, with most already back in service, and labeling the coverage “the exact opposite of the actual facts.”

The FCC, which oversees over-the-air TV and radio stations (but not cable, print, or online media), periodically renews licenses based on public interest criteria. Carr has increasingly highlighted a “news distortion” policy and the public interest standard since assuming the chairmanship in Trump’s second term, amid broader FCC scrutiny of broadcast content. This includes recent actions on “equal time” rules for political appearances, such as CBS canceling a late-night interview and enforcement related to ABC’s “The View.”

Critics, including former FCC officials, lawmakers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and media watchdogs, condemned the statement as an authoritarian overreach that could chill free speech and editorial independence by pressuring stations over unfavorable war reporting. Some noted the threat’s limited enforceability—license revocations are rare and require due process—but highlighted its intimidating effect. Others pointed to hypocrisy, citing Carr’s 2019 X post stating the FCC lacks a “roving mandate to police speech” under the public interest banner.

This drama reflects heightened tensions between the Trump administration and media amid the Iran conflict, which began with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets and has involved regional escalation, including attacks on U.S. assets.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

During the Biden administration: In April 2022, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board” to address misinformation in homeland security, focusing on irregular migration and Russia. Critics, including Senator Joni Ernst, immediately labeled it a “Ministry of Truth” and a government censorship bureau reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984. Due to intense backlash, the board was “paused” shortly after its announcement.

Obama— Post-presidency comments by Obama called for greater regulation of social media to combat disinformation, including rethinking Section 230 protections and urging platforms to do more on harmful content. Critics viewed this as endorsing “censorship,” but these were personal views after leaving office, not administration policy or coercion during his term.

Obama and Biden had done as much, if not more than Trump is accused of by the mainstream media and the Liberals in government. Obama and Biden operated behind the curtain. The shenanigans (up to and including treasonous actions by both previous administrations, which are not even touched upon here) were ignored by mainstream media and it was all brushed off as Right-wing conspiracy. The Trump DOJ has been releasing information/accusations about clandestine operations by the previous administrations — and, as per usual, all of that has been ignored by MSDNC, CNN etc.

This is how Jawboning works in practice

Public criticism or exhortations (e.g., officials calling out companies for certain practices).
Private meetings, emails, or calls where officials express concerns and suggest changes.
Implied threats of regulatory scrutiny, investigations, antitrust actions, license issues, or other consequences if the private entity doesn’t comply.
Encouragement framed as voluntary cooperation, but delivered with the weight of government authority.

The line between permissible persuasion (e.g., government expressing views or sharing information) and unconstitutional coercion often depends on context: Is there a reasonable perception of threat? Does the private actor feel compelled due to the government’s power?

Perhaps Trump will carry forward this campaign in his third term. We can only hope he succeeds.