FCC Chair Investigates Disney Over Potential Past and Present DEI Policies
Disney scaled back DEI policies this year. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr still opened an investigation.

When President Donald Trump reentered office in January, he immediately set about removing all traces of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives from the federal government. He signed one executive order "ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing" and another "ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity."
More recently, anti-DEI efforts have moved from the government into the private sector. Last week, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr threatened Disney—which owns the ABC broadcast network—with government action over the DEI policies it no longer has, and the ones it may or may not currently have.
"I am writing to inform you that I have asked the FCC's Enforcement Bureau to open an investigation into Disney and ABC," Carr wrote in a letter to Disney CEO Bob Iger. "In particular, I want to ensure that Disney and ABC have not been violating FCC equal employment opportunity regulations by promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination. While I have seen reports that Disney recently walked back some of its DEI programs, significant concerns remain."
Disney ended certain DEI efforts in February—for example, no longer using "diversity & inclusion" as a metric of executive compensation and shortening the content advisories that played before some classic films on the Disney+ streaming service. Company insiders worried about the precedent set by capitulating to the concerns of social conservatives: "What's next? Where do we go from here? What do we stand for now, keeping MAGA happy?" one complained to Deadline.
In fact, Carr apparently worries Disney didn't go far enough: "I am concerned that ABC and its parent company have been or may still be promoting invidious forms of DEI in a manner that does not comply with FCC regulations," he wrote to Iger. "Although your company recently made some changes to how it brands certain efforts, it is not clear that the underlying policies have changed in a fundamental manner—nor that past practices complied with relevant FCC regulations." (In February, Carr sent very similar letters to the CEOs of Comcast—which owns NBCUniversal—and Verizon.)
Carr's threat is a stretch. The FCC is empowered to enforce equal employment opportunity rules on radio and TV stations, but targeting Disney's DEI practices via its authority over ABC—one of Disney's numerous subsidiary companies—gives the impression that Carr is simply reaching for whatever means he can.
Trump's executive orders equate DEI with unlawful "race- and sex-based preferences," but that's not always true. "Correctly designed DEI programs have never been inherently illegal, and remain viable even in the face of recent events," according to law firm Fisher Phillips, "but they must comply with anti-discrimination laws."
Discrimination is a prohibited act defined in state and federal laws, while DEI is an amorphous umbrella term used to describe any number of diversity programs; while a DEI initiative could be discriminatory, they are not inherently the same.
In his letter to Iger, Carr's justification for FCC involvement comes up short. "In recent years, Disney made DEI a key priority for the company's businesses and embedded explicit race- and gender-based criteria across its operations," he wrote. To substantiate that claim, among other sources, Carr cites a recent report that 99 percent of Disney shareholders rejected a proposal in February 2025 that would have ended the company's participation in the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, which lists and rates companies' LGBTQ policies.
In other words, Carr takes Disney shareholders' near-unanimous support of continuing a nonprofit partnership as evidence of the company's discriminatory bias necessitating the involvement of a government agency—an agency whose primary purpose is regulating the broadcast licenses of TV and radio stations.
Carr also cites previously reported guidelines for ABC's TV shows "that '50 percent of regular and recurring characters' be drawn from 'underrepresented groups.'" This mandate, he says, "may have forced racial and identity quotas into every level of production—demanding that '50% or more' of writers, directors, crew, and vendors be selected based on group identity."
Carr does not back up his assumption, other than citing a 2021 Hollywood Reporter article that quotes Disney executive Dana Walden as saying, "We received some incredibly well-written scripts that did not satisfy our standards in terms of inclusion, and we passed on them….That's not going to get on the air anymore because that's not what our audience wants."
Walden said nothing about the "writers, directors, crew, and vendors" that would have been hired on this show, merely the characters it would have depicted. It would be ludicrous, for example, to expect ABC's Black-ish—a show about a multigenerational African-American family—not to feature a mostly black cast. Walden said ABC's audience wanted more diverse and inclusive shows, not that Disney would stop hiring white people.
Carr is no stranger to wielding government power against companies that conservatives oppose, and he has been very open about his plan to use DEI as a cudgel against any companies he wants—particularly, those with mergers and acquisitions that involve FCC broadcast licenses and therefore require his agency's approval.
"Any businesses that are looking for FCC approval, I would encourage them to get busy ending any sort of their invidious forms of DEI discrimination," Carr told Bloomberg in March. "If there's businesses out there that are still promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination, I really don't see a path forward where the FCC could reach the conclusion that approving the transaction is going to be in the public interest."
But Carr's threat against Disney suggests less that he is concerned about illegal discrimination and more that he is interested in punishing the company for its diversity efforts.
Consumers who disapprove of Disney's DEI measures are free not to shop at its stores, visit its theme parks, or watch its TV shows or movies. But unless it very explicitly violates existing federal guidelines, it's not the government's business—and it's especially not the FCC's concern.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Insufficient MAGA-Madness is now a crime!!!!
Old “New Thang” MAGA make way for the NEW New Thang!!! MAGA meet MANGABA, Making Almighty NEW Government Almighty Bigger Again!!! All Hail MANGABA!!!
(Shit will also stimulate the economy by giving regulators, judges, and lawyers LOTS of NEW shit to fight about!!!)
MANGEE… Making Almighty NEW Government Expensive and Expansive!!!
Yes, I suppose it would be ludicrous for the "Blackish" cast not to be played by a mostly black cast.
