Did Brandon Carr threaten ABC to get rid of Jimmy Kimmel?
Executive summary
The contemporaneous reporting shows Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr publicly urged ABC, Disney and local affiliate licensees to take action over Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue and warned of “additional work for the FCC ahead,” language widely interpreted as a threat to revoke licenses or pursue enforcement; Carr has since denied he intended to threaten license revocations [1] [2] [3]. That sequence—Carr’s remarks, immediate affiliate preemptions and ABC’s brief suspension of Kimmel—produced bipartisan alarm about “jawboning” by a regulator even as some Republicans defended or downplayed his comments [4] [5] [6].
1. What Carr actually said and how outlets reported it
On a September podcast appearance Carr said networks and station groups “can find ways to change conduct … or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead” and added “we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” language several outlets reported as a warning that the FCC could pursue fines, news-distortion claims or even license actions if broadcasters did not act regarding Kimmel’s remarks [1] [7] [8]. Variety, Deadline and The Guardian summarized those comments as threats that pressured broadcasters; deadline pieces noted Carr later tried to explain those remarks as not meaning license revocations [1] [2] [3].
2. Immediate consequences: affiliates, ABC and Kimmel’s suspension
Within hours of Carr’s remarks large station groups such as Nexstar and Sinclair announced they would not air Jimmy Kimmel Live!, and ABC briefly announced an indefinite preemption of the show—moves that critics tied directly to Carr’s public pressure even as corporate statements framed the choices as independent business decisions [1] [7] [9]. Disney/ABC reinstated Kimmel after a public backlash, while some affiliates initially continued preemptions; reporters documented Carr celebrating affiliates’ choices on social media [10] [7] [6].
3. Legal and normative frame: jawboning, First Amendment concerns
Legal commentators and former FCC commissioners warned that a regulator threatening adverse consequences to influence speech fits the doctrine courts call “jawboning” and can amount to unconstitutional coercion chilling protected expression; Deadline and The Hill summarized those critiques and noted Supreme Court precedents disfavouring government threats aimed at media content [4] [11]. Democrats on the FCC and in Congress portrayed Carr’s conduct as an abuse of power; Republicans were split, with some defending Carr and others—like Sen. Ted Cruz—calling out the coercive tone [2] [6] [5].
4. Carr’s denials and political fallout
Carr repeatedly insisted his comments were mischaracterized and that he did not say stations would lose their licenses if Kimmel wasn’t fired, telling reporters and the FCC meeting audience there was “no threat made” to pull licenses while also arguing broadcasters could avoid protracted FCC proceedings by taking internal action [2] [3]. Nonetheless, the episode prompted Congressional attention, a public outcry from unions and civil liberties groups, and later hearings where Carr defended his approach while critics argued the record showed regulatory pressure [9] [12] [13].
5. How to answer the question directly
Did Brendan Carr threaten ABC to get rid of Jimmy Kimmel? The factual record shows Carr made public statements urging action and invoking the prospect of “additional work for the FCC,” language that multiple news organizations and legal experts characterized as a threat to seek fines, license scrutiny or other regulatory measures—actions that materially coincided with affiliates’ decisions and ABC’s temporary suspension of Kimmel—while Carr insists he did not explicitly say he would pull licenses and has denied making a threat [1] [4] [2]. Reporters and commentators therefore present two competing readings: one that his rhetoric functioned as coercive pressure (and was perceived and acted on that way), and another—Carr’s—claiming no explicit threat to revoke licenses was made.
6. Open questions and limits in the reporting
Public reporting documents Carr’s words, affiliates’ reactions, ABC’s suspension and subsequent defenses and denials, but it does not provide a private smoking‑gun—such as an internal FCC memo expressly directing enforcement tied to Kimmel—that would definitively prove coercive intent beyond public statements; therefore the conclusion rests on how one weighs Carr’s public rhetoric and its downstream effects versus his denials [1] [2] [12].