Are Companies Done Capitulating To Trump?

Added: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]The first year of this administration we saw a lot of corporate capitulation [music] and a lot of other entities capitulating.

[00:00:08]But what we have also seen like I said is we've seen courage and courage does beget courage and we've seen >> cowards?

[00:00:16]>> I think well I would say it's more corporate self-interest.

[00:00:21]Um not paying attention to >> not [music] paying attention to the fact that they are actually weakening our democracy but I think people are waking up and I'm seeing that. I'm seeing that in more pushback [music] because it is a danger to our democracy but also because what everyone has learned is that capitulation doesn't stop the administration [music] from coming back and demanding more and more and more.

[00:00:53]>> Uh Commissioner Anna Gomez, welcome to the show.

[00:00:56]>> Thank you. It's good to be with you.

[00:00:57]>> Would you say it's fair to describe your job now as playing whack-a-mole against whatever Brendan Carr decides to do?

[00:01:08]>> So a large part of my role is to call out this administration's abuses of the First Amendment particularly when it chooses to weaponize the FCC in trying to shut down any voices that it doesn't like and we see this constantly. There is a constant infringement on the free press and on the First Amendment and on the rights of viewers and listeners to see and hear what they want to see and hear.

[00:01:33]>> I mean I covered the FCC back in the day. There would be in in a normal world five of you. There are three of you now.

[00:01:39]You're the lone Democrat.

[00:01:42]I was listening to you in a previous interview with Kara Swisher and you talked about what you see as the most egregious violation of how things should work. What what do you choose as most egregious?

[00:01:54]>> Well the most egregious violation is the actions that this FCC has taken against Disney, particularly most recently when the day after the White House called for Jimmy Kimmel to be taken off the air. Uh this FCC ordered Disney to renew early the licenses for eight of its local broadcast stations. And why that matters is because the FCC's only regulatory hook over broadcasters is over the licensing of the airwaves for these broadcast stations.

[00:02:28]>> Right, they can't do anything to Disney, Jimmy Kimmel directly.

[00:02:31]>> There is nothing this FCC can do to Disney, but it certainly hasn't stopped it from trying time and time again, and it has taken a multiple actions against Disney and its local broadcast stations, whether it's initiating an investigation into The View or um uh re-upping a complaint that had been filed about the uh moderation of the debate, the presidential debate back in 2024 uh and keeping that open in it in this entire time, even though it was clear that that was not a valid complaint. But the this is the most egregious because it it is actually putting licenses at risk, which is what this president has been demanding that the FCC do against its critics. Um and in in having these uh proceedings to renew the licenses early, it basically threatens Disney and says, "This is what we can do to you, and we can put you through a lot of pain even though it's too early because those license renewals weren't due for at least 2 years and as long as 5 years from now."

[00:03:35]Um and it's directly meant to influence Disney's decisions on the content of its broadcasts.

[00:03:43]>> I think we should explain for our audience kind of how TV affiliates work, cuz it's this really complicated system, right? Like ABC owns and operates some of them, but then a bunch of them are independent.

[00:03:56]What do you think people should understand just about how the affiliate system works?

[00:04:01]>> Yes, that's correct. Although Disney owns and operates only eight stations nationwide, there are there are hundreds of ABC affiliates because there's hundreds of markets all over this country. And they're owned independently by other broadcasters.

[00:04:19]Some of those broadcasters are quite large, and some of them are very small.

[00:04:24]And so, one of the things that this FCC did was it manufactured a complaint against the one Disney station, for example, in Texas that carried a a program Sorry, that that carried The View.

[00:04:45]>> Mhm.

[00:04:46]>> Um, and although there were multiple ABC stations that carried that particular program of The View, that that program of The View had a had James Talerico on it, and that was what the FCC was investigating. Yes, and we can go into the equal time rule and all of that. But, my point is, there are there were tons of other ABC affiliates that also could have had this complaint lodged against them, but the FCC, and this is really shocking, and we learned this in the in a filing that Disney made to us recently, what the FCC did was it went to the non-owned affiliates in the market at issue, and it said to them, "We want you to file with us, and we're not going to hold it against you it because of this alleged violation."

