Transcript of Trump Top Aide Gets Exposed by Cross-Exam in Senate Hearing

An explosive hearing just took place in the United States Senate, where Democrats were finally able to cross-examine the Commissioner of the SEC, the Federal Communications Commission, Brenda Carr. He's the guy who threatened to revoke ABC's license if they wouldn't fire Jimmy Kimmel. He's the guy who's been out there launching investigations to any media network that's on television that discusses Donald Trump in a negative light. Democrats were incredible in this cross exam. They got Brenda Carr to to admit that he no longer deems the SEC to be an independent agency, despite the fact that while this cross exam was taking place, the SEC's website said that it was an independent agency. I want you to watch as Democratic Senator Lujan cross-examines Brenda Carr, and Brenda Carr is forced to concede that he and Donald Trump no longer view the SEC as independent. Here, play this clip.

The SEC, an independent agency.

Senator, thanks for that question.

I think that- Yes or no is all we need, sir. Yes or no, is it independent?

Well, there's a test for this in the law in the key portion of that test.

Yes or no, Brenda?

The key portion of that test is- Okay, I'm going to go to Commissioner Trustee.

Just so you know, Brenda, on your website, it just simply says, Man, the SEC is independent. This isn't a trick question.

Okay, the SEC is not. Is it yes or no? Is not. Okay. Is not an independent- So is your website wrong?

Is your website lying?

Possibly. The FCC is not an independent agency. Okay, can I read this to you?

The FCC's mission on the homepage of the FCC, man, an independent US government agency overseen by Congress. Is that factual or is that a lie?

The FCC is not formally an independent agency. Is this true or is this a lie? I'm happy to answer your question. Okay. The sinequanon of independence is being removable by the President.

Chairman, I have a little bit of a time. I'll get back to you.

The FCC is not an independent agency, formally speaking.

Appreciate you saying that and being honest with the American people. Commissioner Trustee?

Senator Senator, thank you for the question.

The President is the chief executive bested with all executive power in our government, and FCC commissioners are not. We do not have four cause removal protections, which means that we aren't independent.

Is your website lying?

I can't speak to the website.

I've not seen that.

You all are the commissioners in charge of this place, right? So this stuff has to be approved by one of you. If this is lying, then you should just fix it. Let me just say that. That wasn't even my got you question. I'm surprised that I burned up three minutes talking about this damn thing. Commissioner Gomez? Yes, and we should be. I appreciate that. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could just submit the print out of the homepage of the FCC into the recordman and says it's an independent agency. If it's not true, then change it.

Without objection.

I appreciate that, sir.

Then you have Democratic Senator Kim with his cross-exam saying, Let's just go back to what you just said. You're now claiming that the SEC is not independent and you're just a stooge of Donald Trump, so you're finally admitting it? You're to play this clip.

Chairman Carr, I guess I just wanted to start with you. I was confused after hearing your response to one of my colleagues about the status of the SEC. I want to read you a quote here and see if you agree with it. Congress long ago determined that the SEC an independent expert agency. Is that correct or not?

There's been a sea change in the law in the approach since I think I wrote that sentence, I'm assuming, since you gave it to me.

You said it in front of Congress.

The view has been that the communications act was passed in 1934, one year before Humphreys' executor. Congress did not include in the communications act, four-cause removal of the SEC commissioners. I can be fired by the President for no reason or any reason at all. The theory had been that courts would read four-cause removal into the statute, and that was the basis for that viewpoint. I think now it's clear that that's not the case. And so, formally speaking, the FC isn't independent because we don't have that key piece, which is for cause removal protection.

So when you're talking about all power vesting the present, I just want to read this a little more because you're saying not just that it is an independent agency, but you're saying that Congress did not want these technical decisions to be made in a haphazard manner or based on misinformation or short term political interests.

Now, right after Brenda Carr made that stunning admission after cross-examination, the SEC immediately changed its website. The The SEC's website during the cross-exam says the SEC is an independent agency because it was always deemed to be an independent agency. Then they removed the words independent agency from the website. You can see it right there. More CUS exam from Democratic Senator Kim. Let's play this clip right here.

I guess I'd just like to be a little bit more direct here. Have you ever had a conversation with the President or senior administration officials about using the SEC to go after critics?

Well, first of all, Senator, I don't get into the specifics of conversations that I have with the President.

Okay, well, let me reframe it then. Would it be appropriate for the President or senior administration officials to give you direction to pressure media companies?

I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. What I can tell you is the decision by the commission- The easy answer is no.

