A growing philosophical split is emerging at the FCC over the scope of its authority and the definition of “public interest” in modern broadcasting, and both NPR and PBS Member stations are in the Carr Commission’s crosshairs. This generated warnings from Democratic Commissioner Anna Gómez, as Chairman Brendan Carr justified the investigations.
The commentary was shared during a post-October Open Meeting press conference, where Carr defended ongoing investigations into stations affiliated with NPR and PBS.
Specifically, Carr confirmed that, even with the FCC operating at only 20% capacity due to the government shutdown, the agency continues to examine whether roughly 1,500 public media licensees violated noncommercial sponsorship rules by running underwriting spots that may have veered into prohibited commercial territory.
In March, the FCC requested 13 NPR-affiliated public radio stations to submit records of past sponsorships.
“The point is the public interest standard, right?,” Carr said. “And the point is that the FCC should be enforcing the public interest standard. That’s not a threat. That’s just something that Congress has asked us to do.”
Carr framed the inquiries as a matter of legal compliance and public trust, saying the agency has a duty to ensure that taxpayer-supported broadcasters uphold their statutory limits. “If it comes to an enforcement action, then I’m totally comfortable with that,” he said. “If people are abiding by the public interest standard otherwise, without that, then that’s fine as well.”
He emphasized that the investigations remain in the document and data-gathering stage.
“We have a number of investigations that are underway right now,” Carr said. “We’re getting documents and information back.”
The comments come amid heightened scrutiny of public broadcasting following the suspension of federal funding under the recent executive order and a series of complaints lodged against major media outlets.
In a retort, Commissioner Gomez cautioned that such efforts risk crossing the line between oversight and interference with broadcasters’ editorial independence, arguing that the FCC’s invocation of the “public interest” risks being used as a political instrument to chill speech rather than as a neutral safeguard for audiences. “As I would remind you, that is the basis for us reviewing these types of transactions,” she said. “Which is why when we look at harms, we look at the costs and benefits of the transfer, not at other things like the content of broadcasts.”
Gomez’s comments reflected broader alarm within the broadcast community that the Commission’s investigative posture could lead to government entanglement with programming decisions, especially at public and educational stations. In her view, the FCC’s responsibility to regulate licensees’ compliance should never extend to editorial discretion or journalistic judgment.
“If there are no licenses to transfer, then there’s no authorization to transfer those licenses,” she said when asked about potential mergers. “Because that is the basis for us reviewing these types of transactions, not what is said on air.”
Her warning implicitly challenged what she sees as a widening interpretation of the public interest clause, one that could allow political influence to seep into content-based regulation.
“I really support local broadcasters,” she added. “And I really worry about the creation of news deserts in local communities by the loss of public media, which have now lost the public funding for that.”
