FCC Probe Sparks Outrage: Is 'The View' Silencing Conservative Voices?

Paul Riverbank, 2/10/2026FCC faces uproar over privacy and fairness probes, putting media freedom and political rights at stake.

Take the case of Sen. Bill Hagerty from Tennessee. He sounded the alarm after learning that Verizon coughed up his cell phone data to the Justice Department—part of former special counsel Jack Smith’s probe into Donald Trump and the 2020 election’s messy aftermath. Verizon says their hands were tied; there was a subpoena, it looked “facially valid,” so out went the phone numbers, minus subscriber names. Not a lot of choice, the company insists, especially when gag orders mean you’re forbidden from even whispering about it to your affected customers—in this instance, sitting members of Congress like Hagerty and some of his Republican colleagues.

Hagerty’s legal team isn’t satisfied. They’re demanding repercussions, writing, in no uncertain terms, that the FCC “should send a clear message that companies cannot collude with politically motivated prosecutors to violate customers’ rights.” They want public acknowledgment of error, or at minimum, a formal finding that Verizon broke federal law and now deserves tighter federal scrutiny. “Verizon is not above the law,” they added, as if daring regulators or the courts to disagree.

But the real battleground here isn’t just one man’s phone log. For many Republicans, this looks a lot like trampling on bedrock constitutional protections: the speech or debate clause, that shield Congress created to keep lawmakers’ work from becoming prosecutorial fodder. Hagerty isn’t alone in his alarm—Sen. Lindsey Graham also found his records swept up, just after pushing (then quickly undoing) a bill aimed at letting senators sue the Justice Department for hefty damages in precisely these sorts of subpoena fights.

Verizon, if pressed, points to the narrowness of the records and those unbending gag orders. GOP lawmakers see something more nefarious: overreach, plain and simple, and perhaps, a precedent in need of swift reversal.

Meanwhile, the FCC has another fire burning. This one involves some of the most-watched daylight TV on the air, with the question: are programs like ABC’s “The View” playing fair under the equal-time rules rooted in the old Communications Act of 1934? Historically, if a show is a bona fide news interview program, it sails right past these sorts of requirements. But a tweak in FCC guidance this past January sent a jolt through daytime and late-night talk TV—most such programs, it suggests, aren’t entitled to the usual carve out anymore.

That puts “The View” under a particularly bright spotlight. The program recently brought on Texas Democrat James Talarico—he’s seeking to unseat Senator Ted Cruz—and according to the FCC, they’re now re-examining if this appearance offered him an edge over his Democratic rival, Jasmine Crockett, who was also on the show before.

Brendan Carr, an FCC commissioner, doesn’t mince words: “Is 'The View' a bona fide news show? Maybe. But I’m not so sure.” He says the inquiry is “worthwhile,” and it’s time to check whether “The View” and others should still skate by as news coverage, or if it’s time to revisit the rules for this new era of blurred lines.

Proponents say it’s overdue. With political content splintered across YouTube, TikTok, cable, and dozens of streaming outfits—none with to play by these rules—broadcast TV’s special privileges are more visible, and perhaps more controversial, than ever. Carr sums it up: “You want the benefit of the public airwaves? You should comply fully with the rules.”

Inside the agency, there’s friction. Anna Gomez, another FCC commissioner, has blasted the probe as “government intimidation, not a legitimate investigation,” warning that just floating investigations can “weaponize” FCC authority, spooking shows and chilling speech.

Media industry voices and First Amendment advocates note what should be obvious by now: the explosion of cable and digital media has changed the playing field. As late night host Jimmy Kimmel—who himself recently returned to ABC after a dust-up—dryly observed, “There are so many channels, some of them doing 24/7 Trump programming… None of them are required to give equal time, but we are because we use the public airways.”

Not surprisingly, battle lines are sharp. Lawmakers are thinking about the sanctity of their communications. TV networks are protecting their editorial independence. The FCC is caught somewhere in the middle, trying not to get swept away by challenges that are fast outpacing policy.

In this, at least, there’s clarity: On both the privacy and fairness front, the FCC now finds itself under a rare, double spotlight. Politicians want clearer rules. Broadcasters demand flexibility. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans are left tuning in—and wondering just how much say the government should have in what, and who, shows up on their screens.

