Brendan Carr’s FCC: A Consumer Rights Betrayal Under the Guise of Deregulation

Since Brendan Carr took the helm of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in January 2025, the agency has undergone a dramatic shift in priorities, sparking fierce criticism from consumer advocates.

Far from its traditional role as a guardian of public interest in telecom, media, and internet access, the FCC under Carr is accused of wielding its authority to target media companies and telecom giants that resist the Trump administration’s agenda or champion diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. This pivot, cloaked in deregulatory rhetoric, threatens to erode consumer protections, stifle free expression, and prioritize corporate and political interests over everyday Americans.

Background: The FCC’s Role and Carr’s Rise

The FCC, established by the 1934 Communications Act, is tasked with regulating communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable to serve the public interest. Its core duties include ensuring universal access to telecom services, protecting consumers from unfair practices, and fostering competition. Over decades, the FCC has shaped policies like net neutrality, broadband subsidies, and media ownership rules, directly impacting how Americans connect, communicate, and consume information.

Brendan Carr, a Republican attorney and longtime FCC commissioner, was appointed chairman by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, after serving since 2017. A vocal deregulator, Carr authored the FCC chapter in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for a Trump administration.

His agenda emphasizes “reining in Big Tech,” promoting national security, and slashing regulations, but critics argue it’s a pretext for advancing political vendettas and corporate favoritism. Carr’s tenure has drawn scrutiny for abandoning consumer-focused policies in favor of targeting entities that support DEI or oppose Trump’s narrative, raising alarms about the FCC’s independence.

The Shift: From Consumer Protection to Political Weapon

Under Carr, the FCC has pivoted from its consumer-centric mission to what advocates call an “anti-consumer, rights-trampling harassment machine.” Consumer groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge accuse Carr of repurposing the agency’s authority to punish media and telecom companies that don’t align with the administration’s ideology, particularly those embracing DEI or perceived as critical of Trump. Below, I break down the key elements of this shift, its execution, and its consumer impact.

1. Targeting DEI Programs

• What’s happening: Carr has made dismantling DEI initiatives a cornerstone of his agenda, aligning with Trump’s executive order to eliminate federal DEI programs. Within days of taking office, he axed the FCC’s DEI task force, budget allocations, and strategic plan, claiming they promote “invidious discrimination.” He then launched probes into telecom giants Verizon and Comcast, investigating their DEI practices as potential violations of the Communications Act’s anti-discrimination clauses. Carr’s letters to these companies, sent in February 2025, cite their DEI training, annual “DEI days,” and diversity-focused hiring as problematic, warning that pending mergers (e.g., Verizon’s $9.6 billion Frontier acquisition) could be jeopardized.
• Consumer impact: These probes threaten consumers by diverting FCC resources from pressing issues like broadband affordability or scam prevention to ideological crusades. DEI programs in telecom and media ensure diverse work forces that better understand and serve varied communities—critical when 40% of Americans are people of color. Undermining these efforts could lead to less inclusive services, fewer community-responsive programs, and reduced innovation. For example, Comcast’s DEI initiatives have supported minority-led content on NBCUniversal, enriching consumer choice. Targeting these programs risks homogenizing media and telecom, marginalizing underserved groups.
• Pro-consumer critique: Carr’s anti-DEI push is a solution in search of a problem. There’s no evidence that DEI programs violate civil rights laws; the Communications Act’s anti-discrimination clause (Section 605) applies to service provision, not internal hiring. Free Press calls this an “egregious abuse of power,” arguing Carr is weaponizing merger reviews to coerce companies into abandoning DEI, chilling corporate efforts to address systemic inequities. This distracts from real consumer harms, like the $12.6 billion in overdraft fees banks charged in 2023, which the FCC could indirectly address through fintech oversight.

