Anna M. Gomez

Companies in America have always looked to hire based on merit. That’s what’s best for their bottom lines.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) discrimination is a myth.

It is shameful that any company would co-sign this lie.

Protecting speech from government interference is part of what makes America free.

Unfettered media consolidation has real consequences.

When business interests outweigh the public interest, communities face layoffs, shrinking newsrooms, and fewer local stories.

The FCC is engaged in a campaign of censorship and control.

They may not have ordered The Late Show interview pulled.

But when government interferes in editorial decisions, broadcasters are forced to self-censor or push back.

CBS chose not to push back.

Nothing is more American than defending our constitutional rights against those who would erode our civil liberties.

If broadcasters choose to participate in this FCC campaign, they can do so by defending their First Amendment rights and refusing government interference.

We knew the FCC is targeting The View.

Like other so-called "investigations" before it, it will amount to nothing.

As I said before: this is government intimidation, not a legitimate investigation.

FCC Commissioner Gomez statement pictured, and partially transcribed in posts.

CBS is fully protected under the First Amendment to determine what interviews it airs.

That makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing.

Corporate interests cannot justify retreating from airing newsworthy content.

Commissioner Gomez at State of the Net

The FCC should not be in the business of managing media consolidation as an inevitability.

Its role is to ensure that competition remains real, that consumers benefit, and that local communities are not sacrificed in the name of corporate growth.
#SOTN2026

Trump's FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has weaponized the agency, shaking down merger-seeking companies, launching bogus investigations, and pushing the agency into the middle of a culture war.

This isn't what @agomezfcc.bsky.social signed up for.

Q&A with Anna Gomez: www.freepress.net/blog/qa-fcc-...

Happy Super Bowl Sunday! 🏈

As a reminder: broadcasters must follow FCC broadcast rules, including during major events like the Super Bowl.

But political statements remain constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment, regardless of the viewpoint being expressed.

30 years ago, the 1996 Telecom Act reshaped communications.

I was lucky to be at the FCC as a legal advisor in the Common Carrier Bureau helping implement it.

We worked hard for the promise of technology, without knowing where it would lead. 🧵

FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued the following statement after a report that the FCC plans to launch an investigation against ABC’s The View:

Like many other so-called "investigations" before it, the FCC will announce an investigation but never carry one out, reach a conclusion, or take any meaningful action.

This is government intimidation, not a legitimate investigation. 🧵

This Administration is engaged in a full-frontal assault on the First Amendment.

It has weaponized the FCC against broadcasters and government critics. Now it is arresting journalists.

These actions undermine the core freedoms on which our democracy depends.

It’s true.

The FCC is proposing major changes to the Lifeline program that would make it harder for eligible households to qualify for support to stay connected and participate in the digital economy.

The result? Higher costs for families.

FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued the following statement after the FCC proposed changes to the Lifeline program that could cause eligible households to lose critical federal support, increasing phone and internet bills for families who stand to lose up to $9.25 per month, and as much as $34.25 per month on Tribal lands.

At a time when millions of families are already struggling with the rising cost of living, the FCC should be focused on making connectivity more affordable.

Instead, it is erecting new barriers that risk raising phone and internet bills for the people who can least afford it. 🧵

Graphic displaying text in post with pictured individuals

What’s at stake under the FCC’s proposal?

⚫️Families could lose up to $9.25/month (already not enough)

⚫️Tribal families could lose up to $34.25/month

These new barriers to this proven and effective federal program could make it harder for families to afford to stay connected.

The FCC is proposing changes that would make it harder for EVERYONE who is eligible for the Lifeline program to qualify for support that lowers monthly phone and home internet bills.

That could mean higher costs 📈💰 for families just to stay connected.

As we’ve done in the past, I support targeted reforms that preserve the integrity and success of the Lifeline program.

But this FCC proposal goes far beyond that.

It risks turning connectivity into a political tool, instead of treating it like the essential service it is.

Government shouldn’t be in the business of mandating what content media outlets must air.

Whether it’s threatening lawsuits over editorial judgment or telling broadcasters what games they must carry, compelling speech is still a clear First Amendment violation.

FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez issued the following statement after the FCC released a misleading announcement suggesting that certain late-night and daytime programs may no longer qualify for the long-standing “bona fide news interview” exemption under the Commission’s political broadcasting rules.

The FCC just issued a misleading announcement targeting certain late-night and daytime programs.

Nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to our political broadcasting rules, but this does represent an escalation in this FCC’s ongoing campaign to censor & control speech.🧵

Phone unlocking gives consumers choice. Today’s decision takes that choice away from Verizon’s customers.

The beneficiaries won’t be consumers, but large wireless companies that want to keep people locked into their plans.

As we enter 2026, it is worth stepping back and asking what the FCC has done and where it has been directing its energy.

Too often, that energy has gone into culture-war fights instead of protecting consumers and expanding access to reliable and affordable broadband. 🧵

AT&T's reversal isn't a sudden transformation of values, but a strategic financial play to curry favor with this FCC and this Administration.

Companies should remember that abandoning fairness and inclusion for short-term gain will be a stain to their reputation long into the future.

These are business decisions that must be made on the merits, not on the whims of the White House.

Undue government pressure on the press is dangerous and undemocratic.

Regardless of party, we should all be concerned when government actors seek to dictate press coverage.

CHOKEHOLD captures the repeating patterns of censorship and analyzes the hallmarks of Trump’s censorship playbook in 2025.

Free Press and @attorneynora.bsky.social identified five core findings that are explored in detailed throughout the report.

Here’s a highlight of each one.

A 🧵 1/5...

A free press cannot function if the government is able to exercise veto power over critical reporting simply by refusing to engage.

The public has the right to question how CBS will ensure the independence and integrity of its journalism going forward.

“I am concerned that the level of consolidation in this country is actually reducing the incentives that lead to lower costs for consumers.” @agomezfcc.bsky.social

Wait until they hear that the FCC plans to let billion-dollar media companies get even bigger at the expense of local news and community-driven reporting.

The FCC doesn’t get to decide whether the news coverage of those in power is acceptable.

It has neither the legal authority nor the constitutional right to pursue broadcasters for their journalism.

These threats sound ominous, but they’re empty.

The FCC okays an egregious transfer of wealth from vulnerable families to monopoly providers. We have to do better by families reliant on calls to incarcerated persons. Rate caps cannot be based on hyperbolic threats or costs unrelated to providing service.