FCC Chair Suggests Agency Isn't Independent, Word Cut From Mission Statement (axios.com)
- Reference: 0180411973
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/12/17/1817255/fcc-chair-suggests-agency-isnt-independent-word-cut-from-mission-statement
- Source link: https://www.axios.com/2025/12/17/brendan-carr-fcc-independent-senate-testimony-website
> During his testimony, the word "independent" was removed from the FCC's mission statement on its website. The extraordinary statement speaks to a broader trend of regulatory agencies losing power to the executive branch during the Trump era. Last week, the Supreme Court appeared poised to allow President Trump to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission during oral arguments over the issue.
>
> Sen. Ben Ray LujÃn (D-N.M.) began the line of questioning, citing the FCC's website, which said the agency was independent as of Wednesday morning. By Wednesday afternoon, the FCC's mission statement no longer said it was independent. Chairman Carr would not respond directly to questions about whether he believed the president was his boss. He would not answer whether it's appropriate if the president were to pressure him to go after media companies. He suggested the president has the power to fire him and other FCC commissioners.
[1] https://www.axios.com/2025/12/17/brendan-carr-fcc-independent-senate-testimony-website
Re: (Score:3)
> when is the us getting regime change?
When it's profitable to the already rich. Duh.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
ROTFLMAO...oh sweetie, that is so cute.
Re: (Score:3)
In around a year, when the Congress shifts to the other party and actual government oversight begins again.
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
If a president can dictate how the agency runs, it's not independent, is it?
We all know why this change was done. It's so the Russian asset can force the agency to revoke licenses for communication companies who report mean things about him such as him falling asleep every day or reporting his inane ramblings or calling him out on his lies. Also, he can force communication companies to report only what he says, just like in Russia.
So no, everything changes.
Re:well (Score:4, Informative)
Name a previous President that interfered directly in their operations and decisions as the current one has and then you might have a point.
Re: (Score:1)
ok wahtever you say
Re: (Score:1)
i dont give a fuck to continue the conversation and honestly don't know why i posted in the first place. have a nice day.
Re: well (Score:2)
African guys dancing with a coffin.gif
Re: (Score:2)
Then why post again?
Just have to get that last word in? Some psychological compulsion you should discuss with a professional?
Re: (Score:1)
yup.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait you don't know why you started posting in a discussion online and are upset that people replied? Do you have late stage self destructive social media addiction? Let us know if you need help finding the log-out button.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your Honor, I object!"
"Why?"
"Because it's devastating to my case!"
Re: (Score:1)
Obama fired the CEO of General Motors. The prez can fire anybody if he can cut their money off.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is that not an answer to the question its a complete disanalogous situation in every aspect.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. In principle, presidents have no authority whatsoever to dictate how an agency runs. The executive branch should have zero authority over the civil service, which is intended to constitute a fourth co-equal branch of government.
In the US, in principle, the status of the civil service as co-equal to, and independent of, the executive should be added to the Constitution and enshrined in law for good measure. Not that that would help much with the current SCOTUS, but a Constitutional change mi
Re: (Score:1)
The prez is the chief of the defense force and therefore carries the biggest stick. Therefore he can dictate what anybody has to do; if he finds it necessary, he will find a way to impose his will.
Re: (Score:2)
If you cannot see the difference between "we will set the best policy we can, even if it is something the president does not like" (how independent agencies operate), and "we will let the president set policy, and simply implement his will, regardless of how good or bad it will be for the country" (which is how agencies that are not independent operate) then you are not a serious person.
Re: (Score:2)
The commissioners of the FED are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Every single federal judge is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
That clearly doesn't preclude independence of operation from the President. Or are you saying that monetary policy and the justice system should be beholden to an all-powerful leader who has no fucking clue what he's doing too?
Re:Independent from whom? (Score:5, Informative)
Independent doesn’t mean what you think. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government
Re: (Score:2)
So "independent" agency really does mean the president can't use the agency to extort companies into punishing his "enemies"? Good to know... now how do we enforce that distinction?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the job of Congress before the Republican members sacrificed their symbolic testicles at the altar of their King.
Re: (Score:3)
> So "independent" agency really does mean the president can't use the agency to extort companies into punishing his "enemies"? Good to know... now how do we enforce that distinction?
Republicans will fight for it - when a Democrat is in office. Note that I'm not declaring that Democrats are definitely better, but more that Republicans aren't thinking the statement below through. Congressional Republicans are okay abdicating their authority and responsibility now, under Trump, but probably not so much when they're no longer in power, especially if (when) they lose the House and Senate in 2026 and the White House in 2028.
> The extraordinary statement speaks to a broader trend of regulatory agencies losing power to the executive branch during the Trump era.
Republicans aren't thinking ahead and may just have to suffer th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's Congress's responsibility to protect their turf. They delegated this regulatory authority to the administrative, so they get to conduct oversight of that authority.
Which means that if you want to actually see functional government oversight, DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN.
Re: (Score:2)
> The FCC is part of the executive branch. Who was confused the FCC was independent?
Well, the answer to that seems pretty easy. I am surprised you didn't catch it yourself and needed to be told. The answer is: the FCC. As evidenced by the fact that it had "independent" in its mission statement.
Re: (Score:2)
The civil service is not a part of the executive but is a co-equal branch.
Banana Republic shit (Score:1)
Straight banana republic shit.
But hey how about that time Obama ordered an orange juice instead of coffee?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama wore a TAN SUIT!!! Oh, the humanity!
Re: (Score:2)
Or Michelle Obama tried to get kids to eat healthier and exercise more - and got roasted by some on The Right. (but they're cool with RFK, Jr and all of MAHA)
At this point I’m fine with all this (Score:4, Interesting)
If society wants to return to the “strong executive” model, fine, whatever. That’s what we had before Nixon. Returning to it won’t demolish our democracy.
