According to The Wall Street Journal, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr is facing an unexpected challenge from President Trump himself as he tries to relax the 39% national audience cap on TV broadcast ownership. The regulation dates back to the 1940s and limits any single broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of U.S. households. President Trump came out swinging against this deregulation over the weekend on social media, writing “NO EXPANSION OF THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS” and threatening to make them smaller. Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy appears to be influencing this stance, potentially undermining the Administration’s own deregulatory agenda that would benefit larger broadcast competitors.
Ruddy’s Regulatory Play
Here’s the thing – this looks like a classic case of regulatory capture, just from the conservative side. Chris Ruddy runs Newsmax, which competes with Fox News and other larger broadcasters. If the ownership cap stays in place, it prevents his bigger competitors from growing through acquisitions. So he’s apparently whispering in Trump‘s ear about “fake news networks” expanding, when what he really means is “my competitors expanding.” It’s brilliant, really – using anti-media rhetoric to achieve protectionist business goals. But doesn’t this completely undermine Trump’s entire deregulatory platform?
Antiquated Rules in a Digital Age
The 39% cap made some sense in the 1940s when broadcast TV was basically the only game in town. But today? Americans get most of their news from digital sources, social media, and streaming services. Broadcasters argue, with some justification, that these artificial limits prevent them from competing effectively with tech giants and cable providers. They can’t achieve the scale needed to negotiate better deals with advertisers or streaming platforms. Basically, we’re protecting broadcasters from each other while letting Google and Facebook eat everyone’s lunch.
Trump’s Contradiction
What’s fascinating here is watching Trump undermine his own administration’s policy. The FCC under Carr has been pushing a pretty consistent deregulatory agenda – until now. Trump’s social media outburst directly contradicts what his appointed officials are trying to accomplish. It raises the obvious question: who’s actually running policy here? Is it the experts Trump hired, or his friends who have business interests at stake? This isn’t just about TV regulation – it’s about whether policy is made through proper channels or through backchannel influence.
The Bigger Picture
Look, broadcast ownership rules probably do need updating. The media landscape has transformed completely since these rules were written. But the way this is playing out – with backroom influence and sudden policy reversals – creates terrible uncertainty for the entire industry. Companies can’t make long-term plans when regulations might flip based on who last had the president’s ear. And honestly, if we’re worried about media concentration, shouldn’t we be looking at the tech platforms that actually dominate attention and advertising today? This whole debate feels like rearranging deck chairs while the digital iceberg looms.
