Trump’s FCC Hammer Targets Big Media

Phone screen displaying Truth Social app magnified

As President Trump’s second term takes shape, allies say the FCC is emerging as his sharpest tool to finally confront liberal media bias and Big Tech censorship.

Story Snapshot

Conservative commentator Mike Davis outlines how a Trump-led FCC can “rebalance” a media landscape dominated by legacy networks and Big Tech.
New GOP control at the FCC positions Chairman Brendan Carr to scrap ownership caps and roll back Biden-era rules that favored coastal media conglomerates.
Ongoing FCC investigations into Disney, ABC, and CBS target DEI schemes and alleged news distortion that sidelined conservative voices for years.
Reforms to Section 230 could curb Big Tech’s power to throttle or censor right-leaning content under the guise of “moderation.”

Trump’s FCC Strategy to Confront Media Bias

Mike Davis’s Fox Business roadmap lands at a moment when many conservatives feel years of pent-up frustration with a media class that mocked their values, smeared Trump supporters, and defended disastrous Biden-era policies. His argument is straightforward: with President Trump back in the Oval Office and Republicans now firmly in control of the FCC, the Left’s media monopoly is no longer untouchable. The commission’s decisions on licensing, ownership, and liability can either keep rewarding biased megacorps or finally restore balance.

Davis highlights Brendan Carr as the central figure in this realignment, pointing to his long record of skepticism toward Biden-era regulations and Big Tech deference. Under Carr’s leadership, the FCC is already moving to dismantle decades-old ownership limits that boxed in local and conservative-leaning broadcasters while Big Tech platforms grew into global gatekeepers. For readers who watched legacy outlets cheer open borders and reckless spending, the prospect of an FCC that stops tilting the field leftward is overdue accountability rather than partisanship.

Rolling Back Biden-Era Rules and Restraining Big Tech

Trump’s first term showed conservatives what a deregulatory FCC could do; his second term aims to go further by directly addressing how Biden’s regulators empowered progressive narratives. Efforts to revive heavy-handed net neutrality and digital discrimination rules added compliance burdens that hit smaller, often heartland-based broadcasters hardest, while Silicon Valley giants thrived. Now, Republican commissioners are preparing to use the Congressional Review Act and new rulemakings to unwind those mandates, arguing that Washington bureaucrats should not micromanage networks that simply want to serve their communities and stay solvent.

At the same time, Davis and other conservatives are zeroing in on Section 230, the legal shield Big Tech platforms relied on while selectively policing speech they branded “misinformation.” After years of watching pro-border-security, pro-parent, and pro–Second Amendment voices throttled or demonetized, many on the Right see reforming this statute as essential to protecting free expression online. The emerging Trump–FCC approach seeks to maintain space for innovation while clarifying that platforms cannot act like partisan publishers yet hide behind immunity when their decision-making clearly tracks progressive political demands.

DEI Investigations and Newsroom Accountability

For viewers who endured lecture after lecture about “equity” while inflation soared and crime spiked, the FCC’s new scrutiny of corporate DEI regimes speaks directly to lived experience. Investigations into Disney’s and CBS’s policies, including how they shape hiring, promotion, and even story selection, raise a simple question: are these companies serving the public interest or running ideologically driven operations that marginalize traditional families, people of faith, and law-and-order advocates? If DEI becomes a filter that weeds out dissenting viewpoints, regulators have a duty to ask whether license obligations are still being met.

The probe into alleged news distortion at CBS, particularly involving coverage of high-stakes political interviews, cuts to another core concern: honesty. Millions of conservatives believe legacy networks shaded or edited stories to protect favored Democrats while portraying Trump voters as dangerous extremists. By examining whether editing decisions crossed the line from spin into distortion, the FCC signals that the public’s airwaves are not a playground for partisan narrative-building. For readers who saw the Russia-collusion saga and COVID school-closure debates mishandled, this focus on accuracy is less about revenge and more about rebuilding trust.

Rebalancing Power Between Legacy Media and Local Broadcasters

Beyond cultural flashpoints, the fight over media ownership rules speaks to something many conservatives care deeply about: community. Ownership caps written in the 1940s never contemplated a world where a handful of coastal tech firms could dominate advertising, distribution, and even what stories trend. Davis argues that loosening those caps now gives local and regional broadcasters a chance to survive and grow, partnering, consolidating, or scaling in ways necessary to compete with platforms that answer to activist shareholders and transnational interests rather than American towns and families.

Trump supporters who spent years shouting at televisions tuned to networks they no longer recognized have reason to see this agenda as a course correction, not a power grab. Still, there are limits and risks: courts will police any FCC move that smacks of direct content control, and some fear consolidation could weaken truly independent local voices. The challenge for Carr and his colleagues will be using existing legal authority to restore viewpoint diversity without creating a new form of centralized control that future left-wing administrations could easily weaponize.