In a bold shift of regulatory strategy, the Trump administration is wielding federal authority to pressure media companies into abandoning their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Under the leadership of Brendan Carr, the newly appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the administration is threatening to derail corporate mergers and acquisitions unless companies dismantle what it calls “discriminatory” DEI policies. This move marks a significant departure from traditional merger oversight, which has historically focused on competition and consumer welfare, and has sparked a firestorm of debate across legal, corporate, and advocacy circles.

The FCC, tasked with regulating the nation’s airwaves and approving transactions in the communications sector, has long operated under a mandate to ensure that such deals serve the “public interest.” Past administrations, from Obama to Biden, have used this authority to block mergers deemed harmful to market competition or likely to raise consumer prices—think Comcast’s failed bid for Time Warner in 2014 or Biden-era interventions in high-stakes corporate tie-ups. But Carr’s FCC is charting a new course, reinterpreting the “public interest” standard to target companies that embrace DEI frameworks, which typically include employee training, recruitment efforts, and support networks aimed at boosting representation of underrepresented groups.

Speaking to Bloomberg on March 21, 2025, Carr made his stance clear: “Any businesses seeking FCC approval should get serious about ending their DEI practices. If they’re still pushing these forms of discrimination, I don’t see how we can approve their transactions.” He pointed to specific deals under review, including Paramount’s proposed merger with Skydance and Verizon’s acquisition of Frontier, hinting that their DEI commitments could jeopardize regulatory green lights. Carr also revealed that the FCC has launched a probe into Comcast’s diversity programs, signaling a broader campaign against such initiatives.

This approach has no precedent in federal merger regulation, according to legal scholars and industry observers. “Historically, the FCC has intervened to protect competition or prevent monopolies—not to police internal corporate policies,” said Sarah Klein, a telecommunications law professor at Georgetown University. “This is a radical reinterpretation of the agency’s authority, and it’s raising serious questions about overreach.”

The Trump administration has made no secret of its disdain for DEI, framing it as a form of reverse discrimination that undermines meritocracy. Officials have linked DEI to a litany of unrelated societal ills, from infrastructure failures to natural disasters, though no evidence supports these claims. Carr’s rhetoric echoes this narrative, with his repeated use of “invidious discrimination” to describe DEI efforts. Yet, neither he nor the FCC has clarified what specific policies cross the line, leaving companies in a state of limbo as they await further guidance.

Corporate America, already reeling from Trump’s election and the promise of sweeping deregulation, now faces a dilemma. Many firms view DEI as a business imperative—studies show diverse teams can boost innovation and profitability—yet the administration’s hardline stance is forcing a reckoning. Meta, Amazon, and Goldman Sachs are among the giants that have quietly scaled back diversity programs in recent months, fearing federal scrutiny. Smaller players in the media and telecom space, reliant on FCC approval for growth, are even more vulnerable.

The uncertainty stems in part from Carr’s refusal to define his terms. “What qualifies as ‘invidious’ DEI? Is it hiring quotas? Employee resource groups? Unconscious bias training?” asked Aaron Goldstein, a corporate attorney at Dorsey & Whitney. “Without clarity, companies are left guessing—and the safest bet is to abandon DEI altogether.” This ambiguity, Goldstein argues, is deliberate, creating a chilling effect that nudges firms toward compliance without the need for explicit rules.

Critics see Carr’s strategy as a power grab. Tom Wheeler, who led the FCC under President Obama, accused the chairman of “weaponizing a vague standard to enforce a personal agenda.” In a statement to CNN, Wheeler said, “The public interest isn’t a blank check for the chairman to settle ideological scores. This is about intimidation, not regulation.” Advocacy groups like Free Press have echoed this sentiment, with co-CEO Craig Aaron calling the policy “a misuse of authority” that punishes companies for promoting inclusion rather than harming consumers.

Carr, undeterred, has leaned into the controversy. On March 21, he took to X to praise right-wing activist Robby Starbuck, who has spearheaded social media campaigns against DEI at companies like Tractor Supply and Harley-Davidson. “Robby’s shown how to take on corporate DEI, and his input has been invaluable to our work at the FCC,” Carr wrote. The shoutout underscores the administration’s alignment with a broader conservative push to dismantle diversity efforts, a movement that gained steam after Trump’s 2024 victory.

Beyond the FCC, the administration is flexing other muscles to advance its anti-DEI agenda. An executive order signed in January 2025 threatens federal investigations into “illegal DEI practices,” while Attorney General Pam Bondi has vowed to pursue enforcement actions, including criminal penalties. These measures have amplified pressure on the private sector, with some firms preemptively auditing their policies to avoid legal entanglements.

For the media and telecom industries, the stakes are particularly high. Mergers are a lifeline for growth in a competitive landscape, and FCC approval is non-negotiable. Paramount’s $8 billion deal with Skydance, for instance, hinges on regulatory clearance, as does Verizon’s $20 billion bid for Frontier. Comcast, already under investigation, could face further hurdles if it pursues future acquisitions. “This isn’t just about ideology—it’s about survival,” said one industry insider, speaking anonymously. “Companies are asking: Do we fight for DEI and risk our deals, or do we cave?”

The backlash has been swift. Civil rights groups have decried the policy as an attack on workplace equity, while business leaders warn of a talent drain if diversity efforts falter. “DEI isn’t just about optics—it’s about building teams that reflect our customers,” said a senior executive at a major tech firm. “If the government ties our hands, we’ll lose ground globally.”

As the Trump administration doubles down, the FCC’s next moves will be closely watched. Will Carr follow through on his threats, or is this a bluff to force compliance? For now, the message is clear: in the new regulatory landscape, DEI is a liability—and companies must adapt or face the consequences.