It's not a hypothetical. It's literally just trying to determine whether or not you are understanding your job being belonging to the American people. Trump is not your boss. The American people are your boss. Here's just one example I want to give on this.

The basis for this one- The commission decisions are going to be based on a vote of the three of us.

Let me finish my comment here, okay? The reason I raise this is because whether or not you had that conversation in the Oval Office or on a phone call, what we do is we see it all out in front. On August 24th, Trump wrote, ABC and NBC fake news. They are simply an arm of the Democratic Party and should, accordingly to many, have their licenses revoked by the SEC. I would be totally in favor of that because they are so biased and untruthful, an actual threat to our democracy. This is not hypothetical, like you said. He did intentionally try to pressure you and direct you to be able to use your power in the FCC against media companies that he thought were biased against him. That's why I just want to say this is not hypothetical. This is not theoretical. This is real. I was trying to get a sense of whether or not you thought this behavior was appropriate or not. And your failure to be able to directly dictate a line and show that there is integrity in this process concerns me because before the SEC comes all of these decisions. All of these decisions.

When you cannot tell me directly that Trump is not your boss, that the American people are your boss, I do not trust you that you can make When we make these decisions with the independent mind that is needed and directed by Congress. With that, I'll yield back to you.

When we make decisions at the commission, it's a vote among the three of us. It's a product of the three of our votes. We all can suggest edits and change items, and you can see for yourself the bases in reasoning for it.

So would it be appropriate then for the President to try and remove and replace any Commissioner because he disagrees with the decisions made by that commission?

The President can remove any member of the commission for any reason or no reason at all.

I know that, but do you think that's appropriate?

It's up to the President to decide.

Okay, well, then we got your answer. With that, I go back.

Oh, so you won't get into the conversation. So clearly, we all know that Donald Trump is directing Brenda Carr, who no longer deems the SEC to be independent, to go after comedians and to go after network hosts and others on TV that Donald Trump doesn't like people who speak negatively about Donald Trump. Then Senator Kim says, So you view Donald Trump as your boss, Whereas the SEC Commissioner would never answer this question yes before, whether it was under Biden, George W. Bush, Obama, Reagan, whoever, they would always answer, Of course, they're not my boss. We're an independent agency. Watch as as Brandon Carr basically freezes when he's asked these questions. Play this clip.

When you're talking about all power investing in the present, I just want to read this a little more because you're saying not just that it is an independent agency, but you're saying that Congress did not want these technical decisions to be made in a haphazard manner or based on misinformation or short term political interests. You specifically said it placed the authority outside of the executive branch for a reason. You were not just stating what was the law at the time. You were stating the benefit that comes with the independent. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense from you. If you don't think that the SEC is independent, then is President Trump your boss?

President Trump has designated me as chairman of the SEC. I think it comes as no surprise that I'm aligned with President Trump on policy. I think that's why he designated me as chairman.

But ultimately- Do you consider him your boss?

Ultimately, the President of the FDT is designated me as chairman. I can be fired by the President. The President is the head of the executive branch. The decisions of the commission- So he's your boss. Look, the decisions of the commission are going to be based on a vote of the three of us right here. There are some things that are different about that. Our decision is going to be based on the facts and the law and the record.

You swore an oath when you came into your job, right? Does the oath have the word president in it?

Senator, again, I'm not tracking this line.

What I'm saying is every decision- Do you remember the oath that you took? Yeah. You swore an oath to protect what?

Every single decision- What is it that you're protecting? In this job, we're based on the facts of law.

The Constitution of the United States. I'm just consistent. This is not a test here. I'm just trying to get a sense of how you're trying to operate here.

Then you have Democratic Senator Shatz from Hawaii. Here's his cross exam. Play this clip.

Thank you to all the commissioners. Thanks to the committee for conducting this hearing. Chairman Carr, you and I have We've known each other for maybe 10 years now. We've had several meetings in our office, and it's usually, I don't want to say mundane, but it's technocratic, it's technical, it's non-partisan, and all the rest of it. I'm hoping- We can do that again right here. It's fine. I'm hoping we can do that again right here, but it is a more sensitive sensitive topic. I'm just going to ask you a couple of yes or no questions. I don't mind a quick explanation, but I'll make a promise to you not to hectar you for three or four minutes if you can give me quick yes or nos or at least quick explanations. Chairman Cruz said I think it is unbelievably dangerous for the government to put itself in the position of saying, We're going to decide what speech we like and what we don't, and we're going to threaten to take you off the air if we don't like what you're saying. Do you see this issue the same way as the Well, my position on this is pretty clear.

