If you’ve given much thought to the Federal Communications Commission in recent years, it probably had something to do with Brendan Carr. The group’s chairman since 2025, Carr has been on an ongoing, public rampage against freedom of speech: he’s gone after late-night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel, threatened to revoke broadcast licenses over Iran war coverage, and targeted networks for their DEI policies.
Disturbing as Carr’s rhetoric and actions have been, he does count at least one opponent within the agency: Commissioner Anna Gomez, currently the lone Democrat among three FCC commissioners, has been vocal about the damage she thinks the agency is doing to American press freedom—and has repeatedly urged the public and the press, namely major networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC, to fight back.
In May, Commissioner Gomez penned a stunning public letter to Disney CEO Josh D'Amaro, wherein she warned that the company—which owns ABC—was being subjected to “a sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control, carried out through the weaponization of the FCC’s authority as a federal regulator and aimed at pressuring a free and independent press.” Gomez urged D’Amaro to fight the actions her own agency was taking, adding that “this is a fight worth having, and one that I am confident you will win.”
I wanted to talk to Commissioner Gomez about that bold letter, the risks she sees for the media and the American public under the Trump administration, and how she works alongside a chairman with whom she disagrees so fiercely. Gomez, whose FCC term ends this month, was generous enough to sit down and talk about all of it. You can read our conversation below, or listen to it on the podcast platform of your choice.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
KATIE DRUMMOND: Welcome, Commissioner Gomez. Thank you for being here.
ANNA GOMEZ: Thanks. It's great to be here.
I want to start, before we talk more about Disney and your letter and all the rest of it, with a very basic question for our listeners. What is your agency’s basic role? Give me FCC 101. What does the FCC do?
Well, the FCC is the nation's telecommunications and communications regulator. In broad strokes, our job is to make sure that everyone in the country is connected, for example, to high-speed broadband; to issue licenses for the airwaves like we do with your cell phones, with satellites, and with broadcasters; to protect consumers, such as our constant battle with robocallers.
The worst, yes.
To ensure public safety has what it needs to do its job, usually meaning through the airwaves, and to ensure that innovation can move forward, say by negotiating internationally for the use of the airwaves, so that we can have new products and services.
To be clear, the FCC regulates what goes out over the air—so radio, television—but it does not regulate, for example, cable or streaming services or digital content? So this podcast, for example. Or if you turn on your TV and you decide to watch Netflix instead of deciding to watch a TV channel, those would not be within the purview of the FCC.
That’s correct. Our authority really stems from our ability to license the airwaves to these broadcasters. We have very minimal cable regulations, but for the most part, we only regulate broadcast television.
You’ve been with the FCC in various roles for many years. You were sworn in as commissioner in 2023. What does a commissioner actually do? Tell us a little bit about your job day to day.
Normally there are five commissioners, so we are a multimember agency. And the reason you want that is because you want to have a diversity of expertise and opinions. What commissioners do is they vote to adopt new rules, or they vote to approve major mergers, which really means transfers control of licenses, and to propose new rules.
The chair is basically designated to oversee the management of the agency, but the commissioners also often vote on management-type issues, creation of offices, or lead staffing of the bureaus, things like that.
When did you get your first inkling that something about the FCC was changing? When did you have that first moment of, “Wait a minute, this actually doesn't feel quite right. This doesn't feel like quite what we ought to be doing, or what ought to be done with regards to how we are handling our oversight and our purview”?
It started very early in the current administration, not just in the attacks on the press but also the constant demands for revocation of licenses, for example. One of the first actions that this agency took in the broadcast area was it revived complaints against ABC, CBS, and NBC that the prior FCC staff, the expert staff, had dismissed as not raising valid complaints under the current law.
I saw that as an action that was unnecessary but also used to pressure those networks to change their editorial practices. For example, one of those complaints was the complaint against CBS for the editing of the Kamala Harris interview that then-candidate Trump had sued CBS over, and we had an invalid claim that it violated our policy against news distortion.
