Former President Donald Trump standardised an executive mandate this week with aims to broaden the White House’s control over the array of independent regulatory agencies. These agencies, which are liable to Congressional vetting, are structured to predominantly exist outside the direct influence of the White House. They include entities such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The edict, enacted with the intent to mandate all such agencies to present any intended regulations to the White House for comprehensive review, was signed on Tuesday.
An appended requirement in the order calls for the concerned agencies to involve the White House during the initiation stages for ‘policies and priorities’ along with ‘strategic plans’. The underpinning rationale behind these directives is anchored on the quote from the order itself: ‘These regulatory agencies presently implement considerable executive power, lacking adequate accountability to the President, and vicariously, to the citizens of America’.
This contentious executive order is known as ‘Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies’ and is widely believed to be on its way to confront certain obstacles in the courtroom, posited by legal experts in the field. This move appears to coincide with Trump’s agenda to consolidate prerogatives within the executive spectrum.
The delineated agencies to be affected by this fresh order are not just limited to the FCC. It includes the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission as well. Though FCC does not have a direct oversight over mainstream news broadcasters, it does exercise evaluative jurisdiction over numerous broadcasting outlets across the U.S. These stations procure FCC licenses to utilise public broadcasting frequencies.
The significance of this move is not to be understated as it aims to transform an independent agency, designed to function autonomously, to operate comparably to an entity within the executive branch. This diversionary order, if implemented, would delineate a significant break from the FCC’s nearly century-long history.
The initiation of this executive order raised certain worrisome queries with suggestions that the FCC might now be mobilised to intimidate broadcasters using its investigative authority as leverage. Several broadcasters have been subjected to the scrutiny of the FCC’s investigations, including vast networks like NPR, PBS, CBS, and NBC.
One example of this shift in scrutiny is a targeted investigation into CBS regarding an alleged tampering of an October ’60 Minutes’ interview with ex-Vice President Kamala Harris. Perhaps it would be more effective if CBS used this airtime to critically investigate the constant mishaps during Harris’s vice presidency rather than continually enhancing her image. Indeed, the same interview is at the epicentre of a monumental $10 billion lawsuit filed by Trump.
Predictably, CBS refuted any form of wrongdoing in response to Trump’s lawsuit. Earlier this month, CBS made public the raw transcripts of the interview, revealing that ’60 Minutes’ and ‘Face the Nation’ used varied portions of the same responses from Kamala Harris, a practice they try to justify as a common journalistic method.
Moreover, there is an ongoing investigation centred on NBC’s diversity, equity, and inclusion activities. Perhaps if they channeled the same level of enthusiasm for unbiased reporting, viewers would be able to gather a more accurate perspective of current affairs.
These investigations being conducted under the umbrella of the FCC showcase a significant shift away from its original role and purpose. Designed as a regulatory body for interstate and international communication by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable, the FCC has allowed itself to be caught in a tangle of political games.
One cannot dismiss the magnitude of the change this executive order brings about, given that the heart of our democracy lies with independent bodies being able to execute their designated tasks without undue influence from the executive branch. The very essence of their creation was cemented in the notion of providing unbiased services to the American people, without favoring one political end over the other.
Unbiased, genuine reporting is the fulcrum of a stable democracy, primarily when it serves as the primary source of information for a large populace. But lately, we see more instances of media bias and misinformation, which may very well lead to the public receiving a skewed perception of reality.
The irregularities present within the CBS and NBC investigations also raise concerns about media agencies’ integrity. Any deviations, major or minor, within their content production can significantly impact the public’s perception and understanding of current events.
Though the FCC is undergoing changes that could significantly redefine its purpose and function, it’s crucial to ensure that the changes do not compromise the principles of a democratic society. Regulatory bodies should serve the sole interest of the public rather than becoming tools for political manipulation.
While we cannot predict the long-term implications of this executive order, it is clear that it brings forth a series of critical questions around government control, integrity of independent agencies, and their relationship with the executive branch.
In conclusion, while Trump’s executive order may appear to be a power-grab by some, it can also be viewed as a response to the increasing politicization of supposedly unbiased agencies. The future will inevitably reveal its full implications, and one can only hope for a fair and judicious outcome.