Although the administrative experience and credentials of a number of Donald Trump’s nominations are being questioned, few nominees appear more qualified for their posts than Brendan Carr (b. 1979) to be chair of the Federal Communications Commission. Carr has been the senior Republican on the commission. He has been previously nominated by both Presidents Trump and Joe Biden and unanimously confirmed three times by the U.S. Senate.
An attorney and former clerk to a federal appellate judge, Carr has made his mark as a strong advocate of 5th Generation (5G) technology, and for his more controversial view, supported by Elon Musk, that social media companies should not be permitted to censor postings (at least not without clarifying their policies and applying them even handedly).
Carr has published his views in at least two prominent places. He wrote the article on the Federal Communications Commission for Project 2025, a plan by the Heritage Foundation that many believe will be something of a template for Trump’s second term as president.
Carr advocates for reining in Big Tech
In the 2025 chapter on the FCC, Carr describes how the FCC works, how it is funded, and what he thinks its priorities should be. At the top of his list is that of “Reining in Big Tech.”
He forthrightly states that such companies are attempting “to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square” (847). “These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions,” he wrote (p. 847).
Carr wants to eliminate immunity under Section 230
Carr hopes to eliminate immunity under Section 230 in cases where such companies have sought to censor speech by individuals who seek to post there. He further proposes that Google, Facebook and other carriers should be more transparent by providing “detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content” (848). Although he favors prohibiting “discrimination against core political viewpoints,” he proposes that congressional legislation should continue to ensure that platforms are not required “to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carried out” (849). He also favors protection against children’s access to inappropriate sites.
After describing how the FCC uses its “$8 billion Universal Service Fund” to subsidize “Internet and rural connectivity programs,” Carr proposes that Big Tech should have to pay its fair share. He colorfully likens the FCC’s current approach to “the regulatory equivalent of taxing horseshoes to pay for highways” (850).
Carr wants FCC to free more airwaves for wireless
Carr shares Trump’s national security concerns over Chinese control of TikTok, Huawei, and other social media, and current U.S. cooperation with China with respect to artificial intelligence.
Carr believes that the FCC can unleash economic prosperity by freeing “more airwaves for wireless connectivity” and by widening broadband capabilities. He favors facilitating the building of more cell sites and advancing America’s leadership in space.
Carr compares his own proposed approach for “relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes” to the New Deal’s idea of imposing what he considers to be “heavy-handed regulation” (856).
Carr co-wrote article critical of Big Tech
In a coauthored article with FCC commissioner Nathan Simington, Carr approvingly cites a Supreme Court decision likening social media to “the modern public square.” The authors believe that “Big Tech” should not have the power to decide “who gets to speak, what they can say, and who gets to listen to that speech.” They laud a Texas law that attempts to prevent such companies from engaging in “viewpoint discrimination.”
Recognizing that tech companies are private rather than governmental entities that are directly restricted by the First Amendment, the authors note that such companies are subject to government regulation because of their massive market power. They further note a distinction between regulating the speech of companies and compelling their speech from requiring that they exercise “net neutrality” which regulating the speech of others.
The authors are particularly concerned about Big Tech social media companies because they believe that they exercise near monopolistic powers.
As Carr points out, laws provide that no more than three of five members of the FCC will be from the president’s party. Carr’s writings suggest that the Republican majority will be much more likely to rely on market forces than on government regulation except for mandating greater transparency on the part of Big Tech social media companies.
John R. Vile is a political science professor and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University.