The Trump admin's playbook of coercion comes into focus
Sometimes one event brings clarity to other, more ambiguous, actions. ABC’s indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel is such an event.
By threatening ABC over a comedian’s on-air comments, Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr violated core First Amendment limits on the government. And this event is simply the latest example of a playbook that has already been weaponized against law firms and universities.
The offending key line from Kimmel?
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
Whether that’s true or false, it’s speech.
When it comes to speech, the government’s legitimate responses are limited. It can argue, persuade and even criticize. But it can’t use official power — licenses, funding, investigations — to intimidate people or businesses into silencing views the government dislikes.
Two days after Kimmel’s show, Carr said on a conservative podcast that Kimmel’s remarks had been part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people.” And, he said, the FCC is “going to have remedies that we can look at.”
He encouraged local stations — themselves FCC-licensed — to push back. And he left no doubt that he wanted action taken against Kimmel: “Frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
Within hours, Nexstar, an owner of ABC affiliates with a $6.2 billion acquisition pending government review, pulled Kimmel’s show “for the foreseeable future.” And hours after that, ABC announced it was indefinitely suspending Kimmel’s show.
While ABC changed course within days, that doesn’t affect how we judge government conduct. Nor does Carr’s later denial that he meant to threaten anyone’s license; what’s important is how a reasonable license recipient would have understood it — and how it reveals the current government playbook.
Carr’s statements crossed a line clearly established by the Supreme Court.
“Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a unanimous 2024 opinion in favor of the National Rifle Association.
It’s one thing for government officials to use persuasion. Persuasion sounds like, “we disagree, and here’s why.”
But when the person who controls your broadcast license enters the fray threatening action because of your speech, it’s not a clash of ideas anymore. It’s the government using leverage to get a result through means that violate the Constitution.
The Kimmel case provides a clear example of conduct that violates the First Amendment. But the government playbook in the Trump administration has consistently emphasized leveraging government benefits and threats to get other actors to do what the administration wants.
Pulling funds and threatening investigations has been brought to bear against universities across the country. Some have taken the government to court, often achieving court rulings that the government had overreached, while others have settled and still others simply worry and keep their heads down as far as possible.
Universities have many roles, but expanding knowledge and testing ideas are core principles — not enforcing the party line, whether it’s left, right or center. But when funding or political threats seek to force schools to change who can study there, what professors can say, or what programs can exist, students and faculty learn the wrong lessons: keep your head down, avoid hard topics and don’t risk speaking out.
That’s not what universities are for. Nor is it what we want from educators who are paid by taxpayers. Educators should be encouraged to share their knowledge and experience, not to hide it.
Similar government leverage has been used against law firms, often because of clients the firms have represented. Some firms have taken the government to the court and, once again, won court rulings. But others settled rather than risk damage to the firm or its clients.
The harm is to the public. Our justice system depends on everyone having a voice.
When government officials threaten investigations or contracts to make firms drop clients or arguments, there’s harm to the public’s right to have disputes decided on the merits. If the government can scare lawyers away from some clients, anyone’s rights could be the next to be in danger.
So where do we go from here? All of us need to remember that the rule of law isn’t just an abstract concept. It’s a promise that the same rule will apply even when emotions run hot or when your views are disfavored by the government. You need not agree with Kimmel, a university president or a law firm’s client list to insist that the government follow the rules.
In fact, that’s when it matters most.