On April 3, 2025, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr appeared at a Department of Justice Antitrust Division forum on "Big-Tech Censorship" and formally proposed a reinterpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Carr argued that Section 230 "can and should continue to protect speech that is posted on a platform" but "should not protect a platform's decision to remove content," effectively proposing that internet companies would lose their Section 230 liability protections if they engaged in content moderation the administration characterized as "censoring protected speech."
The proposal drew on Carr's own Project 2025 chapter on the FCC, which called for stripping platforms of Section 230 immunity unless they "severely limit content moderation to only remove user-generated content that is illegal." At the forum, Carr declared his intent to "push the envelope on Section 230 reform" and "smash the censorship cartel," and indicated the FCC could require platforms to provide greater disclosure of content moderation decisions, including explanations of what speech would be removed and the reasoning behind removals.
Legal experts across the political spectrum raised serious objections. The Federalist Society published an analysis titled "The FCC Still Can't Interpret Section 230," noting the agency lacks statutory authority to rewrite the statute through rulemaking. The Supreme Court's 2024 Loper Bright decision overturning Chevron deference further foreclosed agencies' ability to unilaterally "clarify" or "interpret" statutes. Additionally, the Supreme Court affirmed in Netchoice v. Paxton that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment, meaning Carr's proposal would effectively punish platforms for exercising constitutionally protected editorial judgment.
The proposal represented a coordinated effort with the DOJ and FTC to reshape internet regulation, with all three agencies signaling at the same forum their intent to reinterpret Section 230. Brookings characterized the approach as "not deregulation but heavy-handed regulation," noting the irony of an administration claiming to champion free speech while proposing government control over private editorial decisions.