[00:05:38]They didn't go to Disney and say that.

[00:05:40]They didn't say, "Disney, we want you to file with us." Instead, it went they went to the other affiliates that are not owned by Disney. And then it used the fact that those affiliates filed and some of them filed under protest, I will note. It used the fact that they other affiliates filed as a reason to initiate this investigation against the one Disney-owned station. That to me is a setup. Some would call that entrapment.

[00:06:03]It's where the FCC manufactures an issue, coordinates with the other stations so that only Disney is the outlier. Only the Disney-owned station is the outlier. Um and this is why it is so egregious what this FCC is doing is because it is clearly targeting Disney in retaliation for its viewpoints.

[00:06:23]>> Maybe this is a stupid question. I'm not a lawyer, you are. How is that legal?

[00:06:28]>> It's not. It's absolutely unlawful. Not only is it unlawful, it's unconstitutional.

[00:06:32]Because what the FCC is doing is it's challenging the First Amendment rights of the broadcasters, the talent, the press, um through all of these actions. And we are explicitly prohibiting from censoring broadcasters, but this is censorship.

[00:06:49]>> So I think it might be important to explain why to normal people, I sorry for using a strong word, but this feels like a shakedown. This feels like the emperor doesn't like these comedians, whether it's Jimmy Kimmel or Joy Behar, and if you don't do something, we're going to take away your affiliate licenses. Is that Is that a fair reading?

[00:07:11]>> No, it's absolutely a fair reading. This administration cannot tolerate anything that is critical of it, that doesn't that doesn't mention its worldview.

[00:07:23]Um and it is weaponizing any tool in its toolbox, whether it's the FCC, the FTC, um the the DOD, the Department of Defense, in order to go after the press and to go after uh media in general that it doesn't like.

[00:07:42]And it is clear that this is absolute harassment in order to get Disney to capitulate. The good news is that Disney is not capitulating. It has actually shown courage. It has decided to stand up for its First Amendment rights and to push back. And if this gets carried out to its conclusion, and by that I mean it goes to court, the FCC will lose.

[00:08:03]>> Yeah, I was struck um it seems like Disney's new leadership might agree with you. You wrote a letter to them and and they added in a recent FCC filing that some may dislike certain or even most of the viewpoints expressed on The View or similar shows, but such dislike, however, cannot justify using regulatory processes to restrict those views.

[00:08:25]Is Disney finding a spine or can Disney read a poll?

[00:08:31]>> You know, for whatever reason Disney has in fact found its fine. And I think part of that, of course, is that we saw Disney capitulate very early on when it settled the case um against ABC because of the um George Stephanopoulos interview. Um and legal scholars said this there is no basis for this case, but it went ahead and settled it. And that opened the door to all of this these future actions to throughout uh against the media. Um and I think what Disney learned is that capitulation doesn't buy you protection.

[00:09:08]It might buy you some time, but they will keep coming back and coming back for more because what they demand is absolute allegiance to this administration and nothing else.

[00:09:18]>> Whether or not you pay $15 and apologize.

[00:09:21]>> Exactly.

[00:09:23]>> So, the thing that I'm curious about and what I what I really wanted to get your thoughts on is not just where this impacts TV, right? We have seen this pattern repeatedly in TV.

[00:09:35]But linear TV, while it still makes a lot of money, is dying.

[00:09:40]How much of this campaign is about pressuring tech platforms?

[00:09:47]>> You know, like I said, there is a absolute campaign by this administration to censor and control any media outlet using whatever levers it has at its power. So, for example, uh let's look at uh social media. Um 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 doing because of some of the content that they found to be harmful to their clients' uh interests.

[00:10:20]Um and that is forced speech. That is a First Amendment violation. So, I do believe that this administration is sending a signal because uh what I what I tell people is we have seen media companies win time and time again against this administration when they go to court.

[00:10:38]But, litigation and regulatory investigations are costly. And a lot of companies, corporate corporate parents, make the decision that it is actually less painful to settle and to capitulate than it is to fight.