2. Attacks on Media Companies

• What’s happening: Carr has reopened investigations into broadcasters like CBS, ABC, and NBC, previously dismissed by former chair Jessica Rosenworcel, and launched new probes into NPR, PBS, and San Francisco’s KCBS, alleging “news distortion.” These stem from Trump’s complaints about coverage, such as CBS’s “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris or NBC’s decision to let Harris appear on “Saturday Night Live” in 2024. Carr also wrote to YouTube and Alphabet in March 2025, probing claims from Great American Media that YouTube TV marginalizes faith-based content. He argues broadcasters, who use public airwaves, must serve the public interest, and he’s threatened to leverage FCC licensing powers to enforce compliance.
• Consumer impact: These investigations jeopardize free speech and media diversity, which consumers rely on for informed decision-making. The FCC’s authority over broadcast licenses (renewed every eight years) gives Carr leverage to pressure networks into self-censorship, potentially skewing news toward pro-administration narratives. This erodes trust in media, limiting consumers’ access to unbiased information. For example, NPR and PBS, which serve 48 million and 80 million Americans monthly, respectively, face scrutiny for editorial choices, despite their public-service mandates. YouTube’s 2.5 billion users could see reduced content variety if faith-based programming is prioritized over others, distorting the marketplace of ideas.
• Pro-consumer critique: Carr’s actions are a dangerous overreach. The FCC lacks jurisdiction over network programming or online platforms like YouTube, as Section 326 of the Communications Act bars censorship of broadcast content. Consumer advocates, including Senator Ed Markey, warn Carr is turning the FCC into a “Federal Censorship Commission,” threatening a free press. His selective targeting—ignoring Fox News while probing CBS—suggests partisan bias, not public interest. This wastes resources that could address consumer issues like robocalls, which generated 4.6 billion complaints in 2024.

3. Deregulation Favoring Telecom Corporations

• What’s happening: Carr’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative, announced March 2025, aims to eliminate “outdated” FCC rules, particularly those governing telecom infrastructure. In March, the FCC relaxed requirements for shutting off copper phone and DSL networks, allowing telcos like AT&T and Verizon to transition to wireless without extensive testing or notice. Carr claims this speeds up 5G deployment, but consumer groups argue it leaves rural and low-income consumers without reliable service. Carr also opposes net neutrality, calling it a “Biden power grab,” and has paused rules prohibiting broadband discrimination, which protected consumers from unfair pricing or throttling.
• Consumer impact: These rollbacks prioritize telecom profits over consumer access. Copper network shutoffs, affecting 30 million households, risk stranding rural users without affordable alternatives—wireless is often costlier and less reliable in remote areas. Public Knowledge’s Harold Feld notes that relaxed rules mean telcos can “just say ‘totality of the circumstances’” to get approvals, bypassing consumer protections. Scrapping net neutrality and anti-discrimination rules lets internet providers charge more for premium services or throttle content, hitting low-income users hardest. In 2024, 22% of Americans couldn’t afford broadband, per the FCC’s own data.
• Pro-consumer critique: Carr’s deregulatory zeal betrays consumers. Net neutrality ensures equal internet access, vital for 88% of Americans who rely on it daily. His copper network changes ignore states like California, where carrier-of-last-resort rules still protect consumers, showing federal oversight is critical. Carr’s Project 2025 chapter admits telecoms benefit from lighter rules, but consumers face higher costs and fewer choices. This isn’t deregulation for innovation; it’s a handout to telcos like Verizon, which earned $134 billion in 2024.

Strengths of the Old FCC: A Consumer-Centric Legacy

Under prior chairs like Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC prioritized consumers:

• Broadband Access: Rosenworcel’s “homework gap” initiative connected 17 million students to online learning, narrowing the digital divide.
• Consumer Protections: Rules banned broadband discrimination and capped robocall fines at $2,000 per call, saving consumers $3 billion annually.
• DEI and Diversity: The FCC’s EEO data collection, reinstated in 2024, ensured broadcasters reflected diverse communities, enhancing content relevance for 330 million Americans.
  These efforts delivered $9 billion in broadband subsidies and protected 60 million low-income households from predatory practices, per FCC reports.