However, it had better be a *permanent* change. If the supreme court allows Trump a bunch of extra powers and immediately yanks them back when the next liberal president shows up, I have a big problem with that. So, the right-wingers that crave a king, be careful what you wish for.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean they are literally doing everything they can to make sure it's permanent. To the point they want people to tattle on their neighbors for not thinking like them.
Yeah...you're fine with it. Fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
The country wasn’t a wasteland pre-Nixon. As long as the separation of the 3 branches of government holds, it’ll be fine. If society wants a strong executive, shrug. Not what I would vote for but that’s democracy.
Ever read the constitution? (Score:2, Insightful)
> losing power to the executive branch
Am i the only one who's read the constitution? Every federal government agency is in one of the three branches. FCC is not legislative, it is not judicial. So it is executive. The executive branch reports directly to and is directly answerable to the head of the executive - the president.
The congress cannot legislate a fourth branch even if they wanted to. They'd need a constitutional amendment for that.
Re: (Score:3)
The President is supposed to execute... what exactly? Whatever he feels like doing when he wakes up? Only what is written in the Constitution? Congress cannot constrain at all what the President does?
If Congress passes a set of rules (and it is either signed or a veto overridden), the executive is supposed to follow those rules. Does the President have the right to murder people? If he does so, is the only recourse to impeach him? What if he murders any Senator opposed to him (or all Senators) so he can't b
Re: (Score:2)
Being in the same branch does not necessarily imply a hierarchical relationship between them. The legislative branch sets forth what is going to happen, while actually making it happen is executive. That doesn't mean the executive branch can ignore laws. The legislative branch can also set forth that something is going to happen but leave the exact details of the happening to subject matter experts. This is essentially the framework for a federal agency. Whether it works that way in practice is a separ
Re: (Score:2)
It is part of the executive branch sure, but the President is not the owner of the executive branch. Here are two parts of Article II to consider:
"...faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
and
"...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers o
Realtime memory hole (Score:5, Informative)
Someone at the FCC was watching and [1]modified the website [bsky.app] right after that exchange.
For those of you playing stupid games centered around the word "independent", I will suspend disbelief and assume you are simply ignorant of [2]what the word means [wikipedia.org] in context.
> In a narrower sense, the term refers only to those independent agencies that, while considered part of the executive branch, have regulatory or rulemaking authority and are insulated from presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited.
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/adamkeiper.com/post/3ma7dhwgj7c25
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what do you think other people mean by independent? You keep saying that people are getting it wrong, but then you link to a wikipedia page that says that it means what everyone thinks it means - that the President somehow magically lost control over his subordinates.
According to the Constitution, the President is the executive branch. Everyone else in the executive is his subordinate, using powers delegated by the one elected official. (Yes, I know, the vice president has a teeny tiny little sli
Re: (Score:2)
*Sigh* you either didn't read the wiki or didn't understand it, not only because you think it corroborates what people think, but also because you happen to be one of the people who is getting this wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a legal, political and normative definition, not out of the dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
> The FCC has never been independent, and it's disingenuous to make it sound like they are. At least this is more honest?
I mean, that's just nonsense. Of course it is. It was specifically designed to be. Consider. Brendan Carr is NOT a cabinet member. The FCC is a commission, a word that is derived from Latin explicitly meaning to delegate authority. It has commissioners with terms that do not run concurrently explicitly so that they will not be appointed during the same administration and it was formed with rules about limiting the number of members from any one political party. It was and is independent by design, no matter
Unaccountable (Score:1)
"Independent" has become a euphemism for "unaccountable" particularly to the people. Yet such agencies are allowed to make decisions that affect the people with impunity. That's not how things are supposed to work in a republic (which we are) let alone a democracy (which we aren't).
Re: (Score:2)
You do not appear to understand what a republic or a democracy is, so I'll ignore the last sentence.
"Independent" does not mean unaccountable to the people. The President is independent of Congress, and vice versa, but both are accountable to the people. Well, the current president doesn't seem to think so, but legally he is.
Re: (Score:2)
> You do not appear to understand what a republic or a democracy is, so I'll ignore the last sentence.
That's likely the "Founding Era" use of the terms. In modern terms it would read "That's not how things are supposed to work in a representative democracy (which we are) let alone a direct democracy (which we aren't)."
Said that, in the representative democracy system (read: Founding Era "republic"), elected representatives are by design independent during their term in office and only answer to the people at the time of election. This makes representatives effectively unaccountable during their term and onl
Re: (Score:2)
whom
Re:who (Score:5, Informative)
Independent does not mean unbiased. So your whole straw man about "does an unbiased person exist" is irrelevant.
In this context, an "Independent" agency, is one that is not specifically under the direct control of the executive branch, despite serving an executive function within its area of responsibility. It means that while the executive branch has some administrative responsibilities for the agency, it does not call the shots. Those appointed to lead the agency, by congress and the president, are not shackled to the whims of political theatre. It is a way to help an agency focus on good policy, and not on good political optics (at least to a degree).
Re: (Score:3)
That is the idea that, in Britain, entities like the NHS and the BBC have operated under. Charters specify the responsibilties and duties, and guarantee the funding needed to provide these, but the organisation is (supposed) to carry these out wholly independently of the government of the day.
It actually worked quite well for some time, but has been under increasing pressure and subject to increasing government sabotage over the past 20-25 years.
It's also the idea behind science/engineering research funding
No (Score:5, Informative)
The word "independent" in this context has [1]specific legal meaning [wikipedia.org].
Arguing about plain-use definitions is a waste of time; intentionally trying to confuse people with bullshit is malicious.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_federal_government