A group of Republicans have written letters to the Federal Communications Commission asking for national changes to how consumers can use their cell phones.
On Monday, four GOP members from across the country told FCC Chairman Brendan Carr that it's time for mandatory rules that allow for greater technological freedom among cellphone providers.
'Working families and seniors on fixed incomes remain locked into carrier networks.'
Reps. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), Mark Alford (R-Mo.), and Mark E. Amodei (R-Nev.) wrote the FCC to voice their "strong support" behind finalizing "uniform, mandatory cellphone unlocking rules."
This would mean that when a customer is finished with a contract with his cellphone carrier, he could then have his phone unlocked so that it can be used under any other service provider/network, similar to carrying over one's phone number.
"Consumers in our districts, including working families and seniors on fixed incomes, remain locked into carrier networks even after paying off their devices, unable to switch to more affordable plans due to a patchwork of voluntary carrier policies," the congressmen wrote in a letter provided to Blaze News.
At the same time, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.) wrote his own letter to Carr, which described locked phones as "artificial restrictions for consumers" that deter competition and "trap families in overpriced plans."
RELATED: Dems launch new push to control more of what you do in your car
Both letters cited a national poll of 1,000 registered voters on the topic of cellphone carriers locking cell phones and restricting them from being used on competing networks.
Fitzgerald cited the "extremely high" support behind being able to keep one's cell phone when changing carriers.
"Agreement is also broad and strong for the statements that locking devices to a network limits choice and is a main reason for paying," the FabrizioWard poll stated.
The other Congress members referred to the massively bipartisan nature of the idea, which was shown through 86% of independents supporting cellphone unlocking.
Concurrently, 85% of Donald Trump voters agreed, while 90% of Kamala Harris voters also were in favor of the policy.
Other major support was found when participants were asked if they should be allowed to switch cellphone carriers with the same phone at any point if they pay off the remainder of their contract; an average of 85% of respondents agreed.
RELATED: You can finally buy Palmer Luckey's favorite 'flying car' — there's just one catch
"We respectfully request that the commission move forward to finalize a clear and enforceable unlocking standard," the group of politicians wrote.
They continued, "Consumers seeking more affordable monthly plans may have limited options, paying higher rates than a more competitive market would require."
Without a consistent standard, they argued, consumers will continue to be treated differently depending on which carrier sold them a phone, with little recourse if they are not allowed to opt out of their contract.
The FCC has yet to respond.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
This just in from ABC: "The View" is a news program.
Yes, that’s the same “View” that traffics in more conspiracy theories than a tinfoil salesman at an Alex Jones convention.
In 2022, Goldberg claimed without evidence that the GOP planned to take select Americans’ voting rights away as well as a woman’s right to vote.
Ridiculous? Of course it is.
The surprising part isn't that ABC is saying it. It's that, for decades, the FCC has effectively treated it that way by exempting programs like "The View" from the agency's equal-time rules.
Now that long-standing interpretation is under attack — and while it's hard to argue with mocking the gynocentric gabfest's journalistic standards, the government shouldn't be deciding which shows qualify as "real" journalism.
The dispute traces back to January, when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that late-night and daytime talk shows could no longer rely on a decades-old interpretation of the "bona fide news interview" exemption to the equal-time rule. Carr argued that broadcasters had stretched the exemption beyond recognition, saying legacy networks had treated their talk shows as news programs "even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes."
Congress created that exemption in 1959 after broadcasters warned that forcing equal time for every candidate interview would discourage political coverage altogether. Lawmakers ultimately concluded that preserving editorial discretion better served the public than having regulators second-guess programming decisions.
The first major test came a few weeks later. Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico appeared on "The View" months before his expected primary against Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). Under Carr's new interpretation, ABC could no longer simply assume the interview qualified for the exemption, prompting the FCC to investigate whether the appearance should have triggered equal-time obligations.
The effects were almost immediate. Citing the same regulatory uncertainty, CBS lawyers advised Stephen Colbert not to air a scheduled interview with Talarico on "The Late Show." Rather than risk an FCC dispute, Colbert released the interview on YouTube instead, where the agency has no jurisdiction. Whether you sympathize with Colbert or not, the episode demonstrated how quickly regulatory uncertainty can begin shaping editorial decisions.
Carr's criticism wasn't pulled from thin air. The show's guest lineup is notoriously one-sided. According to the Media Research Center, last year "The View" hosted 128 liberal-leaning guests compared with just two conservatives. One of those two, actress Cheryl Hines, is generally considered "conservative" only because her husband, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., serves in the Trump administration.
