WHEN: Today, Thursday, September 18, 2025
WHERE: CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street”
Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC interview with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” (M-F, 9AM-11AM ET) today, Thursday, September 18. Following are links to video on CNBC.com: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/09/18/fcc-chair-brendan-carr-jimmy-kimmel-appeared-to-mislead-public-on-charlie-kirk-killing.html.
All references must be sourced to CNBC.
DAVID FABER: Of course, another story this morning we’ve mentioned a number of times, is Disney, which owns ABC, not that large or important part of the overall company. Nonetheless, it did pull Jimmy Kimmel live off the air yesterday, the late-night show, this after comments by the show’s hosts about the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Now, those comments did prompt a regulatory threat by FCC Chair Brendan Carr. And we’re now joined by Chairman Carr. Good to see you, Chairman. Always nice to have you join us on CNBC. You know, I guess I’d start off by asking, did you play a role in this beyond your public comments? I believe they took place yesterday morning on a podcast in which you said, we can do this the easy way or the hard way in terms of changing conduct on Kimmel, or you said there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead. Was that enough, in your opinion, to spur this move by Disney or were you involved beyond that?
BRENDAN CARR: I think there’s a much bigger shakeup that’s underway right now. I think people, again, try to focus narrowly on the specifics here. But if you just back up, I think ever since President Trump won the election, it’s created a permission structure for markets, including the media market, to rationalize. And again, if you look at the ratings for late-night television, they’ve been in an absolute nosedive for years. But for some reason, these companies felt like they had to continue to subsidize it. And I think that’s ending. And again, I think your viewers get this. But think about the business side of this. You have the national programmers, Disney, that create this content. And you’ve got individualized licensed TV stations all across the country. And they’re required — they’ve been for years required to respond to the needs of their local communities and viewers. I think it was those local communities and viewers that were saying, you know, we don’t like this stuff anymore. And so, Nexstar was the first mover here, said we’re going to preempt this program. We’re going to black it out. Again, that’s what you’re supposed to do, a healthy, functioning market. I think, again, people sort of focus on, you know, narrow specifics. But there’s a much bigger shift that’s taking place right now in the media ecosystem. And frankly, I think that’s a good thing.
FABER: Yes. No, and you mentioned, obviously, Nexstar and Sinclair, and they clearly played a role in the decision by Bob Iger and Dana Walden at Disney to suspend Kimmel. We don’t know for how long, by the way. But I would take issue, perhaps, with your contention somehow that these companies are keeping these broadcasts on the air not because they’re profitable, but for another reason. I mean, I follow these companies closely, as you well know, and have for years. And I can tell you their leaders are very focused on making sure that every opportunity they have to create profits is one that they take. So, you know, they must be still making money in some way. You really believe that it’s simply, what, a partisan move on their part to maintain these broadcasts?
CARR: I think you can certainly make that argument. Just look at Colbert, right? The reporting that came out after Colbert was canceled is that his show was losing $50 million a year. Why were they, you know, losing $50 million? And again, I think there’s a lot of commentary on late-night having shifted dramatically over the last 10 years. It used to be that they would go for laugh lines, and it’s shifted to going for applause lines. They went from being court jesters that made fun of everybody, as should happen, you should parody everybody. Trust me, I’m getting my fair share of parodies. That’s fine.
FABER: Yes.
CARR: But they started replacing that and becoming court clerics and enforcing a very narrow worldview. And I think that just tanked the business model. Again, President Trump has sort of unlocked the ability of companies to say, you know, we need to go a different direction. Just, again, look at the ratings. It’s just not there.
FABER: No, the — but ratings have come down across the board as a result of, of course, people just don’t watch nearly like they did. I mean, I can go back and consult my colleagues to remembering, though, the times of Johnny Carson. Now, again, to that point, Chairman, I mean, you know, the administration in power was typically the subject of most of his jokes, as would seem to be the case now. I mean, these are comedians we’re talking about. This is not the news.
CARR: Well, look, I can tell you, Jimmy Kimmel is no Johnny Carson. And the issue that arose here where lots and lots of people were upset was not a joke. It was not, you know, making fun or pillorying me or the administration or the president, it was appearing to directly mislead the American public about a significant fact that probably one of the most significant political events we’ve had in a long time, certainly the most significant political assassination we’ve seen in a long time. And so, I think that’s categorically different.
FABER: You know, I don’t think anybody’s going to try and defend what Kimmel said. And I certainly defer to the decision making of the company itself in terms of saying this was beyond the bounds. But I do wonder, and I think many people do, whether you really are just targeting comedians who did — you know, who typically, through the years, have made fun of political figures in a way that because the president simply is offended by it.
