Disney Accuses Trump FCC of Targeting ABC's Speech While Evading Court Review

Disney accused the Trump administration's Federal Communications Commission of using its power over ABC's broadcast licenses to punish the network for its programming, arguing in an October 12, 2026, court filing that the agency deliberately chose a regulatory process intended to pressure the company while avoiding immediate judicial review.

The allegation comes as Disney seeks to block an unusual FCC order requiring all eight ABC-owned television stations to undergo license renewal years ahead of schedule. The company contends the reviews violate its First Amendment rights and have already influenced editorial decisions at the network.

Disney's attorneys wrote that federal regulators "sought to inflict maximal coercive pressure on the media company whose speech the Administration sought to curb, while deliberately evading judicial review."

The FCC issued its directive on April 28, requiring ABC to submit renewal applications by May 28, although the stations' existing licenses were not scheduled for renewal until between 2028 and 2031. Disney complied under protest and sued the agency in August, seeking to stop the accelerated reviews while its constitutional challenge proceeds.

The order followed public criticism of ABC and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel by President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called for broadcasters to lose their licenses over programming he considers objectionable. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has also publicly questioned ABC's programming decisions, including its refusal to air a presidential address in July.

Disney argues that those statements expose a retaliatory motive behind the agency's actions. The FCC maintains that the accelerated reviews have nothing to do with the network's coverage or entertainment programming and instead stem from an investigation into possible unlawful discrimination in Disney's employment practices.

The agency has been examining ABC's hiring, promotion, and compensation policies, including practices involving diversity, equity, and inclusion. Government attorneys contend Disney failed to respond adequately to earlier requests for information, prompting regulators to use their authority to demand early license renewals.

Disney's latest filing challenges that justification by pointing to an October 6 hearing before U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan in Washington, D.C., where government lawyers acknowledged that the FCC had other enforcement options available.

Those alternatives included administrative subpoenas, monetary penalties and cease-and-desist orders. Disney argues that several of those measures would have required regulators to seek enforcement in federal court, allowing their actions to face earlier judicial scrutiny.

Instead, according to the company, the FCC selected a process that puts the network's ability to operate its broadcast stations under review while limiting opportunities to challenge the agency's conduct immediately.

During the hearing, AliKhan questioned Justice Department attorney Dimitar Georgiev-Remme about the tools available to compel ABC to provide information for the discrimination investigation. The judge subsequently required the government to address those alternatives in additional briefing.

Disney attorney Beth Wilkinson argued that the licensing process is already affecting the network's editorial judgment. She told the court that the political talk show The View had changed how it selects video clips and cited a Jimmy Kimmel interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico that was posted on YouTube rather than broadcast on ABC.

Wilkinson attributed those decisions to concerns about regulatory retaliation, arguing that the prospect of losing broadcast licenses places continuing pressure on the network even before the FCC reaches a final decision.

The dispute over that alleged harm is central to Disney's request for a preliminary injunctionpreliminary injunctionA preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued before a case is finally decided that requires a party to take or stop an action while the litigation continues. Federal courts generally consider the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest before granting one.Read more →. The company must show that it faces irreparable injury without immediate court intervention, while the government maintains that the broadcaster can challenge adverse licensing decisions through the established administrative process.

Justice Department attorneys also argue that the federal district court lacks jurisdiction because Congress assigned judicial review of final FCC licensing decisions to the federal appeals courts. Disney counters that its lawsuit challenges alleged unconstitutional retaliation occurring during the regulatory process, rather than a completed licensing decision.

The distinction determines whether ABC can obtain relief while the reviews are underway or must wait for the FCC to act. Disney argues that even an eventual license renewal would leave the network without an effective remedy for editorial decisions already influenced by the proceedings.

AliKhan has not ruled on Disney's request for a preliminary injunction. Her decision will determine whether the FCC can continue its accelerated review of ABC's eight broadcast licenses while the lawsuit proceeds.