That is still open. That still hasn't been dismissed, even though we all saw the transcript and the actual video of the entire interview, and it was very clear that there was no manipulation there, no intention to mislead the public. It was simply that they cut the interview for promotional purposes, for length purposes.
We saw that also against ABC and NBC as well.
What did you see in those initial days and months from the networks themselves, from CBS, from ABC, from NBC, in terms of that tension between “do we fight or do we capitulate”? My very strong recollection is that there was a lot of capitulation happening.
Yes. Well, part of the problem, of course, is that CBS’s parent, Paramount, and the owner, really wanted to sell Paramount to Skydance. So I believe that keeping this complaint open and taking very public actions to waive their possible violation of the FCC’s rules, even though it was completely baseless, was used, in part, to pressure Paramount to settle the lawsuit that the president had filed against Paramount.
Paramount did in fact settle that lawsuit because it wanted the FCC to approve the transfer of its licenses to Skydance. As soon as they settled that, two days later, the FCC approved the transfer. But not only did they approve the transfer, CBS made commitments to take actions to basically change their editorial practices.
They appointed an ombudsperson, who's supposed to field complaints about the content of CBS, and they agreed to eliminate their diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. All of this was pressured by this administration in order to both settle, I think, the lawsuit, I believe, and as well to get CBS to change its editorial practices.
We have seen that happen, and yet somehow this ombudsperson doesn’t seem to be doing anything about that.
They appear to be very selective in what they are deciding to take action on, and what they’re not. I’m curious for you as a commissioner, as you are watching this unfold, you’re watching the FCC approve that merger, for example. Where are the lines for you in terms of your ability to fight that? To say, “We should not be doing this”? What kind of authority does a commissioner have within the FCC to combat some of what you’re seeing?
With Paramount in particular, and particularly the Paramount-Skydance transaction, I demanded and was able to get that the full commission would actually approve the transaction. Would vote on the transaction, because I dissented on the order that approved the transfer of the licenses.
I’m one commissioner. Right now there’s only three. I forgot to mention that earlier. There’s normally five. There’s only three of us, and I am very frequently outvoted on matters where I disagree with where the agency is going. But I am able to speak out, and that is what I am trying to do.
I am trying to raise the alarm bells because what I am seeing in this administration is an absolute campaign to censor and to control speech and to really violate press freedom, which is so important for our democracy. So where I can, I dissent. I wrote my letter to Disney on the matter that they are facing before the FCC, which I’m sure you want to delve into.
I do.
I embarked on a First Amendment tour where I’m going all over the country, rural areas, small towns, east, west coast. I’ve been all over the country talking to people about why it’s so important for us to protect our freedoms and our democracy, and in my case, the First Amendment.
I do want to turn to Disney, but you mentioned that there are usually five commissioners, and right now there are three. What happened to the other two?
The other two resigned last summer, and there hasn't been any movement to replace them. So right now we are two-to-one, meaning there's two Republicans and me.
What would be the reason to not replace them?
I can’t get in the head of the White House for why, because the president nominates commissioners and then the Senate confirms them. I imagine it’s much easier to deal with two colleagues than four. But I sincerely don’t know why they haven't been replaced.
Let’s talk about Disney. In your letter, which you wrote to Disney's CEO, you point out several actions the FCC has taken. They include targeting Jimmy Kimmel, of course, investigating The View, and calling up eight of ABC’s affiliate stations for renewal. That’s the one that you called in the letter, quote, “The most egregious assault.”
Can you explain what that means? What does it mean to call up affiliates for renewal, and why is that specifically so egregious relative to the other two examples?
Under normal circumstances, broadcasters’ licenses come up for renewal every eight years, and they’re staggered. It's a big production for the broadcasters to file for renewal and to show that they are in fact serving their local communities and complying with all the FCC’s rules.
In this case, Disney’s licenses were not coming up for renewal until 2028 at the earliest, and the latest I think was 2031 or 2032, I forget. But the point is, the commission basically out of the blue issued an order that said, “No, we’re gonna call up your licenses for renewal. You have 30 days to seek renewal of all eight of your licenses.”