CARR: No, no, no. Look again, broadcast TV is different. We’re on a cable show right now. You don’t have an FCC license. You don’t have an obligation to serve the public interest. Podcasts don’t either. Stand-up comedians, whether they’re on lots of forms of communications, don’t, and Kimmel is free to do that. But if you have a broadcast TV license, that means that you have something that very few people have and you’re excluding other people from having access to that valuable public resource, and it comes with an obligation to serve the public interest. And again, over the years, there’s been a rule in place at the FCC that local TV stations get to preempt programming that they don’t think meets the needs of their communities. But recently, these national programmers, ABC, Disney, Comcast, NBC, they’ve been exercising outsized control and power over those local TV stations and there’s been no pushback. And this is a very significant moment because local broadcasters are now pushing back on national programmers for the first time that I can think of in modern history. And that’s one of the things we want at the FCC. We want to empower local broadcasters that have the public interest obligation to push back on national programmers so that people have more choice.
CARL QUINTANILLA: That kind of — I mean, it’s interesting. Some people have pulled some of your old posts, Chair Carr, including this one from 2019. Should the government censor speech it doesn’t like? Of course not. The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the, quote, “public interest.” How do you square what you’re saying with those old posts? And is there pressure now, for example, for Comcast to drop Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers the way the president suggested?
CARR: Well, two things. I mean, very, very consistent when it comes to the internet, we want, you know, wide open, robust, you know, debate and there’s no public interest standard there. There’s no licensing obligation there. But again, broadcast TV is simply different, particularly during COVID, we saw this massive surge in censorship on the Internet by Facebook, by previous owners of Twitter. And I pushed back very strongly there. But again, broadcast is different. They’ve got a license and they’re free to go on the Internet and do whatever they want. But if they want to keep access to those valuable airwaves, I’ve been clear, we’re reinvigorating the FCC’s enforcement of public interest. And it’s a good thing. I mean, look, trust in the media is at an all-time low. It used to be more trusted than Congress, at least they could say, but now they’ve fallen beneath Congress. I think, you know, gas station sushi probably pulls better in terms of trust than the legacy broadcast media right now.
JIM CRAMER: Chair Carr, Jim Cramer. According to the New York Times, late Wednesday, I’m just quoting here, “Sinclair, another owner of many local TV stations, said that it would also suspend Mr. Kimmel’s program and call on Mr. Kimmel to apologize and make a meaningful personal donation to Mr. Kirk’s family, the activist political group, Turning Point USA.” Do you think that’s an appropriate remedy of the situation?
CARR: I think Sinclair has every right to call for that. Again, you know, Sinclair affiliates with Disney. They take Disney contract. They have a contractual relationship with Disney, and that’s between the two of them to figure out, you know, what’s going to make sense to make both of them comfortable with the relationship going forward. But again, over the years, it would be unthinkable for Sinclair, for Nextstar, for local TV stations to actually say, you know what, you know, we’re not going to take this particular programming that’s coming out of New York and Hollywood and send it to Pennsylvania and Utah. And so, the idea that local broadcasters feel like they can push back, I think that’s a much, much healthier dynamic for the country right now.
FABER: Chair Carr, while we have you, and I’m not saying we won’t come back to Kimmel, I did want to hit on something I reported a lot on over the last couple of weeks, which was the Spectrum sale, something you and I actually discussed back in May at Milken from EchoStar, two big deals, 23 billion to AT&T, another 17 billion to SpaceX. You know, there are some who believe, including the Wall Street Journal editorial page, I shouldn’t say believe, who question why you didn’t just take the Spectrum back on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer, because, frankly, EchoStar did not do what it said it would with said Spectrum over the years they had it and therefore, garner $40 billion in revenues for the U.S. taxpayer instead of for Charlie Ergen.
CARR: Well, I think, first of all, we would have to make a determination that EchoStar had not, in fact, met their build out milestone. We raised significant questions about that. EchoStar responded to those questions and addressed it. At the end of the day, I just think the public interest was better served by finding a way to load that Spectrum. Again, Spectrum is the key to making everything we have wirelessly connect. It’s going to enable us to do mobile AI, and we need to move more of these airways in a way that’s going to load up the data. In my view, EchoStar wasn’t doing that, and so they’ve now decided to sell a big chunk of the Spectrum to AT&T, another large chunk of Spectrum to Starlink, and it’s going to unlock really great new innovations for the country. One, it’s going to help bring Americans across the digital divide, including in rural parts of the country. And two, this next generation of connectivity, direct-to-sell is going to be part of it, where you go straight from your smartphone right to a satellite. These 50 megahertz of Spectrum is going to unlock that, and I’m just really excited about the potential competition there. And again, I think that’s one where President Trump, we would not have been able to bring this deal together but for his strong leadership.