[00:10:56]So, the process is the point. The pain is the point. The threat is the point.

[00:11:02]They don't want this to be carried out to its fruition.

[00:11:05]They want it to just force a company in enough pain so that they will capitulate. Now, I think this is a signal to every every part of media that they will do this to them, whether it's to the New York Times, to the Wall Street Journal, to the universities, to law firms, to broadcasters.

[00:11:30]Um they will go after anyone that speaks out against them.

[00:11:33]>> But as you've said, a lot of these cases do not hold up in court, right? Like once the legal process moves through, the administration loses.

[00:11:42]But I wonder at that point, like what is left? Is this about the court case or is this really just about demoralizing, costing a lot of money, costing people customers, and kind of getting the public to say like, "Ugh, this sucks. I don't care anymore."

[00:11:59]>> Yeah, no. Like I said, the threat is the point. It really is about making it as painful as possible for these companies until they capitulate. But I am heartened. I'm heartened by the pushback that we have seen from individuals, individual companies, individual publishers, and by Disney in fighting back because this is what they need to do. This is why I wrote my letter to Disney. This is why I embarked on a First Amendment tour a year ago because I was so alarmed by what I was seeing, and I've been warning people for a long time, and it's finally starting to catch on that if they don't push back, we are going to have weakened constitutional protections, and our democracy is going to be harmed by this. So, if Disney carries us through, and everything that I see makes me think that they will.

[00:12:46]They hired a fantastic lawyer, and they wrote a really great brief what that they filed before the FCC that is clearly signaling that they will take this to court if the FCC decides to take some adverse action against them. And if they do that, they will win.

[00:13:03]>> Have you talked to Josh tomorrow, Disney's new CEO?

[00:13:06]>> I have not.

[00:13:08]>> Um >> Other than my letter, of course.

[00:13:10]>> Yes, yes.

[00:13:12]When you do these First Amendment sessions, like what do you hear from people?

[00:13:17]>> Yeah, I've been all over the country.

[00:13:19]I've been in small markets, I've been in large markets. Um, I talk to uh uh free speech advocates. I talk to reporters, I talked to broadcasters, I talked to scholars, and everything that I hear is people are nervous, particularly broadcasters. And it's really disheartening for me when every time I I talk to a local broadcaster, the first question I get asked is what can I say? Is this going to get me into trouble?

[00:13:49]And my response to them is always the same. My role as your regulator is not to tell you what you can say. My role is to ensure that we have competition and a diversity of viewpoints so that people can see and hear what they want to hear and what they choose to hear and not that they are fed media that is basically nationalized and only providing you one point of view.

[00:14:12]That is the danger.

[00:14:14]>> I think that if we were to look ahead a little bit, one question I have is whether this is um a sort of a test run for internet content regulation because while the FCC does not regulate the internet, you do have spectrum auctions, uh the sort of guts of the internet very much fall under FCC purview. And I guess I wonder if you are Google, if you're TikTok, if you're Meta, um will you learn that if you oppose the government in one place, you're not going to get your DOD contract? Like is that the next step? Is that the end game?

[00:14:53]>> [snorts] >> You know, base base on everything that we've seen, the this administration will use any lever of power and it is using government contracts in order to change voices. You know, it did that with the universities for example and grants which are a form of government contract.

[00:15:12]It it so yes, I mean anyone who's watching know can see that this administration only wants its voice out there and doesn't want anyone else's voice, any dissent whatsoever.

[00:15:25]So, any leverage, they are going to use it. The FCC is already used its leverage over mergers in order to force companies to drop its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. And what I tell people is there is a First Amendment component to these programs because it is telling companies what they what their employees can say, who they can associate with.

[00:15:51]Um there is speech there. Besides the fact that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are actually good for the companies themselves, for their bottom lines, but they're also for the productivity of their workforce. It doesn't matter. We are absolutely weaponizing our merger uh authorization authority in order to force companies to drop that. We weaponized our merger authority when we forced Paramount to uh uh impose a uh ombuds person to oversee complaints for all of its content, not just the not just the uh news organization, but all of its content. Um and that was absolutely an unlawful move on our part, but it was treated as if it was a voluntary concession on Paramount's part. And not never reviewed in court. So, you know, your question is a valid question.

