End of the First Amendment? – February 18. 2026

This is going to come down to who you believe, on two fronts related to an interesting story developing on The FCC under the Trump Administration, CBS and Stephen Colbert hosting The Late Show, Texas State Representative candidate for Senator James Talarico (D-Texas House-Seat 50-Austin,) and and potentially the same person being interviewed by the ladies on ABC’s The View.

First item for consideration in this conversation, what was the motive for CBS to not want that interview aired. Second item, did ABC have to make a similar decision because it involved the same person.

The implication is severe for the 1st Amendment.

What did Stephen Colbert have to say about this?

Let us start with a few quotes.

From Colbert – “We were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then, then I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on. And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”

From CBS – “The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep James Talarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidate, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. The Late Show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options.”

Who to believe, no idea. But, a few housekeeping elements to this story.

FCC rules for “equal-time” for political candidates does not apply to YouTube (or social media) in this context. The FCC may or may not change this in the future, as social media, and still radio for that matter, has plenty of “political commentary” that we can all be for certain the FCC under Trump would want control over. Radio tends to have more right-leaning political commentary whereas social media tends to be more left-leaning. Not an all or nothing, just tends to be that way.

The other item to add to this story is once whoever made the decision to move this from on-air coverage to YouTube content triggered an interesting response, the YouTube clip got more plays than the actual Late Night show’s audience reach. Keep that in mind for the purposes of this conversation.

It almost does not matter if the FCC called CBS (or ABC,) the rhetoric from the Trump camp did what was intended. Force behavior change but with it possibly damage the very intention of the 1st Amendment.

Why does this stress the 1st Amendment?

It is subject to debate on how politically neutral the FCC is in the hands of Chair Brendan Carr, a Republican appointed by and arguably loyal to Trump.

Just this January, in Carr’s hands, the FCC reversed some near 2 decades old precedent of excluding late-night and daytime talk shows (like The Late Show and The View) from providing equal time to all political candidates.

While Carr himself has remained silent on this instance with CBS he is on record as saying there is an effort to crackdown on programs “motivated by purely partisan political purposes”. Critics of this, including Stephen Colbert himself, argue this is a “weaponization” of the agency to pressure broadcasters over content that the Trump Administration does not want to see broadcasted.

Now, consider that for a minute. There is history here of a blended Trump using the courts to file suit against anyone speaking about him in a manner he disagrees with, and the FCC itself going after various networks over content it does not like. And now, intends to use a bit further the so called equal airtime rule. Additional regulation over radio and social media. All a maybe. How is that not pressure.

A little added backstory. ABC’s The View did interview James Talarico in early February 2026, almost immediately triggering an “investigation” by the FCC on these same equal time rules. Unsure of status, unsure of real intention, unsure of the potential results but that in itself is pressure. And speaking of FCC investigations, or “probes,” CBS has already been through a few of those 2025 to 2026.

Naturally, the Talarico campaign has used both incidents to bolster his Senate campaign, claiming that the investigations and broadcast blocks represent “the most dangerous kind of cancel culture” coming from the federal government. And why would he not, from his chair it appears the Trump Administration cannot see a successful Democrat unseat a Republican in Texas.

Assuming it happens, which is a long shot anyway, it would be embarrassing.

There is some deconstruction that few are willing to really talk about. The ultimate question then is not, is this happening?

Rather, why is it happening?

Even if no one from the FCC called CBS (or ABC for that matter,) the concept of applying equal air rules has political history both currently under Carr, who already uses the Trump term “fake news,” and historically in application. Pushing it now headed into the midterm campaign season makes this obvious.

The so called “Fairness Doctrine” is now defunct, but this idea of regulating what can and cannot be done on air or across social media predates them both going back to 1927 and radio. Various Communications Acts, exemptions to prevent 3rd party candidates from having access to rules benefits, reasonable Access Rules, “on-the-spot” news events exceptions, the list goes on and on with how the Federal Government has attempted to put this together forcing political climate behaviors then also allow for favorable exemptions here and there.

These ideas have been around for nearly a century, and consistently meddled with all along the way as need is determined.

In short, a damn quagmire.

An awkward collision of political influences over the years against the reality of a changing landscape of information exchange from way back then to the power and speed of various platforms today. This recent round of Trump Administration direct censorship via FCC rules application is no different in comparison to the history of these concepts. Trump himself likes issuing criticism, even passive threats on Truth Social, but not all that great at hearing it.

So Carr is seemingly unleashed. Forget speculation, the why is likely answered.

By polling, by commentary right to left, including how foreign nations view Trump and Republicans, the overall political pulse of the nation is turning on Trump. The polls on approvals across just about every subject has Trump and Republicans underwater, and the midterm campaign season is within reach. Even FoxNews and NewsMax may have a difficult time garnering enough outrage style support for the party.

Is the 1st Amendment at risk?

Sort of, is the short answer.

The First Amendment remains a fundamental pillar of Law and source of precedence in what the Federal Government is restricted from doing. All things considered, the Constitution is a foundational grant of power from the people to the Federal Government in a manner that bounds the Federal Government. That said, we can at least say there is some erosion by political pressures to control what speech news and the media engages in.

Lest we forget, the current disposition of the Supreme Court is arguably 6 to 3 in favor of Trump rarely issuing him much in the form of “don’t do that.”

Consider that the real risk here, for the 1st Amendment and all of us as the People, is being frightened into not exercising these rights. Arguably, initial steps to control people is through intimidation and coercion, and one could argue that Carr under the Trump Administration is doing just that.

Do what you can to review plenty of sources on this, domestic and foreign coverage of this instance, perhaps others, where the FCC is jumping in with just enough effort to force legal resources at major networks to silence themselves. Not interview people who are politically adversarial to Trump and Republicans without a wide net cast to other candidates who enjoy going on political opposition networks to bash with impunity. Like JD Vance and Ted Cruz.

Also note, Fox and Fox News, not really target of the FCC.

Argue semantics on what Fox and FoxNews is compared to an ABC or CBS to your heart’s content, that tends to come off as issue avoidance. Something else for you to consider when facing those, or even some of your own thoughts, on how “fair” these principles of media and coverage equal time regulations actually end up being when seeing them applied. When and by how.