FCC Threatens Broadcasters Over Iran War Coverage

Experts say First Amendment protects media from politically motivated license revocations

Mar. 17, 2026 at 10:06am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has threatened to revoke the licenses of broadcasters over their coverage of the U.S. war in Iran, claiming they are spreading "hoaxes and news distortions." However, legal experts say the First Amendment and the Communications Act of 1934 would protect broadcasters from such politically motivated attempts to punish their coverage.

Why it matters

This case highlights concerns about government overreach and attempts to censor media coverage that is critical or unfavorable to those in power. The First Amendment exists to protect freedom of the press, and experts warn that allowing the FCC to revoke licenses over disfavored coverage would set a dangerous precedent.

The details

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has said broadcasters "running hoaxes and news distortions" related to the U.S. war in Iran could face license revocation when their renewals come up. This follows a statement from former President Donald Trump criticizing media coverage of the conflict. Legal experts say the FCC revoking licenses over political disagreements with coverage would be "exceptionally rare" and "unprecedented." They note the FCC itself has previously stated it cannot act as an "arbiter of truth" in journalism, and that even false speech is protected by the First Amendment.

  • In March 2026, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened broadcasters over their coverage of the U.S. war in Iran.
  • Broadcast television licenses in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia expire on October 1, 2028.
  • Broadcast radio licenses in the same jurisdiction expire on October 1, 2027.

The players

Brendan Carr

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission who has threatened to revoke the licenses of broadcasters over their coverage of the U.S. war in Iran.

Donald Trump

The former U.S. president who criticized media coverage of the war in Iran, which prompted Carr's threats.

Robert Corn-Revere

The chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who said an FCC chairman's distrust of certain coverage is "simply not a permissible grounds for taking away a license."

Jenna Leventoff

The senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, who said Carr's statements reflect a "gross misinterpretation" of the law and a departure from how the FCC has operated in the past.

David Keating

The president of the Institute for Free Speech, who compared Carr's efforts to those of the Parents Television Council in the early 2000s to attempt to get FCC licenses revoked over indecency, calling both "politically motivated."

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The FCC can't stop speech just because it doesn't like it or because it doesn't think that it's true.”

— Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union

“Even if the speech were false, the First Amendment would protect it.”

— Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union

“I think he wants broadcasters to think before they speak, and think, 'Will President Trump like what I'm about to say?' (and) if not, have them choose not to say it.”

— Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union

What’s next

The judge in any potential FCC license revocation cases will decide whether the agency's actions are constitutional and in line with the First Amendment.

The takeaway

This case highlights the importance of protecting press freedom and the First Amendment, even when the government disagrees with or dislikes the media coverage. Allowing the FCC to revoke licenses over political disagreements with coverage would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the role of a free and independent press in a democracy.