[00:16:42]Will they use our government contracting authority? Will they use DOD's contracting authority? We've already seen where DOD has gone after a company absolutely in retribution for their standing up for their own morals.

[00:16:55]>> I assume you mean Anthropic.

[00:16:56]>> Yes.

[00:16:57]>> Um but can't you argue that the administration won? I mean, Stephen Colbert is off the air, right? Shari Redstone, David Ellison, they got the merger that they wanted and it looks like maybe Brendan Carr won that round.

[00:17:15]>> You know, the FCC the the administration has been able to get its way in a variety of ways, but when it gets challenged in court, it loses. And then it tries to skirt around those legal decisions, and the judges are really, I think, at the end of their rope with this administration with regard to that. For example, you know, the DOD forcing reporters to go I don't know, stand in tents. I don't know where exactly they've put them in order to be able to circumvent the judges' decision that they in fact could not impose uh restrictions on the press because they don't like what the press reports.

[00:17:51]Um same thing with the AP. The AP won its case against the White House when the White House tried to bar them from the uh from the press pool um because it refused to use uh the administration's preferred term for the Gulf of Mexico. Um so, they are finding ways around it, but it That is why I continue to sound the alarm that this capitulation is actually harmful in the grand scheme of things, and that is why we are really at an inflection point here. Whether companies decide that they're going to give up their First Amendment rights or they're actually going to do something to protect them. And I'm happy to see that Disney seems to be on the latter side. What What can you do though besides write letters? You don't have a lot of power.

[00:18:43]You know, I do whatever I can to call out attention.

[00:18:48]Um whether it's the letters, whether it's my First Amendment tour, whether it's speaking to you, because I want everyone to know what is happening and that it is not normal, and it is not right.

[00:19:01]>> I think one aspect of this that may be going under examined is kind of the fallout from some of these mergers, right? Like let's if we are in the final phases of the WBD Paramount merger, what happens to working people in Hollywood? Like this is a a question that I get a lot from people who are in LA and who are thinking about the city of LA and how it moves forward. They are extremely worried about the economy behind the scenes, the economy of people who make movies.

[00:19:39]Do you think that is something where we're going to be seeing a concerning impact?

[00:19:44]>> You know, I have been speaking out against the danger of media consolidation uh because of a lot of the issues that come with it, whether it's um what you know, the company enacting what they call synergies, which is just another word for layoffs.

[00:20:00]Uh um but also the loss of viewpoints, the uh the loss of in in with regard to the broadcasters that merge, not not Paramount and and uh Warner Brothers, but the loss of local news. Um and the loss of diversity of viewpoints is really important. They are now uh controlling or or many of these national broadcasters are controlling more than one station in the local market, which means if you have two or three stations owned by the same broadcaster, if they're enacting synergies, that means that the newsrooms are being overseen by one entity. You know, the same reporters are being used. Uh you know, they can talk about the fact that they they they save money in facilities, but in the end, it's really the viewers and the listeners that are impacted. Same thing with regard to Paramount Warner Brothers is yes, um there will be synergies that are going to be implemented, and how that is implemented will absolutely affect everyone in the ecosystem, including the viewers of that content.

[00:21:08]And with regard to the FCC, because we don't actually authorize that merger, there's no license transfer because there's no local broadcaster involved here, there is, however, a foreign ownership component of this.

[00:21:24]It's kind of a long story, but Paramount has um is paying for this transaction with about 50 billion dollars sovereign wealth funds. But this is very, very debt heavy deal. Very debt heavy deal, and these are uh sovereign wealth funds from Qatar, from the Saudis, um and uh and also um on and off, we don't know whether it's going to be from Tencent, which is Chinese uh controlled.

[00:21:59]Um what that means is that about half of the debt of that is being that is being owned. This will This will lead to indirect ownership by these sovereign controlled funds.