Is not also ludicrous, for instance, that Heimdall, described as the "whitest god" in the Norse pantheon to be played by Ildris Elba in the MCU? Or "Snow White" to be portrayed by partially Hispanic actress, and for Disney to crow about that casting choice as if it was somethingto be proud of? Not to mention a cast which looks more like 21st Century Southern California than Medieval Germany.
The idea that these are choices the audience are demanding is belied by the recent box office failures.
Are box office failures SNOT enough to punish Disney? Must Government Almighty ALSO "pile on" to punish Disney some MORE?
Keep in mind that in the next few years, political winds may shift, and blame YOU! Twat are YOU gonna do when they cum for YOU?
I was objecting to the way Lancaster framed the issue, as well as the ridiculous reasons Disney execs are giving as the reasons they are doing what they are doing.
Also, if Disney had broke anti-discrimination law, they deserve whatever hell they catch.
I am missing the obvious, I suppose. What the hell does the FCC have to do with Disney and Disney's hiring requirements ?
The FCC is empowered to enforce equal employment opportunity rules on radio and TV stations
.
Well, that seems like a pretty solid answer. And it would appear Disney may well be in violation.
If I'm being honest, I don't really give a shit if actors of any race get discriminated against. I consider them to be the least important profession on the face of the earth. But I also don't give a shit if Disney gets roughed up by the FCC, as I consider entertainment execs to be the second least important profession. (Reason staff are fourth, after assistant crack whore, in case you're wondering.)
Sums it up pretty well. Really hard to give a shit either way.
"I am missing the obvious" Indeed.
Remember when DEI was just a conspiracy theory?
It still is. MAGAs have warped the meaning of DEI for their own benefit.
You really are sick in the head.
This is not right because existing non-discrimination laws that applied before Trump still apply, and the process for adjudicating them remains unchanged. No need to change anything about the process (in this context).
This is nothing but political bullying.
Eat shit and die, hypocrite.
How is "Use existing process for discrimination issues" so bad?
They were violating those laws. For years.
Burn them at the stake.
This is nothing but political bullying.
Of course, as a libertarian, the dismantling of the FCC remains my preferred choice; excepting that, the torment of Disney's woke scolds is an acceptable outcome.
Simple solution: end the FCC as an agency permanently and turn Carr back into a private citizen.
This guy libertarians.
"Trump's executive orders equate DEI with unlawful "race- and sex-based preferences," but that's not always true."
Does "not always true" mean the same thing as "no widespread fraud"?
If they have just renamed programs, and not actually stopped discrimination, an investigation should be done. Surely if they are not discriminating, they have nothing to fear from an investigation that must clear them.
Racial and gender discrimination are illegal. The author quotes a lawyer claiming without explanation that DEI is not illegal. If DEI explicitly requires favoritism based on skin color and gender, which it obviously does, what does the legal version look like? Joe is just a silly apologist for leftist virtue signalling. Whether or not the FCC is overstepping it's authority may be a valid question. But to claim that racial discrimination is okay as long as they do DEI legally is nonsense.
If they could stop at enhanced outreach they could be fine. Getting candidates from underrepresented groups is fine but they ALWAYS benchmark on more hires and more promotions based primarily on prohibited categories.
DEI is always race/sex/sexuality based, the fact you like it Joe doesn't make it permissible you proggy cunt.
Fuck Disney and their woke racism. But also, fuck the FCC.
In fact, they can both be wrong.
But only one can be fixed by DOGE.
Consumers have to fix the other, and it seems they are.
All is well.
In particular, I want to ensure that Disney and ABC have not been violating FCC equal employment opportunity regulations by promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination.
I wonder if the Democrats ever expected that their "equality = equity" nonsense would ever come back to bite them as hard as it has.
Company insiders worried about the precedent set by capitulating to the concerns of social conservatives: "What's next? Where do we go from here? What do we stand for now, keeping MAGA happy?" one complained to Deadline.
Seppuku would work. And it would be entirely appropriate in this case. Assuming "company insiders" are really serious about all this DEI stuff.
In other words, Carr takes Disney shareholders' near-unanimous support of continuing a nonprofit partnership as evidence of the company's discriminatory bias necessitating the involvement of a government agency
What if it was near-unanimous support of continuing a nonprofit partnership with the KKK?
I mean, that's essentially what the LGBT Pedo is. Left Wing KKK.
"Hey, the shareholders are all for it," doesn't magically justify race-based discrimination.
quotes Disney executive Dana Walden as saying, "We received some incredibly well-written scripts that did not satisfy our standards in terms of inclusion, and we passed on them….That's not going to get on the air anymore because that's not what our audience wants."
"If the audience wants to see a burning cross on the lawn, then by gum that's what we're going to give them!"
No. That doesn't fly. Carr doesn't need to "back up his assumption." Hate-based DEI forced racial and identity quotas speaks for itself.
It would be ludicrous, for example, to expect ABC's Black-ish—a show about a multigenerational African-American family—not to feature a mostly black cast.
No, it wouldn't be ludicrous. DEI demands that 50% of the characters on that show be non-black. So, you better shoehorn in some interracial romances (and don't you dare have the black people be critical of them) and some kind of faggoty comic relief rainbow person if you want to be in compliance.
Your rules, not mine.
But Carr's threat against Disney suggests less that he is concerned about illegal discrimination and more that he is interested in punishing the company for its diversity efforts.
You wrote this entire article, and at the very end of it instead of saying the term "OVERT RACISM" you went with "diversity efforts."
The heck is wrong with you, Joe?