When the FCC Asks Broadcasters to Be More Patriotic

48 Hours to Decide: Patriotism by Government Request

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr just asked America's broadcasters to do something unprecedented: pledge to air "patriotic, pro-America programming" as part of President Trump's "Salute to America 250" project. The request comes with a detailed playbook—start each day with the Star Spangled Banner, run segments on American history, play music by Duke Ellington and George Gershwin, and provide daily "Today in American History" announcements.

It sounds harmless enough. Who doesn't support celebrating America's 250th birthday? But dig deeper, and you'll find broadcasters facing an uncomfortable question: When a government agency that controls your license asks you to pledge specific content, how voluntary is that pledge really?

The Broadcaster's Dilemma: Between Patriotism and Independence

For many stations, this request creates a no-win situation. Participate, and you risk appearing to bow to government pressure on editorial content. Decline, and you might face questions about your patriotism—or worse, potential regulatory scrutiny from the very agency making the request.

Some broadcasters already air patriotic content regularly, making compliance relatively painless. Local news stations often feature historical segments, and many begin special broadcasts with the national anthem. For them, formalizing these practices through a "pledge" might seem like a small step.

But others see a dangerous precedent. CBS, NBC, and other major networks have historically resisted government suggestions about programming content, viewing such requests as potential threats to editorial independence. The fact that this comes from the FCC—the agency responsible for broadcast licensing—adds weight to what might otherwise be dismissed as political theater.

The Regulatory Reality Check

Here's what makes this particularly complex: broadcasters operate under government licenses that require periodic renewal. The FCC has broad discretion in evaluating whether stations serve "the public interest." While the agency rarely revokes licenses, the renewal process gives it significant leverage over broadcaster behavior.

This creates what media lawyers call a "chilling effect." Even if Carr's request is genuinely voluntary, broadcasters must consider whether non-participation could influence future regulatory decisions. It's the classic problem of power dynamics—when your regulator makes a request, saying no requires considerable courage.

The timing is also notable. This comes as the Trump administration has repeatedly criticized media coverage and suggested that broadcast licenses should face more scrutiny. In that context, a "voluntary" pledge program takes on additional significance.

First Amendment in the Balance

The First Amendment protects press freedom, but it doesn't eliminate all government influence over broadcasting. Unlike print media, broadcasters use public airwaves and face content regulations that newspapers don't. They must provide equal time to political candidates and avoid certain types of indecent content.

But there's a crucial difference between regulating technical standards or preventing harm and suggesting specific editorial content. When government officials start recommending what patriotic programming should look like, they cross into territory that makes constitutional scholars nervous.

The "non-partisan" framing doesn't resolve this tension. Any government request for specific content—even celebrating national history—involves editorial choices about what stories to tell and how to tell them. Those are decisions that, in a free society, should belong to journalists and editors, not government officials.