[00:22:15]That is going to affect what content is shown and is developed because even if it's indirect ownership, it's going to lead to decisions by Paramount about what to put on, what to show, and some of these countries are not friendly to journalists. They are in fact rated some of the worst countries in the world for press freedom.

[00:22:42]So, any of the creators should be nervous about that. That is why I called for the FCC to be very transparent in its review of this content. We have to wave. We have to approve any indirect foreign ownership over 25%.

[00:23:00]Paramount has asked for i- uh for an approval up to 100% because it just doesn't want to have to deal with coming back to the FCC if it goes above the 50% it's always already requested.

[00:23:14]>> [snorts] >> That is opening the door to China coming in and to other countries that are not friendly to our content and that are going to try to control with that level of financing, it is it is unimaginable that in fact they won't seek to control what it is that Warner Brothers develops in the future if it's in fact controlled by Paramount.

[00:23:36]>> Um I want to talk to you a little bit about internet infrastructure because this is I think a a part of the FCC that doesn't get as much scrutiny as the other parts. So, that includes the rural broadband subsidy which has been going on for a long time. Um surprise surprise, Elon Musk and SpaceX would like to kill the rural broadband subsidy and fill that gap with Starlink.

[00:24:03]On the one hand, that might sound great to some listeners that like, oh actually I could get a Starlink terminal, I could do this for my home.

[00:24:12]Is that appropriate?

[00:24:16]>> So, I will say this. Starlink is a really good service. It's a really good service for places that cannot be accessed by fiber.

[00:24:25]Um fiber is the gold standard. It is It is high capacity. It is scalable.

[00:24:31]Um it has low latency. Um and we do provide support in areas that are too costly to serve either because they don't have the population density necessary or it's such a a wide geography that it just takes more to get to individuals in those areas.

[00:24:53]And they're really too costly to serve without some type of government support.

[00:24:59]We should continue to provide that support. My concern about Starlink is it is capacity limited. We have taken actions to make that type of satellite service more high-powered, allow additional satellites, which will reduce the issue, but it's not going to ever eliminate it altogether. So, if we were to drive all these rural companies into bankruptcy by taking away the support because that is what would happen because the government has decided that we need to support it, we need to subsidize it in order for it to be able to provide its service, it won't be able to handle the traffic, number one. Number two, not everyone can access it.

[00:25:39]You can't access um uh Starlink if you have dense foliage, for example. There's mountain issues. If you're in a city, which is not a rural area, but it's still you can't access Starlink uh a lot of the time. And so, we will then be taking away the only service available to these customers it that cannot access Starlink in order to uh in order to eliminate this support. And finally, what we have seen with Starlink, and like I said, there they have capacity limitations. We already see that they are doing surge pricing in certain areas because they are such reaching their capacity.

[00:26:19]>> And then totally, you come back again.

[00:26:22]>> They'll they will become less affordable. Um and affordability is really important. The law requires us to make sure that there is access to customers at reasonably comparable prices as there would be in in urban areas. And if if Starlink has to implement surge pricing, then you're not meeting that requirement. So, I have a lot of concerns about Starlink wanting to just eliminate the universal service fund because it says, "Hey, we're available everywhere." Right. You are available. You're not necessarily accessible because of the technical limitations of accessing satellites, and more importantly, um you're not affordable, and you don't have the capacity to handle every single customer being served by every rural provider everywhere in in the country.

[00:27:14]>> But how could Americans even trust any rule making that comes out of the FCC when Elon Musk was a special government employee, donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the president's election?

[00:27:26]Like, it just it feels like anything that comes out of that would stink.

[00:27:33]>> Well, I'm happy to say that even though Starlink requested that we just issued a a new rule making on what to do with this fund that subsidizes rural providers, because a lot of it is expiring and you know, it's just good to to to take a look at it.

[00:27:50]Starlink requested that we had a lot of questions, basically saying we don't need this anymore.

[00:27:55]None of the commissioners voted on that.

[00:27:58]So, there are questions about what to do with the fact that we now have satellite and fixed wireless is another another technology, um and how to take that into account as we move forward.