The reason this is so egregious is because it’s clear that what the FCC is doing is it is retaliating against ABC because it is refusing to capitulate at this point with this administration’s demands that it fire Jimmy Kimmel, that it get rid of The View, that it basically just report things in a way that this administration wants it to be reported.
They are going after the network, which we do not have any authority over, by going after their eight broadcast license stations. There are tons of affiliates all over the country, but they’re not all owned. Only eight are actually owned by Disney itself. Not only that, but this pretext: The reason why they are doing so is because there’s been an investigation into Disney’s diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, and that Disney somehow hasn’t sufficiently complied with the many demands that this commission has given it for more and more documents … even though when Disney very much clearly showed us they have sent tens of thousands of documents in response to the FCC’s enforcement process.
It’s just so clearly pretextual. It's just harassment.
Now, you wrote that letter. Disney and ABC are, as you said, fighting the FCC. How do you think that will turn out? And what does that fight look like for them?
There’s a whole process that has to happen. The FCC issued its order, Disney filed its response. Now the FCC put that out for comment and is seeking petitions to deny. What’s going to happen is we’re going to have some partisan organizations that already have come in and said, “Oh yeah, you absolutely should not renew these licenses because Disney’s such a bad actor with diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.”
Then there’s a chance to respond to that. If the commission decides to take adverse action, then there’s further processes, because taking away a broadcaster’s license is taking away their lifeblood. That is what they operate under. So if the commission decides to take some kind of adverse action, there would have to be a vote by the commission to send it for hearing, that would go to hearing, then if the commission decides to take any kind of adverse action, then they get to appeal. And this is what I have been saying, which is why I’m so glad that Disney is actually pushing back and fighting on this, because if it gets appealed, they will win. Because what this administration is doing is contrary to the law, it’s contrary to the Constitution, and it’s very obvious.
The FCC and the administration have created a very public record of their demands to have control over what these broadcasters are saying about the administration. So it’s so clear that it’s pretextual. They will absolutely win.
When Disney filed its response, their response not only had a top telecom attorney in DC, but also a former solicitor general, who is very well known, one of the top Supreme Court appellate lawyers.
They are clearly signaling that they are gonna fight this, and I’m glad they are, because they are choosing to defend the First Amendment and press freedoms, rather than weaken them.
Writing this letter seems like it would come at the expense of personal and professional risk for you. I’m curious about what your considerations were as you sat down to write it. What were you worried about? What were you thinking when you decided to write this letter and to make it public?
Honestly, this has not been that hard for me, because I really strongly believe in protecting our constitutional freedoms. I'm relatively at the end of my career, and again, just the public interest of standing up for our constitutional rights is something not only that I swore to do when I was sworn in as a commissioner, but also I believe very strongly for the protection of our democracy.
I recognize that this administration likes to retaliate against its critics, and that certainly is something that may happen. But it was so important to me to help not just Disney, but all broadcasters understand what their rights are and that this commission does not have the authority to do what it is doing, that this administration is violating the Constitution, and I wanted them to strengthen their spine.
And Disney has come forward with a strengthened spine. They have decided that it is in their interest to fight this, and that is what I had hoped for, and I am glad that they are doing that.
I did want to ask you about your job and your job security. My understanding is that your term is actually up at the end of June. You can then stay on, I believe, for a year and a half following the end of that term. At what point can the president fire you? Can he fire you today if he wants to, or is it easier for him to fire you after your term is up?
Under normal times, the president would only be able to fire me for cause.
OK.
But he has declared that he has the right to fire anyone at whatever time he wants, and unfortunately, that’s being litigated in the Supreme Court, which any day now, maybe any week now, we will see a decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which is going to decide whether to overturn the precedent that he can't actually do that without cause.
That’s a very specific case after he fired the Federal Trade Commissioners, the Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission. So we'll see what the Supreme Court says. But the fact that my term has expired doesn’t really strengthen or weaken a case. The only way that he can get rid of me other than maybe by firing me, depending on what the Supreme Court does, is if he nominates, and the Senate confirms, a replacement in the time before I have to leave.
