Censoring Iran war news sets a dangerous precedent

This essay was originally published by UnHerd on March 16, 2026.

Over the weekend, the federal government threatened to effectively censor news about the Iran war.

On Saturday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr posted on X that “broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — otherwise known as fake news — have a chance now to course correct before their license renewals come up.” He added: “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their license if they do not.” The following day, President Donald Trump posted that he was “thrilled” to see Carr issuing these threats to “Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic ‘News’ Organizations.”

Throughout his tenure, Carr has conflated the “public interest” with the president’s interest. But that’s not the law. The law is clear that the First Amendment bars the government from dictating news coverage or punishing outlets for publishing what the president claims is “false.” The American people are entitled to uncensored news about what their government and military are doing. No matter who occupies the White House, war does not justify the government erecting barriers between the people and the press. To the contrary, the life-and-death stakes of war make public scrutiny and accountability more important than ever.

The government has a powerful incentive to apply the “fake news” label to anything that undermines its preferred narrative. This is a lesson that goes back to the earliest days of the republic and the Sedition Act of 1798, which banned “false, scandalous, and malicious” statements about the government. The justification at the time, as it is today, was global conflict. Looming war with France supplied the pretext for a law that functioned as a partisan weapon for President John Adams to aim straight at his political rivals. Thomas Jefferson then rode a wave of anti-Sedition Act sentiment to defeat Adams two years later.

The law is also clear that broadcast licensees which operate under the public interest standard are shielded from Carr’s threats. Historically, the standard recognized broadcasters’ right to exercise independent editorial judgment, and not to operate as a government mouthpiece. While it’s true that the media can be biased, critics should think twice before supporting a solution that gives the government — under either a Democratic or Republican administration — the power to dictate “the truth.”

If Carr tried to enforce his social media decrees about the meaning of “public interest,” his actions would be subject to immediate appeal and near-certain reversal. This is likely why he has not escalated these threats into formal FCC action.

Usually, these threats have backfired. When Carr threatened Disney — which owns the ABC network — over a Jimmy Kimmel monologue last year, Kimmel returned after a week-long suspension to his highest ratings in years. The FCC never opened proceedings against any broadcaster for airing the monologue.

Similarly, when Carr attempted to invoke the so-called “equal time” rule on Stephen Colbert’s James Talarico interview last month, the talk show host posted it on The Late Show’s YouTube channel instead. The clip drew more than three times the viewership of an average Colbert broadcast.

Carr has had more success wielding other regulatory tools. After Trump filed a consumer fraud lawsuit over 60 Minutes’s interview with Kamala Harris, Carr stalled FCC approval of an $8 billion merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media. When Paramount later settled Trump’s lawsuit, the deal moved ahead. Critics claimed that tying merger approval to a newsroom’s editorial decisions amounted to government pressure of the sort the First Amendment is meant to prevent.

If the past is prologue, Carr will continue to reach for any excuse to justify the FCC’s unconstitutional crackdown on the press. But in America, the people decide for themselves what is true — not federal bureaucrats. Principled broadcasters must lead the way by refusing to cave in to Carr’s lawless demands.