[00:28:12]But Starlink did not get what it wanted in this one.

[00:28:15]>> Let me ask you about data centers in space, which sounds like such a fantastical idea, but we've had multiple space and satellite companies filing applications with the commission seeking authorization to deploy satellites for what are called orbital data centers. Um I know there's a lot of work to be done, but how are you thinking about the idea of data centers in space? Data centers poll in a very unpopular way uh when they are terrestrial. I'm curious how you think this might work, might not work, what kind of framework might emerge?

[00:28:53]>> Yeah. Well, I mean, we're at the very beginning of looking at this because and you're right, we have multiple applications for data center satellites that will far outnumber the satellites that we have in space right now if all of them were approved today.

[00:29:14]Um and there's a lot of concerns and a lot of questions about well, how exactly would that work? How do we make sure that we get we have a orbital debris, which is basically space trash.

[00:29:27]You know, how how do we make sure that we protect that? Environmental groups are coming in and saying there's some environmental consequences here, which we haven't really looked at before because we have never seen something of this massive scale. And then we have our international obligations because space is inherently international.

[00:29:44]And the way we and work with each other, it's all working so far, but this is asking a lot. And so we're at the beginnings of looking at that, but we do need to consider the many implications that come just from a technical perspective from having that many satellites out there.

[00:30:04]>> We began this conversation talking about Disney and I want to return to that for a second because the chairman posted a a letter online basically saying, "Hey, public. This is a public notice. You can file a comment on the question of whether The View is a bonafide news and interview program. And I don't want to let this interview go by without asking you if if The View is a news show."

[00:30:33]>> So, one of the things that we learned from um the Disney uh filing that we got I can't remember, 2 weeks ago, ish, um, was that in fact they had gotten a ruling from the FCC that The View was what's called a bonafide news interview show.

[00:30:55]And to explain that really quickly, we have this rule that's based in the law that, uh, if a broadcaster has a candidate, um, on on its station, then it has to provide the opportunity for equal time to all the other candidates in that particular election.

[00:31:16]But Congress wrote an exception to that law, and we implemented it in our rule, and that is that if you are a bonafide news program, uh, or have a bonafide news interview, then you are exempt from that requirement. So Disney already had that ruling from the FCC.

[00:31:38]But this goes back to my discussion about the shocking way that the FCC went about going after this particular, uh, program on The View. Uh, because the FCC just ignored that, and it demanded that Disney file with the FCC basically a petition asking the FCC to to declare that it is a bonafide news interview program.

[00:32:04]Why do we allow bonafide news and bonafide news interviews? It's because it Congress recognized that if you had to have every single candidate on the show or give it similar time, it would become, uh, unreasonable. You know, you in in California, you have dozens and dozens and dozens of candidates. And so what will happen is without this bonafide news exemption, or news interview exemption, what you're going to have is that these broadcasters are just going to choose to stop having the candidates themselves on the shows because it's just not worth it for them to have to try to to juggle all of this all of this uh uh candidates and all of these different elections in order to uh meet the FCC's requirements.

[00:32:54]Um so, what really appalled me about the fact that the FCC issued this this uh call for comments is that what we're doing really is we're ginning up dissent. We're ginning up complaints because I guarantee you what I'm going to hear next is I'm going to see an order that says, "Nope. We've heard from plenty of people that think you're partisan and therefore you're not entitled to this exemption." Um this is by the way what they did with the 60 Minutes interview that Paramount had uh with Kamala Harris where they literally sought comment, the FCC sought comment on the on the um broadcast itself and said, "Don't you think this violates the our rules?"

[00:33:39]That is what I call enforcement by mob.

[00:33:42]I'm calling this public notice the same thing, ruling by mob because >> I mean, but that was so clearly in you know, that was so clearly an effort to say, "If you don't do this, we will not approve your merger."

[00:33:54]>> Yeah.

[00:33:55]Y- yeah, no, that was definitely harassment, too. Um in this case, this is more uh they are asking uh for people to file with us and to complain that they think that this is partisan.