Have you worried in the last few months about being fired?
Oh, I check my email every day to see if I've been fired.
Why don't you think you have been fired? He has fired many of his harshest critics. Why spare you?
I don't know exactly, because I have not spoken to the White House about this. I suspect it's because we have a quorum requirement in our law. Not only does the FCC require three commissioners in order to act, it also requires what we call a bare majority, so at least one non-Republican commissioner.
I suspect that if he were to fire me, any actions the commission took would then probably be subject to appeal. I don't know if that’s the case. That’s what conventional wisdom says, so to speak.
So he’s stuck with you for now, unfortunately for him. I’m curious about your relationship with your fellow commissioners, especially the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr. As you said, you're the only Democrat on this commission. Is that isolating? Is that lonely? How do you work with your two fellow commissioners?
You know, interestingly, there’s a lot that we work on together very well. We often agree on things like how to allocate the airwaves. Again, robocalls, everyone’s quite united in trying to fight robocalls.
The one thing we can all agree on.
Yes. So for a lot of what’s on the commission’s agenda, we work very well together, and I enjoy working with my colleagues. So on a day-to-day basis, it’s a very friendly atmosphere.
Brendan Carr has made some very controversial statements. I would characterize them as outrageous. He has also said that the FCC is not an independent agency in testimony before Congress. When you speak out against what he says or against the actions that he’s taking, is that akin to taking a public stand against your boss?
No, the commissioners are all independently confirmed by Congress.
OK, so it’s like taking a stand against a colleague.
It’s taking a stand against the administration and the FCC.
Is there anything that would make you leave? Do you have a red line?
I think it’s important that I continue to fight where I can. It’s a good question. I haven’t hit that, if it exists. I just think it’s really important that I’m able to speak out against what this administration is doing.
Speaking of this administration … it is June. We are looking at another two and a half years of the Trump administration. The battle between the administration and the press isn’t going away. What do you think people should expect in the next two and a half years?
Is there anything that would slow the administration down? Is there anything that would bring them to heel when it comes to press freedom?
I think it’s important to watch what happens with these appeals. We have seen that when any entity appeals, the courts have upheld the First Amendment. So we saw that with The New York Times. We’ve seen that with The Wall Street Journal. We’ve seen that in other contexts as well. The administration keeps trying, and they keep getting pushed back.
Now, they keep trying to circumvent these court decisions. I'm not unaware of that. But nonetheless, if these parties stand up and push back, then they will win, and that is going to continue to diminish the ability that this administration has so far had to chill speech, which is very real.
We see a lot of chilled speech throughout the country, and I see that in my First Amendment tour, where people are terrified of being brought before the commission and dragged into some kind of a big enforcement fight. I am also hopeful that Congress will step up and do some strong oversight.
We have had some of that, but it’s really important to make clear what's happening. The Jimmy Kimmel incident was so shocking to the public. But these threats, these actions by the administration, had been going on already for a year, or close to a year, when that happened. It was just that was the one that really broke through the public.
When it did, that’s when the public said, “Wait a minute, we’re not gonna tolerate this.” And that’s part of, I think, why Disney has chosen to fight, because they really lost a lot of subscribers.
Yes, it was bad business for them.
It was bad business for them. I am hopeful that if we continue to make it clear what’s happening with this administration, that the courts continue to uphold the First Amendment and free speech and free press, that Congress will continue its oversight, and that the public in general will continue to demand that we respect our Constitution.
Is there anything else you would like to see from your fellow Democrats here? Is there more that they could be doing?
There’s not that many of us in the administration, that’s for sure. But where I’ve seen that there are some left, they have actually been speaking out and pushing back where this administration is violating the law or abusing its authority in order to go after companies that aren’t bending the knee, are refusing to get rid of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, things like that.
But when you speak out, I think it really has a strong effect. And this is part of the reason why we need the Fourth Estate, right? We need to be held to account.
Yes you do.