Storms—literal and figurative—have rolled in over the Federal Communications Commission this week. What’s at stake? Plenty. On one side, sharp questions about privacy and government snooping; on the other, an intensifying tug-of-war over political fairness in U.S. media, all boiled down to who gets to broadcast what, and when.Take the case of Sen. Bill Hagerty from Tennessee. He sounded the alarm after learning that Verizon coughed up his cell phone data to the Justice Department—part of former special counsel Jack Smith’s probe into Donald Trump and the 2020 election’s messy aftermath. Verizon says their hands were tied; there was a subpoena, it looked “facially valid,” so out went the phone numbers, minus subscriber names. Not a lot of choice, the company insists, especially when gag orders mean you’re forbidden from even whispering about it to your affected customers—in this instance, sitting members of Congress like Hagerty and some of his Republican colleagues.Hagerty’s legal team isn’t satisfied. They’re demanding repercussions, writing, in no uncertain terms, that the FCC “should send a clear message that companies cannot collude with politically motivated prosecutors to violate customers’ rights.” They want public acknowledgment of error, or at minimum, a formal finding that Verizon broke federal law and now deserves tighter federal scrutiny. “Verizon is not above the law,” they added, as if daring regulators or the courts to disagree.But the real battleground here isn’t just one man’s phone log. For many Republicans, this looks a lot like trampling on bedrock constitutional protections: the speech or debate clause, that shield Congress created to keep lawmakers’ work from becoming prosecutorial fodder. Hagerty isn’t alone in his alarm—Sen. Lindsey Graham also found his records swept up, just after pushing (then quickly undoing) a bill aimed at letting senators sue the Justice Department for hefty damages in precisely these sorts of subpoena fights.Verizon, if pressed, points to the narrowness of the records and those unbending gag orders. GOP lawmakers see something more nefarious: overreach, plain and simple, and perhaps, a precedent in need of swift reversal.Meanwhile, the FCC has another fire burning. This one involves some of the most-watched daylight TV on the air, with the question: are programs like ABC’s “The View” playing fair under the equal-time rules rooted in the old Communications Act of 1934? Historically, if a show is a bona fide news interview program, it sails right past these sorts of requirements. But a tweak in FCC guidance this past January sent a jolt through daytime and late-night talk TV—most such programs, it suggests, aren’t entitled to the usual carve out anymore.That puts “The View” under a particularly bright spotlight. The program recently brought on Texas Democrat James Talarico—he’s seeking to unseat Senator Ted Cruz—and according to the FCC, they’re now re-examining if this appearance offered him an edge over his Democratic rival, Jasmine Crockett, who was also on the show before.Brendan Carr, an FCC commissioner, doesn’t mince words: “Is 'The View' a bona fide news show? Maybe. But I’m not so sure.” He says the inquiry is “worthwhile,” and it’s time to check whether “The View” and others should still skate by as news coverage, or if it’s time to revisit the rules for this new era of blurred lines.Proponents say it’s overdue. With political content splintered across YouTube, TikTok, cable, and dozens of streaming outfits—none with to play by these rules—broadcast TV’s special privileges are more visible, and perhaps more controversial, than ever. Carr sums it up: “You want the benefit of the public airwaves? You should comply fully with the rules.”Inside the agency, there’s friction. Anna Gomez, another FCC commissioner, has blasted the probe as “government intimidation, not a legitimate investigation,” warning that just floating investigations can “weaponize” FCC authority, spooking shows and chilling speech.Media industry voices and First Amendment advocates note what should be obvious by now: the explosion of cable and digital media has changed the playing field. As late night host Jimmy Kimmel—who himself recently returned to ABC after a dust-up—dryly observed, “There are so many channels, some of them doing 24/7 Trump programming… None of them are required to give equal time, but we are because we use the public airways.”Not surprisingly, battle lines are sharp. Lawmakers are thinking about the sanctity of their communications. TV networks are protecting their editorial independence. The FCC is caught somewhere in the middle, trying not to get swept away by challenges that are fast outpacing policy.In this, at least, there’s clarity: On both the privacy and fairness front, the FCC now finds itself under a rare, double spotlight. Politicians want clearer rules. Broadcasters demand flexibility. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans are left tuning in—and wondering just how much say the government should have in what, and who, shows up on their screens.