The guest tally merely scratches the surface. The Media Research Center has also cataloged nearly 2,500 examples of bias, misinformation and one-sided commentary on "The View." If Carr wanted evidence that the show resembles partisan advocacy more than journalism, he hardly had to look far.
The latest examples don't require a fact-checking degree to decipher — just functioning eyes and ears (a sense of humor doesn't hurt, either).
Let’s start with Whoopi Goldberg. The Oscar winner has used her “View” pulpit to suggest President Donald Trump planned to separate interracial couples. Her proof? Zip … zero … nada. Nobody tell Usha Vance, an Indian-American woman and the second lady.
That kind of commentary is disqualifying on the surface. It’s doubly damning for a verifiable “news” outlet.
More recently, Goldberg and co-host Joy Behar railed against the GOP’s SAVE Act legislation, saying it’s deeply unpopular. Or as both Goldberg and Behar said into their live mics, “nobody wants it.”
Multiple recent polls show that more than 80% of the public want voters to show ID before voting, the thrust of the legislation.
Good luck finding more than 80% of Americans to agree on, well, anything (beyond a white-hot hatred for robocalls).
That’s not just a little bit off. It’s a major embarrassment, particularly for a “news” program.
RELATED: VEEP TV: JD slays in 'View' ratings coup
“The View” hosts also sit silently as guests utter the most unhinged comments without a fact-check or pushback. Earlier this year, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) claimed the modern GOP was hell-bent on bringing back slavery.
The four “View” hosts couldn’t raise a single objection, nor ask the veteran Democrat to back up his outlandish claim. Would Walter Cronkite sit still while a guest uttered something so outrageous?
“And that’s the way it isn’t.”
The show’s coverage of Austin Metcalf’s shocking 2025 murder proved how dangerous — yes, dangerous — “The View’s” misinformation can be. Co-host Sunny Hostin lied about the weight disparity between Metcalf and his killer, Karmelo Anthony.
She also lied that Anthony was the only black person in the team’s tent area where the fatal stabbing occurred. Multiple black students were there at the time. Some even testified on behalf of the prosecution.
Some news program. Is it any wonder TikTok accounts repeat misinformation tied to the case?
And this isn’t a recent problem. “The View” has been twisting the truth like a Bavarian pretzel for years. In 2022, Goldberg claimed without evidence that the GOP planned to take select Americans’ voting rights away as well as a woman’s right to vote.
Evidence? Proof? Hey, Goldberg starred in that adorable “Sister Act” series. That’s enough, apparently.
Two years ago, the same Goldberg said President Trump would throw Americans into camps, including gay Americans, and “disappear” them. Any update on that claim?
In other words, Carr has identified a real problem. His solution is the dangerous part.
Treating "The View" as the equivalent of a bona fide news interview program stretches the term beyond recognition. But the government has no business deciding otherwise.
Those slopes can be mighty slippery.
The Twitter Files offered a preview of how quickly government officials can move from combatting misinformation to shaping public debate itself. The power to decide which outlets qualify as "real" journalism won't remain in the hands of today's regulators forever. Eventually it will belong to another administration with very different political priorities.
Conservatives, of all people, should understand that lesson. The power you give your friends today will eventually belong to your opponents.
More voices, not fewer. Even if some of those voices would make Cronkite spin like a top in his grave.
As the Iran strikes stretch into a third week, the Trump administration has threatened legacy media outlets over their coverage of the conflict.
On Sunday, President Trump took to Truth Social to blast the legacy media for their "FAKE NEWS" coverage of the last two weeks, suggesting a degree of cooperation between some American media outlets and the Iranian propaganda machine.
'The Radical Leftwing Press knows this full well, but continues to go forward with false stories and LIES.'
"Iran has long been known as a Master of Media Manipulation and Public Relations. They are Militarily ineffective and weak, but are really good at 'feeding' the very appreciative Fake News Media false information. Now, A.I. has become another Disinformation weapon that Iran uses, quite well, considering they are being annihilated by the day," Trump wrote.
Trump gave several examples of the types of imagery and videos he claims are generated by artificial intelligence, including Iranian "Kamikaze Boats shooting at various Ships at Sea," several U.S. refueling planes having been "struck down and badly damaged," and the "USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft Carrier, one of the largest and most prestigious Ships in the World, burning uncontrollably in the Ocean."
Trump called these stories "FAKE NEWS, generated by A.I." He further explained of the USS Abraham Lincoln: "Not only was it not burning, it was not even shot at — Iran knows better than to do that!"
RELATED: Trump demands other nations clear Strait of Hormuz, claims NATO's future at stake
Citing two U.S. officials, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday that "five U.S. Air Force refueling planes were struck and damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia." The article, which appears to have been updated on Saturday at 12:18 p.m. ET, went on to say that the tankers were "damaged but not fully destroyed."
