Picture a partisan political federal referee standing just offstage of the iconic Saturday Night Live set, just before it's taping before a live audience at 8pm, stopwatch in hand, deciding who belongs in the political conversation and who does not.

This week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reopened a long-settled debate about political speech on broadcast television, putting American late-night shows and daytime talk programs under federal regulatory scrutiny and inflaming what amounts to a red vs. blue partisan fight over which party controls the public airwaves.

On January 21, FCC Chair Brendan Carr issued a Public Notice reminding American broadcasters that when political candidates appear on air, stations have an “obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities.”

The Public Notice immediately puts shows on broadcast television, such as Jimmy Kimmel Live, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and The View, in the spotlight, prompting a public backlash from Kimmel himself.

While the FCC says the guidance applies to “all candidates,” the debate surrounding it is framed as a contest between Democrats and Republicans, with independent and unaffiliated voters, who make up roughly 45 percent of the electorate, once again left outside the discussion.

FCC Targets Programs “Motivated by Purely Partisan Political Purposes”

Chairman Carr said some programs may have been “ignoring or misreading the law in recent years” and insisted that “enforcing the statute passed by Congress is not weaponization.”

On X, Carr posted that he will specifically ding programs “motivated by partisan purposes” and take away their status as “bona fide news.”

“For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late-night & daytime talk shows qualify as ‘bona fide news’ programs — even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes,” Carr wrote in an X post Wednesday. “Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities.”

What the Equal Time Rule actually says

The controversy centers on the FCC’s Equal Time Rule, part of the Communications Act of 1934. The rule requires broadcast stations to provide equal opportunities to all candidates running for the same office if one candidate is allowed to appear on air.

Congress also created incredibly clear exemptions to the Equal Time Rule.

Candidate appearances do not trigger equal time if they occur on bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interview programs, documentaries where the appearance is incidental, or coverage of news events.

For decades, the FCC interpreted those exemptions broadly. The agency recognized the reality that Americans get news from many formats, not just traditional evening newscasts.

As long as a program was regularly scheduled, controlled by producers rather than candidates, and booked guests based on newsworthiness rather than political promotion, it could qualify as a legitimate news interview program.

Importantly, broadcasters were trusted to make that determination themselves. They did not need advance approval from the FCC.

What changed without changing the law

The FCC’s new Public Notice does not eliminate those exemptions. It changes how much confidence broadcasters can have in relying on them.

Under the new guidance, broadcasters are warned that past FCC decisions cannot be assumed to apply unless the broadcaster or program received a specific ruling. Each case is now treated as fact-specific.

Even programs that resemble previously approved shows may be questioned, and the FCC has emphasized that it will consider whether programming decisions are “motivated by partisan purposes.”

Burden shifts to broadcasters, who risk getting sued

In practical terms, the burden shifts from the FCC to broadcasters. Stations that once relied on precedent and good faith judgment now face the risk that the FCC could later disagree unless they seek a formal declaratory ruling.

Critics say the shift places the FCC in an uncomfortable position of judging editorial intent, a role the agency has historically avoided and one constrained by federal law prohibiting censorship.

Carr, Trump, and Media Power

Carr is a Republican appointed by President Donald J. Trump, who described him as “a warrior for Free Speech” when announcing his nomination. Since becoming chair, Carr has taken an aggressive posture toward broadcast outlets that criticize or satirize the president and is frequently described by critics as Trump’s attack dog at the FCC.

In a September 2025 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Carr argued that broadcast licenses carry “a unique obligation to operate in the public interest.” He said late-night shows have shifted from comedy to “enforcing a very narrow political ideology” and suggested that such content belongs on podcasts, which, like cable networks, are not regulated by the FCC.

“But if you are going to have a license from the FCC, we expect you to broadly serve the public interest,” Carr said.

President Trump has echoed those complaints. Speaking aboard Air Force One in September 2025, Trump accused broadcast networks of being “97% against me.”

“They give me only bad press,” Trump said. “They’re getting a license. I think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr.”

This week, President Trump amplified headlines warning that the FCC was going after The View and Jimmy Kimmel using the Equal Time Rule. Carr shared the post on his own X account.

Late Night Strikes Back

One day after Carr’s January 21 post, Jimmy Kimmel addressed the issue directly during his monologue.

“The FCC is coming for us again,” Kimmel said. “It’s his latest attack on free speech and it’s a joke.”

Kimmel accused the Trump administration’s FCC of “reinterpreting long agreed-upon rules to stifle us,” calling it “another example of this administration trying to squash anyone who doesn’t support them by following ‘the rules.’”

Carr has previously advocated for a brief suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! and has been an outspoken critic of the show.

Red Versus Blue

Supporters of the FCC’s move argue that late-night television has leaned heavily Democratic. Conservative attorney Daniel Suhr said shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, The Late Show, and The View have consistently featured Democratic candidates while excluding Republicans.

Democrats strongly disagree. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the agency’s lone Democratic member, called the guidance misleading and warned it marks “an escalation in this FCC’s ongoing campaign to censor and control speech.”

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has also criticized the FCC’s approach.

Yet the entire debate remains framed as Democrats versus Republicans. Either way, the two-party system remains firmly in control.

Equal time, as currently framed, appears to most to mean reallocating airtime between Democrats and Republicans rather than expanding political representation beyond the two parties.

This reflects a broader pattern in Washington. Federal agencies should be balanced and operate independently of the two major political parties. In practice, FCC appointees often reflect the priorities of whichever party controls the White House. Under Republican administrations, enforcement tends to align with Republican grievances. Under Democratic administrations, priorities often shift in the other direction.

What Comes Next

The FCC’s guidance does not ban political discussion. It applies only to legally qualified candidates, not surrogates or commentators.

Podcasts and cable networks are unaffected.

The uncertainty created by the guidance alone may change behavior, leading America’s broadcasters to decide that the safest option is to avoid candidate appearances altogether.

If the discussion is about equal time, the question we really should be asking is why independent candidates never run for office and add fresh voices and ideas to the conversation.

Unfortunately, independent candidates cannot win elections under the current first-past-the-post system most states use to choose our leaders. This flawed system leads to spoilers. It keeps us from voting for the person we like the most without being afraid of electing the person we like the least. It is avoided by nonpartisan top two elections like those in California and Washington, and especially in Maine and Alaska, where in the general election all voters can rank candidates in order of their preference and the candidate with a majority wins.

Without open primaries and ranked choice voting, this dysfunctional partisan soap opera will keep airing season after season, the longest running series in American politics, chronicling characters trapped a two party doom loop that somehow never gets canceled.