In a recent column at RealClearMarkets, Market Institute President Charles Sauer highlights an important tension within the Trump Administration’s approach to regulation. While the administration has wisely pulled back from the overly aggressive antitrust enforcement of the Biden years, troubling moves at the FCC and FTC risk undermining the First Amendment.
As Sauer explains:
“According to a study by the left wing group Public Citizen, the Trump Administration has halted one third of investigations and enforcement actions against ‘big tech.’ This pullback from the overly aggressive antitrust enforcement of the Biden years will help grow the American economy—benefiting not just businesses but also workers and consumers. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration seems to have forgotten that the First Amendment applies to big tech companies too.”
One major example comes from the FCC’s recent approval of the Skydance Media–Paramount merger:
“Shortly before the FCC approved the deal, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit by President Trump alleging that 60 Minutes edited their interview with then-Vice President and Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris… Another part of the deal was that the new company would appoint a bias monitor. As the name suggests, the job is to ‘receive and evaluate’ any complaints of bias at the network.”
As Sauer warns, this raises serious constitutional concerns:
“It is highly doubtful, to say the least, that when Congress gave the FCC power to ensure broadcasters were acting in the public interest that they intended the FCC to be a federal ‘fact checker.’”
The First Amendment issues are not limited to the FCC. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan recently ruled that the FTC violated the First Amendment in its investigation of Media Matters, noting that the agency’s actions “should alarm all Americans when the government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate.”
Sauer reminds us that boycotts and debate are at the heart of American history:
“Examples include the civil rights era use of boycotts to fight Jim Crow laws; the agricultural unions’ boycott of grapes… boycotts of apartheid era South Africa. Ironically, the most successful boycotts in recent times have been by conservatives protesting woke companies. In fact, one can even think of the Boston Tea Party as the first boycott!”
The lesson is clear. Free speech protections must be applied consistently—regardless of which party is in power or which groups are speaking.
As Sauer concludes, conservatives must resist the temptation to use government against their ideological opponents:
“This is why it is vital that conservatives oppose any efforts to infringe on the First Amendment—even when done by an administration we support—against our ideological enemies.”