We have a public interest standard that Congress has put into the law, and there's a number of very specific rules and doctrines that flow from that, the broadcast hoax rule, the news distortion rule. In my position, and I think the Trump administration position, is that we should be enforcing those rules and policies. Congress wants to change it. You're free to change it.

So you think you have jurisdiction over political satire under the public interest standard and the news distortion standard? Just to put a fine point on it.

My position is that- That one is a yes or no.

Do you have jurisdiction or not?

We have jurisdiction with respect to the broadcast airwaves uniquely to ensure that their operations are in the public interest. There's very specific rules. There's broadcast, folks, and news distortion.

If there's a determination by the Federal Communications Commission that satire is not in the public interest, you believe you have the authority to revoke the license of the broadcaster.

That's not my position at all. My position is if the use of the facilities is in the public interest- Hold on.

Then let me clarify the question.

Satire that's not broadcast hoax, that's not news distortion policy, is perfectly fine. But I also don't understand the conversation about, what satire are we talking about? Where was there satire?

We're not doing the questions in this direction.

More cross-examination from him as well. Let's play this clip.

Asking you, do you think it is appropriate for you to have an opinion at all in your official capacity about what a comedian says as offensive as it may have been?

Senator, my job is to implement the law passed by Congress. Congress has said that broadcast is fundamentally different, that there's a public interest standard.

Do you think there are any- It's a precedent on this. Do you think there are any conservative commentators or conservative comedians or conservative satirists that ever say anything offensive that you would consider investigating?

I'm not looking at things that are offensive or awful, to use your words. I'm looking at things that are consistent with our public interest rules and regulations. That's the full scope.

And in what way? I'm a little confused because it seems to me that in subsequent conversations, I forgot after Ted and John Thune and Dave McCormick and others said, Oh, this seems like a little much for you, chairman, that you went out and you said, That was fake news. I didn't do that. This is It's fake news. I am not doing that. I'm not going after Jimmy Kimmel. Now you're saying you have a perfect right to go after Jimmy Kimmel, and I'm wondering which one it is.

No, two different things. Democrats at the time were saying that we explicitly threatened to pull a license if Jimmy Kimmel wasn't fired. That never happened. That was nothing more than projection and distortion by Democrats. What I am saying is any broadcaster that uses the airways, whether radio or TV, has to comply with the public interest in it. And licenses are not sacred cows. Yes, you can do things to lose a license. But if we want to change that, that's up to Congress. And one idea, for instance, is why don't we put all the broadcast TV licenses up for auction? And if people want to buy them without the public interest obligation, they can do that.

But look, there was a bargain here. I mean, you're I'm tiptoeing through the tulips here, right? Because what you actually said is, they have a license granted by us at the SEC that comes with an obligation to operate in the public interest. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the SEC ahead. Chairman, my final comment is, I have actually enjoyed our relationship. I have praised you behind your back as a solid, someone I disagree with, but solid, knowledgeable person. This stuff, at least up until the last year, has been out of character, and it will not age well. It will not age well on the conservative side of the aisle and the liberal side of the aisle. This is not American FCC behavior, and I'm hoping we can recalibrate.

Let me try to understand this. Did you have an issue when Senator Markey told the FCC to investigate Sinclair for their news activities? Was there any issue raised there?

I'm going to allow this because I was tough on you. You did ask me a question. This is the first time I've ever going to respond to a question from a witness. I did not sign that letter.

It's called the holiday credit dip, and it hits millions of people every year, and most don't see it coming. The holidays roll in, you swipe your credit card a few extra times, your balance goes up, and your credit score drops. That's where smart credit comes in. Smart credit helps you stop the dip before it happens. Their pad and technology pinpoints exactly which bills to pay and when to maximize your credit score. In fact, the average smart credit user can see an increase of 34 points in just 30 days. Maximize your score now, and you could save big in the new year. So while you're out spreading holiday cheer, set yourself up for the smartest financial year yet with SmartCredit. Don't wait. Before you take the next swipe, head to smartcredit. Com/mitis and start your seven-day trial for just one That's smartcredit. Com/mitis, smartcredit. Com. Disclaimer, individual results may vary and are not guaranteed. You have Democratic Senator Markey, drilling Brandon Carr about whether he regrets his tweet about Jimmy Kimmel. Here, play this clip.