That is why we need reporting on what is happening. But it also helps when you have Democrats speaking out against what this administration is doing.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about the other pieces of the FCC, of which there are many. I know expanding access to the internet is a huge driver for you. I’m curious if you could tell us more about that initiative and what else you’d like to see the FCC focused on. How else do you wish you were spending your time right now?
Expanding access to the internet is so important. We live in a digital economy. Not only do we live in a digital economy, but now we have the AI economy that is very quickly coming upon us. There's a lot of engineers who would say, “We’ve had AI for a while,” but now it’s really becoming clear that it’s going to affect everybody everywhere.
We really need to make sure that all communities are prepared for that. Now, all communities do not have access to sufficient capacity broadband so that they actually can participate in this AI economy, and that is an issue. The administration is spending tens of billions of dollars to deploy high-speed broadband.
You and I can argue about whether they actually allocated the money correctly, but the thing that the administration is not focusing on is the users themselves, the consumers themselves. The administration ignored a digital equity grant program that Congress authorized and funded, that could be used for digital literacy, for communities that need to learn how to use the internet, and now in the AI economy, how to participate in the AI economy.
This administration also pays no attention to affordability. We had affordability programs here at the FCC that the commission voted to stop, one of those being providing hotspots to schools and libraries to provide to low-income students and patrons so that they can have broadband at home.
I really wish that we would focus on improving any programs that we have. We do have a program, it’s called the Lifeline program, which is a very small program that provides support to households for voice and broadband connectivity. I think that that can be improved. Instead, we’re finding ways to weaken it, and that’s problematic.
I keep saying, if we build out these tens of billions of dollars of fiber or satellite or fixed wireless services to households, and they don’t know how to use it, or they can’t afford to use it, then we’re building bridges to nowhere. So I really think we should be focusing on that.
You mentioned AI a few minutes ago. Obviously the technology, to your point, is accelerating so quickly. Adoption is growing. Internet access is a prerequisite to even being able to try an LLM, for example. But we’re seeing now with efforts to regulate AI, the machinations of the government move incredibly slowly.
There has not been tremendous progress in the Trump administration around AI regulation. Certainly that’s more by design, I suppose, than them being slow. But I’m curious about where the FCC fits in there. Is there a role for the FCC in protecting consumers when it comes to AI and the potential risks, downsides, and harms for the user?
I do think that we have some authority in that area. One thing that we had proposed to do that this administration has not picked up, for example, was to require political ads that use AI to disclose that the ads used AI. It's getting more and more sophisticated, as you know, and we are seeing a plethora of ads that use AI, and it would just require disclosure, kind of like what you see now where it says this ad has been sponsored by whoever the sponsor is.
That’s just a transparency requirement. There’s other ways that we can look at the use of AI, for example, combating robocalls. How can we use AI to combat robocalls? And then finally, for me, making sure connectivity for all communities that need to participate in the AI economy is affordable and available to everyone.
Speaking of consumers, what are your thoughts on the Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery mega-merger? You’ve been vocal about your concerns there, and the potential implications for Americans. What worries you about that merger?
I mean, we have just seen breathtaking consolidation in the media markets.
Certainly, yeah.
Now, the Warner Bros.-Paramount merger is actually not something that's before the FCC from a license perspective, but there’s one thing that we do have to act on, and that is we have to approve the foreign ownership component of that transaction.
This is basically foreign-controlled funds that are going to half own a very large media organization.
And these are governments, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, at least one of which we know murdered a reporter, because our intelligence agencies told us so. These governments are not friendly to press freedom. They use the media for geopolitical purposes.
This is indirect ownership, so Paramount and Warner Bros. would say, “Well, but they’re not voting.” But you’ve gotta be kidding me. You don’t think a call to the CEO is gonna make a difference about what gets produced, what doesn’t get produced?
It's going to have a huge impact on what we see and hear, and it’s, to me, a national security concern. I have called for the security agencies to review this, and in fact, they have opened a review of the foreign ownership component, which is the only thing the FCC has any authority over. We’ll see.
