What to expect under Trump’s new FCC

Media have become more important and invasive in our lives than ever. Whether online, TV, video, wireless or wearable devices, Americans can’t seem to survive more than a few minutes without it.

It thus stands to reason that a newly established Federal Communications Commission led by incoming Chairman Brendan Carr will expand the agency's reach into areas where more and more Americans are engaged. As such, it could become as important and intrusive in our lives as the very media it regulates.

Under Carr, there will be a few overarching principles that will guide the agency's direction — less regulation, unfettered consolidation and America First. But there also will be some new practices that will shape its profile.

We can expect Chairman Carr to reconfigure the vast amount of power that FCC bureaus now have and to centralize that decision-making in the office of the chairman. Currently, bureaus wield extraordinary power to deny or approve satellite and broadcast licenses, levy fines and penalties, and derail deals on procedural grounds that often determine outcomes, as in the Tegna-Standard General travesty.

Whereas consumer issues have held sway at the FCC since Barack Obama, the new FCC is sure to rebalance the scales in favor of business. The commission has relied on a number of "advisory groups" whose members include public interest and industry representatives to inform their decisions on consumer issues. Although valuable, these groups are likely to be streamlined — or sidelined altogether.

Removing restrictions on broadcast ownership should be among the first items to pass, a decision that will allow leading TV station groups like Nexstar (which acquired The Hill in 2021), Sinclair and Fox Television to better compete in a changed and competitive market. They have been clamoring for a more current definition of the media market, which includes the panoply of new competitors.

In fact, Commissioner Carr wrote in Project 2025 that "rapidly evolving market conditions counsel in favor of eliminating many of the heavy-handed FCC regulations that were adopted in an era when every technology operated in a silo. These include many of the FCC’s media ownership rules, which can have the effect of restricting investment and competition because those regulations assume a far more limited set of competitors for advertising dollars than exist today.”

In keeping with its jurisdiction over industry mergers, the new FCC promises to be much less hostile to companies seeking to consolidate. That alone should encourage the mergers and acquisitions deals that have been sitting on the sidelines awaiting a more favorable regulatory environment.

But not all mergers will receive a light touch.

One such deal that will come under closer scrutiny in the new regime is the proposed Paramount–Skydance merger. Earlier this year, Paramount (owner of CBS) and National Amusements entered exclusive negotiations with Skydance Media for a three-way deal to consolidate their media assets in a deal valued at $28 billion. Chairman Carr has signaled that he will look very closely at the Paramount merger, for a number of reasons.

Normally, the FCC would limit its review to the transfer of broadcast licenses owned by CBS — a rather pedestrian inquiry. But CBS and Paramount have several issues that have caught the attention of the incoming chairman, beyond the mundane license transfers.

For one, the decision by “60 Minutes” producers to edit the broadcast interview with Vice President Kamala Harris has been flagged as possible interference in the election, which could be subject to FCC action and fines. President-elect Trump has suggested that the network's broadcast license should be revoked. While that outcome may not pass legal muster, Carr wants to take a closer look.

Earlier this month, Paramount's largest Class A shareholder, Gabelli Asset Management, in an unusual move for a major shareholder, asked the FCC to pause its review of the merger. Gabelli wants more time to look into “the fairness of the merger to minority shareholders” and has “concerns" about National Amusements' controlling stake in Paramount. The concern is that Paramount is paying three different CEOs tens of millions of dollars on the one hand, while cutting essential costs on the other. In a multibillion-dollar merger, these are fair questions.

Paramount is also involved in a prolonged contract impasse with leading audience measurement firm Nielsen, which has the media industry concerned. Advertisers, ad agencies, media buyers and content providers point out that Paramount has decided to use a less expensive and less reliable measurement system from VideoAmp that does not measure all audiences, or worse yet ignores rural and diverse viewers altogether. And if there is any demographic group that Chairman Carr cares about, it is rural Americans who often go overlooked and underserved.

At a time when advertising drives all media, lacking accurate audience numbers affects the bottom line. None of this makes Paramount's business judgment look very sound, and in an increasingly fractured media market, undercounting any audience has proven to be financially unsustainable, leading to measurable revenue loss for advertisers and content providers. To the extent that these things affect viewers, prices and competition, closer scrutiny by the FCC — and even Congress — is fair game.

The FCC is bound by statute to uphold the "public interest" — a legally ambiguous standard if there ever was one. But it is that standard which makes its review of the proposed $28 billion Paramount-Skydance merger all the more compelling, assuming a “public interest” nexus can be established.

We also should expect the new FCC to function more like an activist SEC. Securities regulations are always changing to meet the demands and dynamics of the market, and the new FCC could follow that successful model, albeit with a lighter touch.

Having served at the FCC as a legal adviser, commissioner and now chairman, Carr has the institutional credibility to be politically courageous in consolidating power and effecting change. Congressional oversight hearings, normally a cause for angst at the FCC, should be a warm and friendly status check for Carr. And while the Chevron doctrine has been overturned, the agency should be able to hold its own in the appellate courts.

Meaningful pushback from Big Tech and consumer groups is unlikely to find favor, let alone prevail, in the new FCC. This does not mean that consumers are unimportant. Nor does it mean that industries like telco, broadcast and satellite will get a complete pass. But it does mean they are much more likely to get their priorities handled in short order, which would be a marked and welcome change.

With unfettered opposition from the House, Senate and executive branch, the FCC under Carr could establish both procedural and substantive precedents that will be in place for decades. For the tech sector, change will be in the air. For investors, telco and media companies, a more predictable regulatory approach should be a breath of fresh air. And for viewers and consumers, the agency promises to be leaner, meaner and a much more present part of American life than ever before.

Adonis Hoffman writes on business, law and policy. A former adjunct professor at Georgetown, he served in senior roles in the U.S. House of Representatives and at the Federal Communications Commission. Hoffman and Carr served concurrently as legal advisers to FCC commissioners from 2013 to 2015.