Chairman Carr, you are not reinvigorating the public interest standard. You are weaponizing the public interest standard. That is what the what our FCC is doing every single day. Behind me are your past tweets declaring your commitment to the First Amendment. You even defended political satire, saying in 2022, it challenges those in power. That's why people in influential positions have always targeted it for censorship. That's why your threats against ABC and Disney over Jimmy Kimmel's political monolog were so outrageous. Here's what you said. In September of 2025, as the chairman of the SEC, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct or take action, frankly, on kimmel. Or there's going to be additional work for the SEC ahead. Now, that statement was roundly condemned across the political spectrum. Chairman Cruz called it dangerous as hell. Chairman Carr, do you regret making that statement, yes or no?

Senator Márquez, thank you for the question. My job is to enforce the law as passed by Congress that includes a public interest standard. Broadcast TV is fundamentally different than the other media. We have a news distortion rule.

Do you regret making that statement?

Senator, my job is enforce the law.

So you don't regret making that statement. Well, that's a refusal. Take accountability for your language, for your use, your abuse of power. You will not say that you made a mistake.

For example- Democratic Senator Klobuchar gets in on the action cross-examining Brenda Carr, and she points out that, Isn't it interesting that the only network that you're not investigating right now is Fox. Isn't that correct? Let's play this clip.

Chairman Carr, in 2022, you tweeted, Political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech. It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people into the discussion. That's why people in influential positions have always targeted it for censorship. Yes or no, do you still agree that political satire should be protected speech?

Yes, Senator. Whenever that satire or any other programming is over, the public airways for broadcasters, there's a public interest standard, and there's a news distortion rule, a broadcast hoax rule, a political- You answered it.

Yes. And I'm just- I'm going to go on.

That particular instance, too, had to do with speech on social media, where Biden administrations were trying to shut down political speech. Again, an area where there is no license, there's no public interest standard.

We'll get to that in a minute. I believe, too, that there is no place in chilling political satire. But after Jimmy Kimmel's monolog, you went on a podcast broadcast and suggested that ABC should take Kimmel off the air saying, We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Those were your words. Do you think it is appropriate to use your position to threaten companies that broadcast political satire?

I think any licensee that operates on the public airways has a responsibility to comply with the public interest standard, and that's been the case for decades.

I asked if you think it's appropriate for you to use your position threaten companies. This incident with Kimmer wasn't an isolated event. You've launched investigations into every major broadcast network except Fox. Is that correct?

I don't know if that's true or not. We do have investigations ongoing on NPR and CBS. We have a number of investigations that are ongoing. I think if you step back, over the years, I think the SEC has walked away from enforcing the public interest standard, and I don't think that's a good thing.

Okay, you brought up social media. Do you think it's appropriate for after a horrific murder and the stabbing, the stabbing of Rob Reiner and his wife? Do you think it's appropriate for someone to say that it happened when they know better, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind-crippling disease known as Trump derangement syndrome. He was known to have driven people crazy by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights. Do you think that's appropriate for the President of the United States to do that? If Jimmy Kimmel would have said that, would have you had threatened to take him off the air?

Senator, look, Democrats on this dias are accusing me of engaging in censorship, and now you're trying to encourage me to police speech on the internet. I'm simply not going to do it.

I'm just asking. Broadcast television is- You can say the words. I think they are cruel. I think they hurt President Trump to say that thing. I think it hurts him with trust from the American people. But this is the stuff that's going on right now. And yet you are going after broadcast stations.

More of this exchange between Brenda Carr and Democratic Senator Klobuchar here play this clip.

Broadcast TV is fundamentally different than any other forms of media, whether it's cable or podcast or soapbox or a man on the street. There's a public trustee model that Congress has set up.

When you are on a podcast- Do you think there should be no rules in place when it comes to tech platforms then?

I think there's no public interest obligation. There is no license.

Do you think we should change the laws? Here's one. Last week, President Trump came out with this dangerous and likely illegal AI rule that preempts all the states from doing anything to try to save people, whether it is kids that are being exposed to content they shouldn't see or fentanyl or political videos that are lies. Do you think Congress has the authority to preempt state laws, or do you think President Trump and the agencies like yourself have the authority to preempt state law when it comes to the internet and safety with AI?

When it comes to AI in particular, there's an executive order. It asked the SEC to initiate a proceeding. We're going to initiate a proceeding. We're open-minded on where that goes. But look, if you want to step back and talk about weaponization, we saw that for four years in the Biden mission, Senate Democrats, including Democrats- Joe Biden is no longer President.

You are head of the SEC, and Donald Trump is President, and I'm trying to deal with this right now.

They always go back to, Well, Biden. Well, Biden's not the President, and Biden didn't do this stuff. Biden never said, go after the comedian who mocks me. Never happened. Just never happened. Then you have Senator Peters. Here's what he had to say in his cross exam of Brenda Carr.

