In Latest Threat Of Regulatory Retaliation, Donald Trump Says He’ll Report NBC News’ Kristen Welker To FCC For “Rebuke Or Punishment”

← Back to the feed

In Latest Threat Of Regulatory Retaliation, Donald Trump Says He’ll Report NBC News’ Kristen Welker To FCC For “Rebuke Or Punishment”

Developing story first seen 5 hours ago

Deadline · 5 hours ago

New details have emerged fleshing out the row between Donald Trump and NBC's Kristen Welker: several high-profile candidates Trump endorsed have in fact lost recent primaries, including Mike Lindell in Minnesota's governor race, Rep. Andy Ogles in Tennessee, Rep. Randy Feenstra in Iowa and Burt Jones in Georgia, lending support to Welker's description of "mixed results" even as Trump insists his endorsement record is the strongest in political history. The dispute is unfolding against the backdrop of a separate First Amendment lawsuit filed by ABC against the FCC, which alleges the regulator's demand that ABC's eight owned stations submit their broadcast licences for early renewal amounts to retaliation for its news coverage.

The FCC has now responded to that ABC suit, stating that "all broadcasters have a legal obligation to operate in the public interest—even Disney," and confirming it has spent over a year examining claims that Disney engaged in unlawful DEI discrimination; a judge is due to hear arguments in October on ABC's bid for a temporary restraining order against the early licence-renewal order. NBC has reiterated its backing of Welker, while an FCC spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump's threat against her.

  • Several Trump-endorsed candidates have recently lost primaries, backing Welker's "mixed results" claim.
  • FCC defends its ABC licence-renewal order, citing a Disney DEI investigation.
  • A court hearing on ABC's restraining order request is set for October.

New here? Start with this

NBC News host Kristen Welker moderates the network's flagship Sunday politics programme, Meet the Press, and made remarks on a separate Washington DC affiliate broadcast describing Donald Trump's record of endorsing political candidates as mixed. Trump has disputed this, insisting his endorsement success rate is far higher, and has said he wants the matter examined by the Federal Communications Commission, the US federal body that regulates broadcasters and can affect their licences.

The FCC's chairman is Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, and the row comes at a time when the commission is already facing scrutiny over its relationship with news broadcasters. It is separately being sued by ABC, which alleges the FCC took retaliatory action against it over its news coverage, with a court hearing due in October. Because the FCC has real regulatory power over broadcast licences, complaints of this kind raise questions about whether such power could be used to pressure or punish news organisations over their coverage.

This matters because it touches on the independence of the press from government influence, a principle protected in the US by the First Amendment. NBC News has stood by Welker, and the episode is being watched as part of a wider pattern of tension between the Trump administration and news broadcasters it considers unfavourable.

Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Those sympathetic to Mr Trump's complaint would argue that public figures are entitled to push back robustly when they believe a broadcaster has mischaracterised their record, and that flagging the matter to a regulator is simply invoking an existing oversight channel rather than an improper threat. They would point out that broadcasters carry public interest obligations around accuracy, and that a phrase such as "mixed results" can understate a genuinely strong overall win rate if taken out of context. On this view, holding journalists to precise standards, especially when their words may shape public perception of a president's political standing, is a legitimate exercise of scrutiny rather than intimidation.

The case against

Press freedom advocates would counter that Ms Welker's comment was a fair, evidence-based observation, grounded in specific named losses, and falls squarely within ordinary political analysis rather than factual error. They would argue that a president threatening to direct a regulator against a named journalist over an interpretive remark risks chilling legitimate reporting and blurs the line between correcting the record and wielding state power to punish unwelcome coverage. Set alongside the FCC's separate licensing dispute with ABC, they would see this as part of a troubling pattern in which regulatory leverage is used against broadcasters whose journalism displeases the administration, a concern that goes to the heart of editorial independence in a free press.

More coverage

Government Politics

Read the full article at the source →