Brendan Carr FCC Appointment: How Trump’s Pick Impacts Tech in 2025

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares for his second term, one of his most consequential appointments for the future of technology and communications could be that of Brendan Carr to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Carr’s stance on tech regulation has long been a topic of interest, but now, in a position of power, his influence could reshape the digital landscape in ways both profound and controversial.

With his track record of challenging Big Tech’s dominance, the tech world is bracing for a future that could include tougher scrutiny, greater regulation, and a fresh set of challenges for some of the industry’s largest players. In this article, we explore how Brendan Carr’s potential appointment to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President-elect Donald Trump’s second term could dramatically reshape the regulatory landscape for technology.  

A new era of regulation for big tech 

Carr’s approach to the tech industry has already been defined by his critical stance on the power wielded by major corporations like Google and Facebook. He has long argued that these companies’ influence on the digital landscape has become too great, particularly regarding content moderation and the suppression of certain political viewpoints. With his new role at the helm of the FCC, Carr is poised to implement significant regulatory changes. 

Section 230: The legal shield for tech giants 

A central pillar of Carr’s agenda is to reconsider Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that provides legal immunity for social media platforms regarding user-generated content. Section 230 has allowed companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to operate without the threat of being held accountable for everything posted by users. 

However, Carr views Section 230 as a loophole that permits these companies to suppress certain viewpoints while avoiding liability. He has called for the repeal of this legal immunity, arguing that these platforms are abusing their power to shape public discourse. If successful, this could force social media companies to reconsider how they moderate content. The result could be a more transparent and accountable landscape, where users and content creators may have more control over content removal and the reasons behind it. 

Net neutrality: A debate reignited 

One of the most divisive issues Carr is expected to confront is net neutrality. Carr voted to repeal Net Neutrality Rules in 2017, which required Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to treat all data on the internet equally. The debate over net neutrality has always been a contentious one—its supporters argue it is vital for preserving the open internet, where all users have equal access to information, while opponents claim that rolling back the rules allows for more innovation and market freedom. 

With Carr in charge of the FCC, the future of net neutrality is once again in question. His stance indicates that he will likely move to eliminate the remaining protections, allowing ISPs to prioritize certain types of data or traffic. This could result in internet service providers offering premium access to larger companies, which could, in turn, lead to slower speeds or higher costs for smaller companies and startups.  Innovation could be stifled in this environment, as only the biggest players could afford to ensure fast and reliable access to their services. 

While Carr argues that such deregulation would encourage innovation, many in the tech industry—especially smaller startups—fear the consequences. Without net neutrality, a few large corporations could gain significant control over the online marketplace, limiting competition and potentially harming consumers. For now, the future of net neutrality remains uncertain, but under Carr’s leadership, the pendulum seems to be swinging away from the protections that have kept the internet a level playing field. 

National security focus and TikTok and Huawei dilemma 

Carr’s concerns about national security, particularly in relation to Chinese-owned companies, add yet another layer of complexity to his FCC leadership. He has repeatedly raised alarms about TikTok, the popular social media app owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, arguing that it could be used as a tool for foreign influence and surveillance. His rhetoric on the subject mirrors the concerns raised by lawmakers in both parties, who worry that TikTok could be used to manipulate public opinion or collect sensitive data from U.S. users. 

In addition to TikTok, Carr has also placed Huawei and ZTE—Chinese telecommunications companies—at the center of his security agenda. He has pushed for greater scrutiny of their operations in the U.S., arguing that their presence in American telecom infrastructure could pose a threat to national security. While this issue has already led to restrictions and bans on the use of Huawei equipment by U.S. companies, Carr’s leadership could see further crackdowns, potentially intensifying the ongoing trade and security tensions between the U.S. and China. 

This national security lens on tech could reshape the way the FCC interacts with international companies, particularly those with ties to adversarial governments. Whether this will lead to more sweeping bans or heightened regulatory barriers remains to be seen, but it’s clear that Carr is committed to making national security a priority in his tenure. 

Transparency and accountability: A call for change 

Another key element of Carr’s proposed reforms involves greater transparency in how tech companies operate. He has suggested that platforms should be required to publish more detailed terms of service and establish clearer processes for users to appeal content moderation decisions. For companies that have often been criticized for vague and inconsistent content removal policies, these changes could be a major shift in how they do business. 

Carr’s push for transparency, however, isn’t just about making companies more accountable to their users. It’s about addressing a broader concern that the tech giants wield too much-unchecked power over what Americans see, hear, and read online. By pushing for more transparent operations, Carr aims to force these companies to be more upfront about how they moderate content, and why they make the decisions they make. This would represent a major step toward curbing what some critics view as the tech industry’s unchecked influence on public discourse. 

What’s at stake for big tech? 

Brendan Carr’s appointment to lead the FCC isn’t just another change in Washington—it’s a potential pivot in how the government will approach regulation of the tech industry in the coming years. His emphasis on national security, free speech, and corporate accountability represents a stark contrast to the regulatory environment that has emerged in recent years, where tech companies have largely been able to operate with minimal oversight. 

However, the question remains: will Carr’s policies benefit the public and foster a more open internet, or will they stifle innovation and create more barriers for smaller companies? The future of Section 230, net neutrality, and foreign tech companies in the U.S. are all hanging in the balance. 

For Big Tech, this could be a time of reckoning. If Carr succeeds in his push for reform, the way these companies operate online could change drastically. From stricter content moderation rules to more intense scrutiny of their business practices, companies like Google, Meta, and TikTok will need to adapt quickly to a new regulatory environment. The question for many will be whether these changes ultimately create a fairer, more open digital landscape or merely reinforce the power of a select few. Only time will tell how far Brendan Carr’s FCC will go in reshaping the digital world we know. 

In brief 

Carr’s appointment is a signal that a significant shift is coming for tech companies. Throughout his career, he has been a vocal critic of the influence and power of companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, accusing them of using their platforms to suppress free speech and curtail certain political viewpoints. His calls for reform have centered on the idea that these corporations, while operating in a free-market environment, are using their power in ways that distort public discourse and undermine democracy.