The Trump administration's strategy for control isn't writing new authoritarian laws, but aggressively using latent executive authority that past administrations ignored. This demonstrates how a democracy's own structures can be turned against it without passing a single new piece of legislation, as seen with the FCC.

From Trump's endorsement of media mergers that benefit him to politically motivated FCC probes, regulatory agencies are being weaponized. Their purpose is shifting from independent review for consumer benefit to tools for rewarding allies and punishing political enemies.

The FCC's move to apply equal time rules to late-night talk shows, seen as a partisan attack, will likely fail. Any legal challenge would force the same standard to be applied to the heavily Republican-dominated AM talk radio landscape, a precedent conservatives would not want to set.

Senator Ed Markey argues that government overreach succeeds partly because large media companies choose to "roll over" and pay fines or accept chilling effects rather than legally challenging threats to their First Amendment rights. This corporate capitulation is a key, overlooked factor in the erosion of free speech.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is reversing decades of deregulation by reasserting control over broadcast TV content while maintaining a hands-off approach to the internet. This creates a free speech double standard where the delivery mechanism, not the content, determines government scrutiny, targeting weaker legacy media.

When direct censorship is unconstitutional, governments pressure intermediaries like tech companies, banks, or funded NGOs to suppress speech. These risk-averse middlemen comply to stay in the government's good graces, effectively doing the state's dirty work.

The Trump administration's attempt to block Texas representative James Tallarico's interview on Stephen Colbert's show backfired. Instead of silencing him, the move generated massive publicity, driving millions to the interview on YouTube and turning a minor political figure into a famous 'resistance fighter'. This illustrates the 'Streisand Effect' in modern politics.

Unlike Big Tech firms with nearly unlimited resources to fight legal battles, traditional media companies are financially weaker than ever. This economic vulnerability makes them susceptible to government pressure, as they often cannot afford the protracted litigation required to defend their First Amendment rights.

While both the Biden administration's pressure on YouTube and Trump's threats against ABC are anti-free speech, the former is more insidious. Surreptitious, behind-the-scenes censorship is harder to identify and fight publicly, making it a greater threat to open discourse than loud, transparent attacks that can be openly condemned.