The Justice Department already decided not to oppose the merger, so I am skeptical that this will actually get any kind of a thorough review, but it should, and we should all be concerned about how much control over our media these foreign governments will have.
That is fascinating. I had not given a ton of thought, candidly, to the ownership structure underpinning that merger. Not only do we have that national security concern, but from a news and press freedom point of view, obviously the big conversation among journalists is that you also have CBS News and CNN under the same ownership, the Ellisons, which has potentially huge ramifications for what’s covered and how it’s covered based on what we’ve seen from CBS News in recent months.
Yeah, exactly. I always feel like I have to say this, but for the most part, that’s their First Amendment right. But where we see consumers being harmed, or national security interests, that's where I think it’s problematic.
Our producer reminded me that it’s been more than 20 years since that infamous 2004 Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. There was a flood of outcry at the time, and then we here at WIRED reported that after this year’s Super Bowl halftime performance, the FCC actually received hundreds of complaints about Bad Bunny’s show.
Those two incidents strike me as vastly different in tenor and substance. Did it surprise you to see that level of outcry around a performance that was done in Spanish? That seemed to be the predominant complaint.
It was very clear that the backlash against the Bad Bunny performance was in fact politically motivated or it was ginned up for political reasons. We in fact got a complaint from a member of Congress about the halftime show and the supposed obscenity of it. Now, I'm a native [Spanish] speaker. I read the lyrics because, you know, we got the lyrics. There was absolutely nothing obscene about them.
The FCC has no role here. In fact, the FCC took no action, because there was no violation of our rules. We’re not here to tell broadcasters who they can put on in their halftime shows, what their talent is, or what they say. Our role is to make sure that they use the airwaves that we give them to serve their local communities.
I thought it was magnificent, and I certainly felt very well-served by Bad Bunny in that moment.
It was fantastic.
It was incredible! I watched it multiple times the next day. Now, we’ve covered some heavy topics. I would love to close on a lighter note with a little game we like to play.
It’s called Control, Alt, Delete, and I would love to know what piece of technology you would love to control, what piece you would love to alt, so alter or change, and what you would love to delete. What would you love to vanquish from the earth if you could?
Oh gosh, what piece of technology would I like to control? Well, my favorite app that has changed my life is Waze.
Tell us more.
I get very anxious if I get lost. So having an app that tells me how to get anywhere all over the country, and especially fighting DC traffic, it’s just a wonderful app, and I can’t believe I ever lived without it.
I don't have a driver’s license, so I can’t relate, but I thought that that was the app that told you if there were police doing a speed check on the highway. Is that Waze, or is Waze something else?
Yeah, Waze tells you when there’s a camera. And that’s great too, but being the law-abiding citizen that I …
I was going to say I can’t imagine that you’re speeding down the freeway.
I just really find it very helpful, and I sincerely say that I don’t know how we ever traveled without Waze or Google Maps.
Would you like to control Waze? Is that your control choice?
I don't know about that. That’s a good point. I just don’t ever want to lose it. I can’t delete it. I suppose if I wanted to control something, my television would show everything I wanted all the time. I’m a big TV watcher, and there’s a lot on TV that I don't care about. So maybe having everything I want all the time.
What are you watching right now?
I’m a big competition show watcher, and I’m behind, I know, because the season’s over, but I’ve been watching The Voice.
I've never seen it.
I love Top Chef.
I love Top Chef, too.
Those are the two that I’m watching. I watch a lot of news. I’m a huge news junkie. Probably the most I watch is news.
OK, so that’s what you’re controlling. Are you altering or deleting anything?
Am I deleting anything? Oh, if I could delete something … I don't know. That’s a tough one.
I'm not a fan of Alexa.
Why?
I’m very concerned about the privacy implications and not an expert here, so I don’t want your listeners to think that I know that there’s something nefarious going on. But the thought of having something that’s listening is just creeping me out.
So, I would delete Alexa.
Sorry, Alexa, you have been deleted.
How to Listen
You can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how:
If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for “uncanny valley.” We’re on Spotify too.