Let's I'm going to ask you just a simple yes or no question. Will you commit here today that you will not move to revoke any media license for broadcasters or retaliate in any way against broadcast companies merely for choosing to host content that is critical of the President or says something that he may not like? Yes or no? Very simple.

Sir, any broadcaster that complies with the public interest standard is not in any risk at all. If a broadcaster is engaging in broadcast hoax or violation of news distortion policy or political equal opportunity, there's going to be work for the SEC potentially there.

This should be a pretty easy question. Do you think the SEC should protect free speech?

Yes.

Okay. You will not revoke licenses, so we can go back that you will do it. You won't revoke licenses or retaliate if they're simply engaging in free speech?

Senator, first of all, the Supreme Court has expressly said There is no First Amendment right to an FCC license. The Supreme Court has said that the FCC enforcing the public interest standard on licensees is not a violation of the First Amendment or censorship.

You get to determine what is the public interest. So if the President is offended, you think, wow, that's the public interest. No one should ever offend a President. That seems to be countered our whole history in this country. People are always critical. I don't care who the President is, a Democrat or a Republican. We should be able to make fun of them. That's what a healthy democracy is you can make fun of your leaders. You speak truth to power. So I don't understand that. This should be fairly easy.

You said make fun of the President. You're talking about the Kimmel issue?

I'm talking about any President. If you have somebody as a comedian, you can use his example.

Kimmel was not making fun of the President. What Kimmel said is we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA Gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them. It appeared to be an effort to mischaracterize the motivations of one of the most significant political assessments.

We also know that the President does not like that. I don't want to make just the issue the community because it's broader than that. That had nothing to do with the President. The public interest is a lot broader than that, and it shouldn't be you that determines that. That's called what is in a democracy, people are free to say things that you may not like, I may not like. But that's why we always defend that. I'm running out of time here. But Congress passed the law. But Congress I'm running out of time. Commissioner Gomez. I'm running out of time. Commissioner Gomez.

Charging the SEC for enforcing the public interest standard. If they want something different, then they need to change the law.

I've got limited time here. Senator's time.

Then we see Brenda Carr getting uncomfortable as Senator Markey accuses him of being the chair of the Federal Censorship Commission. Let's play this clip right here.

In your response to my oversight letter in September on the Kimmel incident, you repeatedly stated that the media companies made their own decisions in preempting and suspending Kimmel. You seem to think that your words, the most powerful communications regulator in America, especially your threats, don't matter. Just to be clear, your position is that your Mafia threats had nothing to do with Neckstar and Sinclair and Disney's decisions to preempt and suspend Kimmel. Is that your position? Is that your point that you had nothing to do with the suspension of Kimmel?

Senator, you look at the evidence, the express statements by every single company involved, from Neckstar to Sinclair to Disney, as recently as last week, is that they made these business decisions on their own. The record is clear on this.

And again, you're refusing to take accountability for your own words. You intimidate the companies. They do what you want. And then you say, Well, it was up to them. You're the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Actually, you're now the chairman of the Federal Censorship Commission. And these broadcasters, they feel that censorship. You have broad authority over the media industry, especially broadcasters. Your words and actions matter.

And folks, while all of that was taking place, you know what Donald Trump's referring to his Wall of Fame, Wall of Resident Fame, where he has all the photos of the presidents, and for former President Biden, he uses the autopen, and he goes, Ha, ha, ha, look, this is the autopen. So this is now officially a to the White House. I just want you to think about this sick authoritarian regime. As you just watched what Brenda Carr did and said, Here is what's on the White House wall right now. This is officially on the wall. Sleepy Joe Biden was by far the worst President in American history, taking office as a result of the most corrupt election ever seen in the United States. Biden oversaw a series of unprecedented disasters that brought our nation to the brink, and it goes on and on and on. Then when it says, as it relates to former President Barack Obama, it says, Barack Hussein Obama was the first black President, a community organizer, and one of the most divisive political figures in American history. As President, he passed the highly ineffective unaffordable care act. This is now officially attached to the White House.

Former President Clinton, it says over here, it talks about he approved NAFTA, which Donald Trump would later terminate as being bad for the United States. Welcomeed China into the World Trade Organization. In 2016, Clinton's wife, Hillary, lost the presidency to Donald Trump. By the way, you created the USMCA, Donald, which was basically NAFTA with basically a few changes to Update it, and that was your deal as well. But you're in charge now. He's affixing this to the White House while you have Brandon Carr, his censorship Tsar, in the White House. Anyway, let me know what you think. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million. Love this video? Support independent media and unlock exclusive content. Add free videos and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also give memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.