Disney fights – Anna M. Gomez, the sole Democrat on the FCC, says the commission’s latest pressure campaign is aimed at silencing viewpoints—pointing to a complaint linked to an ABC program airing on a Disney-owned Texas station. Disney, unlike other media companies, has opte
When Anna M. Gomez talks about the FCC in 2026, she doesn’t describe a routine bureaucratic dispute. She describes a campaign. And she places the line for that campaign directly at the feet of Brendan Carr, the FCC chair.
Gomez, the sole Democrat on the commission, says “a large part of my role is to call out this administration’s abuses of the First Amendment,” especially when she believes the FCC is being “weaponize[d]…to shut down any voices that it doesn’t like.” Her term is set to end on June 30.
She argues that the FCC’s current posture can’t be understood as normal governance. At the moment, there are only three commissioners at the FCC. Normally there would be five. Two resigned last year, and the Trump administration has not nominated replacements.
On a First Amendment tour, Gomez has been telling Americans why she believes the FCC’s actions are “egregious.” And Disney, unlike other media companies, has responded by “lawyered up to fight against the FCC’s latest demands.”
That contrast—between companies that settle quickly and companies that push back—has become a central part of the story Gomez tells on “What Next: TBD,” hosted by Lizzie O’Leary. The conversation was edited and condensed for clarity.
O’Leary asked how broadcast affiliates work. Gomez explained that although Disney owns and operates only eight stations nationwide. there are hundreds of ABC affiliates because ABC reaches “hundreds of markets all over this country.” Those affiliates are owned independently by other broadcasters. ranging from large players to smaller ones.
The friction, Gomez says, started with a specific FCC move. She describes the FCC manufacturing a complaint against a Disney station in Texas that carried “The View.” In that broadcast, Gomez says the program included the Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico.
She then points to a larger decision she says the FCC made: instead of going after other ABC affiliates that also aired the program. the FCC “went to the nonowned affiliates in the market” and told them to file. In Gomez’s telling. the FCC also told those affiliates “we’re not going to hold it against you because of this alleged violation.”.
But Disney—she says—was treated differently. Gomez describes the FCC’s next step as using the fact that other affiliates filed as a basis to initiate an investigation against the one Disney-owned station. To her, that sequence is not a fair regulatory process.
“This to me is a setup,” Gomez said. “Some would call that entrapment. It’s where the FCC manufactures an issue and coordinates with the other stations so that only the Disney-owned station is the outlier.” She argues the central issue is retaliation for viewpoints.
When O’Leary pressed her on how such an approach could be legal. Gomez’s answer was direct: “It’s not. It’s absolutely unlawful. Not only is it unlawful. it is also unconstitutional.” She says the FCC is challenging First Amendment rights across broadcasters. the talent. and the press. She adds that the FCC is “explicitly prohibited from censoring broadcasters,” but that these actions are, in her view, censorship.
In the conversation. O’Leary framed the FCC as acting like a system that demands obedience—likening it to a scenario where comedians get punished if they don’t fall in line. Gomez agreed. She said the administration “cannot tolerate anything that is critical of it. ” and that it is “weaponizing any tool in its toolbox…in order to go after the press and to go after the media.”.
She also argues the pressure is meant to force capitulation. “It is clear that this is absolute harassment in order to get Disney to capitulate,” she said.
But she says Disney is not giving in. “The good news is that Disney is not capitulating,” Gomez told O’Leary. She says Disney has “shown courage” by standing up for First Amendment rights and pushing back. In Gomez’s view, if the dispute “goes to court,” the FCC will lose.
Still, the show doesn’t avoid the reason some viewers might wonder whether this fight is truly different. Gomez points to Disney’s earlier decision to settle—saying Disney “capitulate[d] very early on” after it settled the case against ABC tied to the George Stephanopoulos interview. She says legal scholars said there was “no basis for this case,” but that it still proceeded to settlement. That choice, she says, “opened the door” for more future actions against the media.
Gomez’s core message is that she thinks settlement doesn’t stop the pressure. “Capitulation doesn’t buy you protection,” she said. “It might buy you some time, but they will keep coming back and coming back for more.”
The conversation also widened beyond broadcasting. O’Leary asked how this campaign affects television and whether it’s about pressuring tech platforms. Gomez responded by describing what she sees as a broader pattern of censorship and control—citing social media and the Federal Trade Commission.
She said the Federal Trade Commission used the fact that “there were two ad agencies merging” to force them to carry ads on Twitter. which they had stopped carrying because of content they found harmful to their clients’ interests. Gomez called that forced speech and said it would be a First Amendment violation.
From her perspective, the regulatory and legal battles are not incidental—they’re part of the plan. Gomez said she believes the administration is sending a signal: companies can win time in court. but “litigation and regulatory investigations are costly.” She added that corporate parents often choose to settle because it is “less painful to settle and to capitulate than it is to fight.”.
In her telling, the process is the point. “The process is the point, the pain is the point, the threat is the point,” she said, arguing that the administration wants enough cost and pressure to force companies to give up before a dispute reaches its conclusion.
She says the message is aimed across media and institutions—“whether it’s to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, universities, law firms, or broadcasters”—and that officials would go after anyone who speaks out.
For now, Disney’s stance is the clearest public difference in the picture Gomez draws. She frames it as a refusal to fold under pressure, not just a dispute about a single complaint. And she points back to the moment where. she says. the FCC changed its focus—manufacturing a complaint tied to “The View” and James Talarico on a Disney-owned station in Texas—then using the filings of other affiliates to move the investigation forward.
Gomez will leave the FCC on June 30. Whether Disney’s legal push changes the momentum of the commission’s posture—especially in a case that she believes could land in court—will determine whether her warnings land as prediction or as history.
Disney FCC Anna M. Gomez Brendan Carr ABC affiliates The View James Talarico First Amendment George Stephanopoulos forced speech Twitter Federal Trade Commission June 30