Newsmax deletes interview criticizing FCC
The conservative broadcaster Newsmax quietly removed from its website an interview on Monday with an executive who criticized the powerful Federal Communications Commission.
The article, titled 'Telecom Company Urges FCC to Reverse Biden-era Fine,' featured the CEO of the digital calling company Telnyx, the target of a recent FCC fine for allegedly failing to take adequate action to stop government imposter robocalls made on its network.
Newsmax's Monday article blamed the recent action on left-leaning members of the commission, airing complaints that the 'previous Democrat agenda' was 'still clinging to some government bureaus' and that the FCC was one of the 'bureaus still bogged down by Biden's policies.'
'[Former President Joe] Biden-era bureaucrats are still in play,' Telnyx CEO David Casem told Newsmax. 'They're still preventing businesses from succeeding in this country.'
Within hours, the piece had been removed from the news organization's website without explanation. Network chief Chris Ruddy sought its removal, a person familiar with the decision-making process said. In an email to Semafor, a Newsmax spokesperson said that removing the article was an editorial decision, but did not elaborate on why the article was taken down.
In recent weeks, Telnyx has attempted to make its case across the media that the FCC's actions are vestiges of the previous administration, and that new chairman Brendan Carr was being misled by liberal FCC commission members. Telnyx did not respond to an inquiry about the deleted article. An FCC spokesman declined to comment, and there's no indication the commission played any role in the Newsmax story's deletion.As chair, Carr has already taken a variety of actions that have angered Democrats and many free press advocates. In just a few months on the job, the new chairman has enthusiastically announced investigations into NPR and PBS and has reopened investigations into ABC, NBC and CBS.
As part of his scrutiny of Paramount's merger with entertainment company Skydance, Carr prompted CBS to turn over the transcript of a interview with Kamala Harris at the center of a personal lawsuit by Trump against the network. Semafor first reported last week that Democratic members of Congress introduced legislation attempting to rein in the FCC's ability to strip networks of their broadcast licenses over political speech.
But while Carr is spooking many higher ups in the media industry, he has been relatively accessible to the press. He has appeared on Newsmax to discuss investigations into a number of media companies, including the radio company Audacy, as well as to applaud Trump's executive actions, and has sparred with more adversarial journalists.On Tuesday, Newsmax announced the launch of its IPO. The outlet hopes to raise as much as $75 million before its March 31 listing on the stock exchange, per a statement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
28 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Appeals court lets President Donald Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. 'The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows,' the court wrote. 'The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.' It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a 'BIG WIN.' He wrote that 'all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.' Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,' Newsom said. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
Wall Street Journal
36 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Oil Futures Diverge on U.S. Holiday Price Lag, Contract Expiration
Oil prices were mixed in European afternoon trade on Friday, with Brent crude down more than 2% to around $77 a barrel and West Texas Intermediate edging 0.7% higher to $74 a barrel. Brent futures fell after President Trump set a two-week deadline to decide whether the U.S. will strike Iran, easing fears of an imminent military intervention. The international oil benchmark had settled 2.8% higher on Thursday at $78.85, its highest close since January.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Gives Netanyahu Green Light to Continue His Reckless Wars
President Trump took time on Wednesday to reaffirm his unwavering support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wars. 'I said, 'Keep going.' What do I say?' Trump said when asked about his recent conversations with Netanyahu. 'I speak to him every day. He's a good man … been very unfairly treated by his country, I think. Very unfairly.' 'Have you given him any indication that you may seek to aid them more than you have already?' a reporter asked. 'No.' At this point in the Israel-Iran conflict, the U.S. has offered Israel intelligence and helped shoot Iranian missiles out of the air. Trump has also left the door open for further U.S. military intervention, a development that would make Netanyahu's job that much easier. Trump doesn't seem willing to budge on his support for Israel's unprovoked attack on Iran under the guise of some potential nuclear threat, even as many in his own base oppose it in the name of 'America First.' If anything, this war offers Netanyahu some temporary reprieve from attention on his genocide in Gaza. If Trump believes Netanyahu is being treated unfairly even as he commits genocide in Gaza and provokes all-out war with Iran, all while failing to both eliminate Hamas and free all the Israeli hostages, then Trump is even more blindly committed to the prime minister than initially feared.