FABER: And nobody disagrees —
CARR: And again, rather than going through enforcement and revocation for — could be years, right, that Spectrum would have been sidelined. It’s now going to go in the hands of people immediately.
FABER: That’s what I wonder, because, you know, again, it’s not as though people aren’t saying, of course, this is beneficial to get that spectrum used more quickly, and given how long it sat fallow as a result of the inability of EchoStar to build it out, but you feel as though you didn’t have the right necessarily to reclaim those licenses based on the contract as it was already deemed, and then take them back and realize all the money for the U.S. taxpayer?
CARR: That’s right. There were real concerns about whether they met the build-up obligation. They provided more data, more information, and were satisfied that they did meet the build-up obligation. So, there would have been no case to go forward with a license revocation. Even if the data had been different, and you could make an argument that they didn’t meet the obligations, that’s still, you know, three, four, five, six-year protracted process where hundreds of megahertz of Spectrum are not going to get loaded for the American people. So, both because we found they met the build-up obligation and even an alternative universe. Otherwise, you can make the argument that this is a great result because people are going to get connected right now during the Trump administration to new high-speed internet connections. That’s going to drive prices down. So, all of that is a really, really good outcome here.
FABER: Yes. No, and was a good outcome for Charlie Ergen as well, obviously, given EchoStar was on the brink of potentially bankruptcy, certainly if you guys had pulled those licenses. I want to come back to where we started the conversation and Jimmy Kimmel and your contention, perhaps, that these shows do lose money. And we just did a quick look. I mean, the show is supposed to be profitable, Chairman, not necessarily on advertising revenue, as you note, given ratings, but affiliate revenue, carriage deals, YouTube viewership apparently quite high. You know, again, I guess I just pushed back on the idea that these companies are keeping these shows on the air to score political points somehow, as opposed to because they think they actually make the money.
CARR: Look, we know for sure with more data coming out on Colbert that they were losing money. Happy to take a look more at Kimmel. Obviously, the ratings are where they are. They’ve been going through the floor. But again, this is a decision for local broadcast TV stations to make. Are they going to lose their own advertisers because people don’t want to be associated with that Kimmel programming? You know, again, we’re talking about varied parts of the country with different values. And I’m pleased that Nexstar and Sinclair are looking to their viewers and saying, our viewers don’t want this, and so we’re not going to run it anymore. So even if it is profitable, if the viewers don’t want it, you know, that’s the ultimate judgment there.
QUINTANILLA: And again, I had asked earlier about Fallon and Seth Meyers, but is the president’s view that they should also be taken off the air, shared by the FCC?
CARR: Well, I don’t speak for the president. So obviously, you know, he speaks for himself on that. Our goal and our obligation here is to make sure that broadcasters are serving the public interest. And if there’s local TV stations that don’t think that running that programming does it, then they have every right under the law in their contracts to preempt it. And we’ll see how this plays out. But I do think that, again, we’re in the midst of a massive shift in dynamics in the media ecosystem for lots of reasons, again, including the permission structure that President Trump’s election has provided. And I would simply say we’re not done yet with seeing the consequences of that shift.
FABER: Well, what does that mean when you say you’re not done yet? And I mean, will you only be pleased when none of these comedians have a show on broadcast television?
CARR: No, again, it’s not about any particular show or any particular person, it’s just we’re in the midst of a very disruptive moment right now. And I just frankly expect that we’re going to continue to see changes in the media ecosystem.
CRAMER: Chair Carr, I’m not sure I want to do this or not, but should the government have someone who reviews the writers before the host says something?
CARR: No.
CRAMER: How would you be sure that the host is saying something that you would think is OK?
CARR: That’s not my — it’s not up to me. The way this works is that the local broadcast station is supposed to be responsible for the content. So, the check on that content is not the government, it’s not me here at the FCC, it’s your local TV station in Provo, Utah. It’s your local TV station in Scranton. It’s on them. Under the law, they’re responsible for the content. They’re responsible for judging whether they think it’s in the public interest or serves the needs of their local communities. Not for me to decide. But I’m very pleased that they feel empowered to stand up to Disney and Comcast in the appropriate cases.
FABER: Yes. Chairman Carr, I always appreciate you taking the time, having the conversation with us. Thank you.
CARR: Yes, I really enjoyed it. Thank you so much, folks.
FABER: Of course. Quick disclosure, by the way, of course, as our viewers know, Comcast, still the parent company of NBCUniversal, still owns CNBC. Now, Versant is going to become the new parent company of CNBC. That is upon completion of the planned spinoff, probably very early next year.
For more information contact:
Jennifer Dauble
CNBC
t: 201.735.4721
m: 201.615.2787
Stephanie Hirlemann
CNBC
m: 201.397.2838