Weaknesses of Carr’s FCC: A Consumer Rights Disaster

Carr’s agenda is a masterclass in abandoning consumers:

• Resource Misallocation: Probes into DEI and media content divert staff from enforcing consumer laws, like those against telecom scams costing $1.7 billion in 2024.
• Erosion of Free Speech: Targeting broadcasters and YouTube risks chilling expression, limiting consumer access to diverse viewpoints. Commissioner Geoffrey Starks called the Comcast probe “out of our lane,” highlighting its irrelevance to FCC duties.
• Corporate Favoritism: Relaxing copper shutoff rules and pausing net neutrality benefit telecom giants, not the 15 million rural Americans facing service gaps.
• Partisan Overreach: Carr’s alignment with Trump’s complaints—reviving CBS probes while ignoring Fox—smacks of political vendettas, not public interest. Free Press notes Carr’s ties to Musk, whose Starlink could gain from FCC subsidies, raise conflict-of-interest concerns.
• Empty Deregulation Rhetoric: Carr’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative claims to cut red tape, but it guts protections without replacing them, leaving consumers exposed. His Project 2025 vision prioritizes “Big Tech accountability” but ignores telecom accountability to users.

Over-Regulation or Political Posturing?

Carr frames his agenda as deregulation to curb FCC overreach, but this is a facade. His anti-DEI probes and media investigations are regulatory overreach, stretching the FCC’s authority beyond its statutory bounds. The Communications Act doesn’t empower the FCC to police internal corporate policies or editorial decisions, yet Carr’s actions—targeting Verizon’s merger and CBS’s license—suggest punitive intent. Former FCC chair Tom Wheeler calls this a contradiction of Carr’s deregulatory stance, accusing him of weaponizing the agency.

The real issue is political posturing. Carr’s alignment with Trump’s executive orders and Musk’s influence (visible in X interactions) indicates a performative crusade to appease conservative bases, not serve consumers. His selective probes—ignoring pro-Trump outlets—mirror Trump’s media complaints, undermining the FCC’s independence. This isn’t about streamlining; it’s about control, risking $9 billion in consumer benefits from prior FCC programs.

Consumer Impact: Why You Should Care

Carr’s FCC threatens every American who uses phones, internet, or media:

• Higher Costs, Less Access: Deregulating telecoms could raise broadband prices—already $80/month on average—while copper shutoffs leave 10 million rural households without service.
• Restricted Information: Media probes could skew news, limiting your access to balanced reporting. PBS’s 80 million viewers and YouTube’s 2.5 billion users deserve diversity, not censorship.
• Marginalized Communities: Scrapping DEI harms minority consumers, who rely on inclusive services. In 2024, 35% of Black households lacked broadband, needing targeted programs Carr opposes.
• Systemic Risks: Weakened oversight invites telecom monopolies and media consolidation, reducing competition. In 2023, four telecoms controlled 76% of the market, per Statista.

Recommendations: Protecting Your Rights

Until the FCC refocuses on consumers, take these steps:

1. Monitor Services: Check broadband bills for new fees or throttling. Use Speedtest.net to verify speeds and report issues to state regulators if the FCC is unresponsive.
2. Support Free Media: Engage with NPR, PBS, and diverse outlets to counter censorship threats. Stream their content or donate at NPR.org and PBS.org.
3. Advocate for DEI: Back groups like Free Press (FreePress.net) fighting Carr’s probes. Sign petitions to preserve EEO data collection, vital for inclusive media.
4. Demand Net Neutrality: Contact Congress via FightForTheFuture.org to restore net neutrality, ensuring equal internet access.
5. Stay Informed: Follow consumer advocates on X (@PublicKnowledge, @SenMarkey) for updates on FCC actions and hearings.

Conclusion: A Call to Reclaim the FCC

Brendan Carr’s FCC is a betrayal of consumer rights, trading protections for political point-scoring. By targeting DEI and media while deregulating telecoms, Carr risks higher costs, less access, and a less free press for 330 million Americans. His agenda—rooted in Trump’s vendettas and corporate favoritism—abandons the FCC’s public-interest mandate, leaving you vulnerable to exploitation.

Consumers deserve an FCC that fights for affordability, access, and diversity, not one that harasses companies for ideological nonconformity. Stay vigilant, support advocates, and demand accountability. The April 2025 FCC meeting could shift policies further—your voice matters. Fight for an FCC that serves you, not power and profits.