Trump went on to suggest the severity of punishment that he believes is warranted for the "dissemination of false information": "In a certain way, you can say that those Media Outlets that generated it should be brought up on Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information! The fact is, Iran is being decimated, and the only battles they 'win' are those that they create through AI, and are distributed by Corrupt Media Outlets. The Radical Leftwing Press knows this full well, but continues to go forward with false stories and LIES."
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr made similar statements Saturday, stressing that it was time for the media to "correct course." He also reposted a previous Truth Social post from Trump insisting that "the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (In particular), and other Lowlife 'Papers' and Media actually want us to lose the War. Their terrible reporting is the exact opposite of the actual facts!"
Carr wrote: "Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not."
"Time for change!" he added.
Many of Trump's Democrat opponents and members of the media have since spoken out against his calls for punishing the "fake news" media.
On Friday, CNN chairman and CEO Mark Thompson issued a statement about the outlet's reporting:
We stand by our journalism. Politicians have an obvious motive for claiming that journalism which raises questions about their decisions is false. At CNN our only interest is in telling the truth to our audiences in the U.S. and around the world and no amount of political threats or insults is going to change that.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) weighed in on Carr's post on Saturday: "If Trump doesn't like your coverage of the war, his FCC will pull your broadcast license. That is flagrantly unconstitutional."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has been under fire for months over his involvement in a video encouraging military service members and intelligence personnel to "refuse illegal orders," likewise criticized the threats from the Trump administration: "When our nation is at war it is critical that the press is free to report without government interference. It is literally in the Constitution. This is overreach by the FCC because this Administration doesn’t like the microscope and doesn’t want to be held accountable."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) told Carr: "Take your fascist s**t and shove it."
The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
President Trump will deliver the first State of the Union of his second term on Tuesday, an address that lands near the 250th anniversary of a nation built on freedom and enterprise. He will likely highlight ending foreign conflicts, restoring border security, reasserting American strength, and advancing his legislative agenda. He will point to economic gains — growth returning, inflation easing, energy prices falling, tax relief delivered, and markets responding. He will argue that the Trump economy is putting Americans back in charge of their own prosperity.
But one success story may not make the headlines: Under pro-investment, pro-competition policies, America’s wireless market has delivered lower prices, better service, and more choice — without mandates, price controls, or government-run networks.
Wireless shows free markets still work when Washington lets them.
Since Trump took office, wireless prices are down 4%. The White House even lists it as Win No. 132 in “365 Wins in 365 Days.” Backed by Bureau of Labor Statistics data, wireless plans and smartphones cost less in real dollars today than they did decades ago — while delivering hundreds of times faster speeds and vastly more data.
Twenty years ago, wireless networks mostly carried voice calls. Today they power work, school, health care, navigation, banking, entertainment, and small business. A wireless subscription also takes a declining share of the household budget.
That didn’t happen by accident. Competition, private investment, and smart policy drove it.
Plans now deliver more data, faster speeds, and wider coverage than most people imagined 20 years ago. What once required a wired connection at home now works almost anywhere.
Fixed wireless access has helped drive that shift — home internet delivered over wireless networks. Nearly 15 million households now use wireless service instead of a fixed line, giving families a new, often cheaper alternative.
Americans also benefit from real choice. Most people are covered by three or more national wireless networks, each offering multiple brands, including lower-cost and prepaid options for families, seniors, students, and budget-conscious users. Dozens of smaller carriers and resellers add even more price competition. Companies need to earn customers’ business.
Wireless doesn’t just connect people — it cuts costs.
Parents save time and fuel by working remotely. Seniors can use telehealth instead of driving long distances. Students can learn from anywhere. Small businesses can reach customers without expensive storefronts or phone systems.
No other essential service — housing, health care, food, or energy — has improved this much while becoming more affordable. Wireless quietly delivers more value every year.
None of this works without investment. U.S. wireless companies invest about $30 billion a year to build and upgrade networks. Per person, that’s nearly double what Europe invests.
As a result, the United States leads the world in wireless performance, coverage, and innovation. That leadership didn’t come from government-run networks or price controls. It came from letting companies compete, invest, and take risks.
President Trump’s first-term spectrum auction raised a record $90 billion and helped fuel today’s 5G networks. Now FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is moving quickly toward another auction to free up more airwaves — the raw material wireless networks need to grow.
Wireless runs on spectrum, and America is running tight.
