The FCC just ordered Disney to file early license renewal applications for all of ABC’s TV stations by May 28. On the surface, it looks like a heavy-handed regulatory slap. The timing certainly suggests retaliation: the order came one day after President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump called on ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel over a joke comparing Melania to an “expectant widow.”
But here’s the thing nobody seems to want to say out loud: the FCC probably can’t actually take away Disney’s licenses, even if it wanted to. And that’s not because of some technicality or legal loophole. It’s because Congress deliberately made it that way back in 1996.
The 1996 Law That Changed Everything
When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it fundamentally rewrote how broadcast licenses work in America. The National Association of Broadcasters got an amendment inserted into the law that essentially flipped the script on license renewals.
Before 1996, the FCC could force broadcasters into comparative renewal hearings, where competing applicants could make their case for why they should get the license instead. It was messy, expensive, and theoretically a real threat. After 1996? That entire process got eliminated with what one legal expert called “a sweep of its legislative hand.”
The new standard is brutally simple. The FCC can only deny a license renewal if it can prove one of three things: the station hasn’t served the public interest, the licensee was found guilty of serious violations of the Communications Act or FCC rules, or the licensee committed a pattern of abuse. No comparative hearings. No “maybe someone else could do it better.” Just those three narrow boxes.
“It is much harder to deny a broadcast renewal than any other kind of wireless license,” Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor of the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, told Ars Technica. “Since the NAB got an amendment in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, denying renewal to a broadcaster faces an almost insurmountable burden.”
What This Early Renewal Actually Means
So what does this early renewal order actually do? Not much, legally speaking. ABC’s eight TV stations aren’t scheduled for renewal until 2028 to 2031. This order just accelerates the paperwork. Disney keeps operating normally the entire time. According to Schwartzman, “This simply accelerates a process that takes years. The idea is that if you know there is a problem, start the proceeding now.”
The FCC’s official justification talks vaguely about investigating Disney’s ABC stations for violations of the Communications Act and “unlawful discrimination.” That last bit is a nod to what everyone in Washington knows: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is using anti-discrimination rules as a cover story for what is clearly a political complaint about ABC’s diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.
But here’s where it gets interesting. Even if Carr genuinely believes ABC is violating anti-discrimination law, he’s got a massive evidentiary problem. He has to prove not just that violations happened, but that they were willful or repeated. That’s a high bar. That takes years. That costs enormous amounts of money. And the whole time, ABC keeps its license and keeps broadcasting.
The Political Theater Around Legal Reality
The broader context makes Carr’s motivation crystal clear. Trump sued ABC in 2024 over statements made by George Stephanopoulos and got a $15 million settlement. Carr has been threatening ABC over Kimmel’s jokes since September 2025. Now this early renewal order drops right after Trump publicly complained about a Kimmel joke.
“Even after paying off the president last year, ABC is once again under attack by this administration,” Senator Adam Schiff wrote yesterday. “This should be a lesson to all who capitulate to the president: You cannot buy his favor, you can only rent it.”
It’s worth noting that not everyone on the Republican side is comfortable with this approach. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas pushed back on Carr’s previous attacks on Kimmel, telling Punchbowl News: “It is not government’s job to censor speech, and I do not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police.”
The FCC’s legal team, led by Commissioner Anna Gomez, is already laying out the defense in advance. According to her office, any action based on broadcaster content or editorial choices runs into both the Communications Act’s prohibition on censoring broadcaster content and the First Amendment. Courts have consistently upheld both barriers. And even if the FCC tries to frame this as a discrimination case rather than a content case, “the broader pattern of political threats against broadcasters is part of the public record, and Disney can use that record in its defense. Courts take motivation seriously, and the motivation here is clear.”
The Thousand-Year Legal War
Here’s the thing about regulatory threats backed by weak law: they’re mostly theater. Yes, this order is annoying for Disney. Yes, it forces ABC to marshal lawyers and documents. But it’s not actually a threat to ABC’s license, no matter how legitimate Carr’s concerns about DEI might be.
The FCC bears the burden of proof at every stage. It has to clear extremely high bars. The process takes years. Meanwhile, ABC keeps broadcasting and making money. And if Disney decides to fight instead of negotiate, the company has constitutional law on its side.
The real question isn’t whether the FCC can take away ABC’s license. It’s whether Disney will cave to pressure anyway, just like Trump got a settlement from ABC before, just like many companies settle politically uncomfortable disputes to avoid dragging legal battles through the courts.
The 1996 law made broadcast licenses almost untouchable. But it can’t protect broadcasters from the cost and hassle of defending themselves against regulatory threats, even weak ones.
