Wired reports:

Carr’s background indicates that he might have been a straightforward leader of the agency. After several years as a legal adviser, he became a commissioner in 2017 and Joe Biden reappointed him in 2023. (Three of the five FCC commissioners, including the chair, are to be from the president’s party.) As a lifelong Republican—his father was once one of Nixon’s lawyers—he would be expected to champion conservative stances, like fighting net neutrality and sucking up to big telecom interests. His views on government regulating content seemed in sync with the First Amendment: After two House Democrats complained about Fox News after the January 6 insurrection, he released a statement saying, in part, “A newsroom’s decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official, not targeted by them.”

But even before Trump elevated him to the chairmanship in January, Carr was veering into wing-nut territory. “When I was at the White House, he was like a thorn, always trying to make all kinds of weird MAGA moves,” says Tim Wu, who was Biden’s special assistant in tech policy. “We refused to have anything to do with him, because he was playing by a different rule book. He was less like a commissioner and more a random podcaster.” One of those MAGA moves was writing the communications chapter in the notorious Project 2025 playbook that turned out to be the road map the White House is using to dismantle the government, though the chapter said nothing about regulating “news distortion.” As chair, Carr must now be listened to, especially as he veers into the censorship lane.

One irony of the Carr strategy is that he sits atop the FCC when the agency’s literal powers are weaker than ever. In February, Trump signed an executive order reining in independent agencies like the FCC—essentially making himself a supercommissioner with ultimate authority. Also, a recent Fifth Circuit court decision seemingly stripped away the FCC’s power to unilaterally impose fines. (Carr says that the reasoning was faulty, and the agency is appealing.)

Despite these limitations, Carr is still dangerous. The mere act of investigating—or even criticizing—a media company’s actions, whether they involve objective journalism or a DEI policy, can have a chilling effect. [Continue reading…]