[00:34:08]To be to be clear, the reason they want to declare the view to be partisan is because the test for whether you are qualify for the bonafide uh news interview exemption is uh both that the um the station or the or for the broadcaster has determined that there is in fact a newsworthiness to interviewing this particular candidate and the interview itself is not being done to either help or hinder a particular candidate. But you know, when the public just hears partisan, they hear what partisan groups have been saying, which is that The View's too liberal, they only have liberals on. But another thing that we learned from Disney in their filing is that they have invited a lot of conservative people and members of this administration and they have all declined to appear on The View.

[00:35:05]So again, this administration is manufacturing a reason to go after Disney because of content it doesn't like.

[00:35:15]>> So I think one of the questions I have for you as someone who is inside the commission is how much of this feels like the execution of a plan. After all, the chairman Brendan Carr wrote the section of Project 2025 on the FCC.

[00:35:32]And how much of this is scattershot retribution for something that President Trump saw on TV and didn't like?

[00:35:41]>> Well, it's clear that this FCC reacts as soon as the president complains about something.

[00:35:46]Um it did so when it went after uh the Disney licenses recently. Um it did so when it basically said, "Yes, we're going to allow this one broadcast merger" immediately after uh the White House tweeted support for a particular broadcast merger. There is clear direction coming from the White House.

[00:36:06]Um and there are partisan organizations that themselves have actually said that they file at the FCC when the president calls for a complaint uh or for an action to be taken. They file a complaint with the FCC. There is a clear coordinated strategy against broadcasters and against in in Disney and also Comcast NBC Universal because this president does not like the content of their late night shows, their daytime shows, their news broadcasts, or whatever.

[00:36:39]>> How is your personal relationship with Chairman Pai? Because I I've seen him quoted saying things like good for her when you speak out. Like how How's your working relationship?

[00:36:49]>> We actually work very well together. I don't talk about the chairman or you know, our discussions or anything like that. There's a certain level of respect that we have for that.

[00:36:58]But we do have a good working relationship.

[00:37:01]>> But how How can you do that when you're also saying like this is disrespect for the First Amendment?

[00:37:07]>> I think there's a way that you can do this and you know, you'll notice neither one of us ever attacks each other personally.

[00:37:16]And we try not to make it personal. But I can absolutely call out you know, this administration for what it's doing and I do it.

[00:37:26]>> I am a journalist so obviously I'm biased. I feel like this is a bedrock American value. You know, I sleep in a t-shirt with the First Amendment written on it.

[00:37:37]And I wonder where you think we are in terms of threats to the Bill of Rights because I you know, will go to the mattresses for the First Amendment no matter what.

[00:37:53]But I wonder where most Americans think we are or don't even know we are. Like are we in a danger zone? Where are we?

[00:38:02]>> I [snorts] definitely think that we are slipping and a lot of that has to do with the capitulation.

[00:38:09]Now when we talk about the First Amendment, we're talking about it writ large, of course.

[00:38:14]And the first year of this administration, we saw a lot of corporate capitulation and a lot of other entities capitulating. We saw law firms capitulating to this administration's demands about who they can represent. Um, which is really crazy. Uh, we saw universities capitulating in the name of, which is ironic, in the name of free speech, this administration took a lot of retaliatory action against the universities. A lot of them capitulated. Um, we saw it with uh, Paramount. We've seen it with other telecom companies who have bent the knee and said, "Okay, no no diversity, equity, and inclusion programs." We see capitulation just breed capitulation.

[00:38:58]Um, but what we have also seen, like I said, is we've seen courage, and courage does beget courage. And we've seen >> cowards?

[00:39:07]>> I think Well, I would say it's more corporate self-interest.

[00:39:12]Um, not paying attention to the not paying attention to the fact that they are actually weakening our democracy. But I think people are waking up, and I'm seeing that. I'm seeing that in more pushback, um, because it is a danger to our democracy, um, but also because what everyone has learned is that capitulation doesn't stop the administration from coming back and demanding more and more and more.

[00:39:39]>> Anna Gomez, thank you so much for your time for coming on today.

[00:39:43]>> Thank you.