Large blocks of valuable spectrum remain locked up by federal agencies, even when lightly used. Other countries — China, South Korea, and Japan — have moved faster to free spectrum for commercial use.
More spectrum means better service, more competition, and lower costs. Without it, growth slows and prices rise. That makes unlocking spectrum a national priority.
RELATED: Phones and drones expose the cracks in America’s defenses
Another problem stays mostly invisible to consumers.
The Universal Service Fund is meant to support rural connectivity and essential communications. But instead of being funded broadly, it gets tacked onto phone bills, often as a separate line item. Seniors and working families pay about $9 a month without ever voting on it.
Meanwhile, the biggest users of America’s networks — massive internet platforms — pay little or nothing into the system. They generate enormous traffic, earn billions, and rely on wireless infrastructure built by others.
President Trump has argued that Big Tech should pay its own way when it comes to energy-hungry AI data centers. The same principle should apply here. If you benefit from the network, you should help pay for it.
Wireless shows free markets still work when Washington lets them. Competition pushed prices down. Private investment built world-leading networks. Smart spectrum policy unlocked innovation.
Now policymakers face a choice: Protect what’s working, or burden it with bureaucracy and political favoritism. Free up more spectrum. Preserve real competition. End Big Tech’s free ride on infrastructure funded by American consumers.
If President Trump wants a model of American strength and market-driven success in his State of the Union, he doesn’t have to look far. It’s already in the hands of nearly every American holding a cell phone.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr accused "The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert and Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico of spreading a "hoax" about their interview segment.
Colbert claimed during his Monday-night show that the FCC's new guidance on the equal time rule forced CBS to block Talarico from appearing on his program.
'This was a decision by Colbert, by Talarico to put a hoax out there that they knew the media would run for purposes of Talarico, apparently, scoring political points against Jasmine Crockett.'
"[Talarico] was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast," Colbert told his viewers.
CBS released a statement explaining that Colbert's show was "provided legal guidance" that broadcasting the interview "could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates" running against Talarico for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas. The network stated that it "presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled," but that Colbert's team instead "decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel."
During a Thursday episode of "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn Beck asked Carr whether the FCC had provided any legal guidance to CBS concerning the interview. Carr insisted the FCC had not.
He told Beck, "I woke up Tuesday morning and logged onto social media, and that was the first time that I'd even heard about this. And I woke up to a politician claiming that the FCC had somehow not aired — is what they said — the FCC refused to air this segment, and that wasn't true at all."
"Not only was that not true, but the subsequent claim that it was CBS that refused to air it was also proved to be a hoax as well," Carr continued. "In fact, CBS, apparently, had advised Colbert they could run the exact interview that they wanted, and they just needed to be mindful that it could trigger an equal time obligation for other candidates."
RELATED: Stephen Colbert melts down after CBS pulls interview with Democrat just months before his show ends
He accused Colbert of running a "hoax," arguing that "he knew he could fool ... the legacy media by claiming he was censored."
Carr speculated that the alleged trick aimed to give Talarico "a leg up" on his Democrat opponent, Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas.
"This was a decision by Colbert, by Talarico to put a hoax out there that they knew the media would run for purposes of Talarico, apparently, scoring political points against Jasmine Crockett," Carr told Beck.
RELATED: 'The View' under investigation for potential violations, says Trump's FCC chief
Beck also questioned Carr about "The View" after reports surfaced that the show is facing an FCC investigation for possible equal time violations.
Carr explained that "The View" has argued that it is a "bona fide" news program, meaning that it should be exempt from the equal time rule, which would allow the ABC program to have a political candidate on the show without providing an equal opportunity to other candidates running in the same election.
Carr insisted that "The View" has "not made the case to the FCC that they do, in fact, qualify for the exception to the rule."
"And so we have started an enforcement inquiry, taking enforcement actions to explore this issue with them and move forward," he stated, adding that the FCC is "actively looking" at the show's claim that it is a bona fide news program.
CBS, ABC, Talarico's campaign, and representatives for "The Late Show," "The View," and Colbert did not respond to a request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Free speech protects ABC's right to run an all-left-wing panel every weekday morning. It does not entitle ABC to call that panel a news program when convenient and a protected editorial product when it is not.
Late-night broadcast television has become a wasteland of one-party rule that is long overdue for regulatory correction.
As the president mulls over who to replace Bondi with, there are several standout candidates.
Human cheeseball and CNN content creator Brian Stelter is very concerned this week after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr publicly reminded TV broadcast stations that they in fact do not have a right to deliberately lie to voters using the public airwaves. Three times in as many days, Stelter has referred to a “threat” […]
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
Oprah and The Rock are facing MAJOR BACKLASH over THIS