A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the comments made by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, threatening to penalize ABC and Disney for the political commentary of ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel were dangerous and unconstitutional.
Summary
S. Res. 407 is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution condemning Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr for comments made on September 17, 2025, that the resolution characterizes as threats to penalize ABC, Disney, and their affiliates over political commentary by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. The resolution states that the First Amendment protects political speech and commentary, including controversial or offensive speech, and argues that the FCC lacks authority to censor programming or punish broadcasters for editorial decisions.
The resolution further asserts that Carr’s remarks had a coercive effect, pointing to ABC affiliate actions and the suspension of Kimmel’s program as evidence of a chilling effect on free expression. It also cites prior public statements by Carr supporting free speech and political satire, contrasting those statements with his alleged use of regulatory power in this instance. The measure concludes by calling on Carr to retract his threats and recommit to constitutional limits on his office.
Impact
This resolution does not change statutory law or create new legal obligations; instead, it expresses the Senate’s view on the constitutional limits of FCC authority and the importance of broadcaster independence. Its practical impact is political and symbolic, aimed at condemning alleged government pressure on private media companies and reinforcing First Amendment protections for political speech, satire, and editorial discretion in broadcasting.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment in the bill is strongly critical of Chairman Carr and strongly supportive of free speech and press independence. The resolution frames the FCC chairman’s conduct as dangerous, unconstitutional, and an abuse of regulatory power, while presenting the Senate as defending constitutional protections against government coercion. No votes or committee debate are provided, so the available context reflects the bill’s text rather than recorded legislative support or opposition.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether Chairman Carr’s comments constituted an improper threat or a legitimate regulatory statement. Supporters of the resolution view the remarks as unconstitutional government coercion aimed at punishing protected political commentary, while any opposing view would likely argue that the FCC was acting within its oversight role or that the comments were not coercive in legal effect. The dispute also implicates broader tensions over media regulation, broadcaster independence, and the boundaries of government criticism of private speech.