Tag: Deadline News

FCC chairman Brendan Carr said that he expected that ABC’s decision not to carry President Donald Trump’s speech last week to be part of the agency’s early review of its broadcast licenses.

During the speech itself, Trump said that ABC and NBC, which did not carry the address, should lose their broadcast licenses. They did telecast the speech on their streaming channels.

“I think when you have the president of the United States standing inside the White House delivering an important speech, I think that’s something that broadcasters should be carrying. And so, obviously, this is an issue,” Carr told reporters Wednesday. “There have been lots of concerns raised, including by members of Congress, about whether broadcasters and their decisions there comply with the public interest.”

The FCC does not license broadcast networks. It does license their affiliated stations, including those that the networks own.

The FCC already has ordered an early review of ABC broadcast station licenses for eight outlets, citing an investigation into its diversity, equity and inclusion practices. But the review looks into public comments on whether broadcasters have met their public interest obligations more generally. No such early review has been ordered yet for NBC.

Carr pointed to the FCC’s current proceeding on the early renewal of ABC-owned broadcast station licenses.

“I’m sure that there are going to be points raised in that proceeding that relate to Disney’s decision” not to carry the speech, he said. “Again, we’re going to hold all broadcasters to the public interest obligations, and we’re always looking to make sure they do exactly that.”

The network has objected to the FCC’s order that it submit its licenses for early renewal, calling it “an extraordinary demonstration of power and coercion directed at disfavored editorial voices which sends a clear warning to every broadcaster in America.”

The networks declined to carry certain speeches by Trump’s predecessors, Joe Biden and Barack Obama, even after time was requested by the White House. The topic of Trump’s speech — election security — raised concerns that it would be overly political and that he would repeat unfounded stolen election claims.

Carr also cited a report that “one or more of the networks have been in communication with … Democrat[ic] aides about their decision not to carry the president’s remarks.”

A spokesperson for ABC did not immediately return a request for comment.

A spokesperson for NBC did not have an immediate comment. The network also did a broadcast special report on the speech and offered the streaming feed to affiliates to take live if they wanted. Sinclair-owned network affiliated stations did that evening.

Commissioner Anna Gomez, the sole Democrat on the FCC, said that the agency “has no authority to punish broadcasters for exercising their First Amendment right to choose what is newsworthy. They made these decisions under presidents of both parties without any complaints, and in this case, the remarks were freely available online to anyone who wanted to watch them.”

She added that the “vague public interest standard is being used just to punish speech this administration doesn’t like, and to reward speech that it does like, and that’s inappropriate, and it is contrary to the law and the Constitution.”

Veteran and former journalists are renewing their calls on the White House Correspondents’ Association to speak out on the Trump administration’s attacks on reporters and press freedom when he attends its rescheduled dinner on Friday.

A letter to the WHCA, organized by former ABC News correspondent Lisa Stark and executive producer Ian Cameron, reiterates earlier calls to condemn the president’s attacks on the news media. More than 500 veteran and former journalists signed on to a letter in advance of the April dinner.

The April event, though, was ended abruptly after a gunman attempted to enter the Washington Hilton ballroom by breaching a security checkpoint, with a Secret Service agent struck by a bullet into his protective vest. The gunman, Cole Tomas Allen pleaded not guilty to a series of charges, including attempted assassination of the president.

“Since that evening, the administration’s attacks on journalists and press freedom have become even more egregious,” the new letter to the WHCA stated. “The President’s Department of Justice has subpoenaed journalists and their phone records. President Trump has threatened to revoke licenses of broadcasters who refuse to acquiesce to his demands.”

The letter called on the WHCA to “forcefully stand up for freedom of the press in front of the President, publicly defend the journalists he attacks, and vow to resist his administration’s concerted effort to
undermine the First Amendment.”

Among other things, they cited the Justice Department’s subpoenas to New York Times journalists after they reported on the lack of security features on the new Air Force One, a retrofitted 747 that was a gift from Qatar. The FCC has ordered ABC stations to seek early renewals of broadcast licenses, in what the network called a threat to the First Amendment. The FCC said that the early renewal was related to an investigation of the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion hiring practices, but it came after Trump called on the network to fire Jimmy Kimmel over one of his jokes.

Among the organizations signing on to the letter in April were the Society for Professional Journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Press Photographers Association, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Coalition of Women in Journalism, the Radio Television Digital News Association and the Media & Democracy Project.

The dinner, to be held at a smaller venue at the Waldorf Astoria, is scheduled to include remarks from Trump, presentation of awards and scholarships, and entertainment from Oz Pearlman. The WHCA announced that special awards will be presented to Victor Gonzales, the Secret Service officer, and to the staff of the Washington Hilton.

This post was corrected to reflect that the WHCA dinner will be held at the Waldorf Astoria.

The complete letter is below:

To the Officers, Board of Directors, and Members of the White House Correspondents’
Association (WHCA):

In April, hundreds of veteran journalists called on the White House Correspondents’
Association to use its Correspondents’ Dinner to forcefully oppose the Trump
administration’s attacks on journalists and on freedom of the press.

The WHCA rescheduled the dinner for this Friday, July 24th, after a gunman brought an
abrupt and terrifying end to the April event.

Since that evening, the administration’s attacks on journalists and press freedom have
become even more egregious. The President’s Department of Justice has
subpoenaed journalists and their phone records. President Trump has threatened to
revoke licenses of broadcasters who refuse to acquiesce to his demands.

Yet, the White House Correspondents’ Association still plans on hosting the President
at its rescheduled dinner.

Our message to the White House Correspondents’ Association is now more urgent:
forcefully stand up for freedom of the press in front of the President, publicly defend the
journalists he attacks, and vow to resist his administration’s concerted effort to
undermine the First Amendment.

WHCA President Weijia Jiang says the dinner’s purpose is “to celebrate the First
Amendment and the hard daily work of the journalists who defend it.”

We believe it is hypocritical to celebrate the First Amendment in front of the man who
relentlessly attacks it. We urge the WHCA to condemn the administration’s actions from
the podium and pledge to fight all attempts by his administration to undermine this core
pillar of a functioning democracy.

Recent Trump Administration Attacks on Freedom of the Press

UPDATED: When the Kennedy Center honored Bill Maher with its Mark Twain Prize at a ceremony last month, there were a number of jokes at the expense of the center’s chairman, Donald Trump, who was not present.

One quip, though, did not make it into the stream of the ceremony that debuted on Tuesday: A joke that seemingly referenced Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Honoring Maher, Whitney Cummings said at the ceremony, “I actually heard Trump may come tonight, but he couldn’t make it. He got caught in sex traffic.”

In an audience that included some Trump administration figures, the biting joke got some oohs, and laughs.

So what happened?

Cummings posted on X on Tuesday that Netflix did not cut anything from her set. A Netflix spokesperson said, “While it’s our preference not to cut jokes from anyone’s set, The Kennedy Center has the contractual right to do so.”

Netflix has had the rights to the ceremony under a rights deal with the center, which is controlled by Trump and a board dominated by his allies.

A source close to the production said, “Edits to a show are always made in a collaborative way to produce the best product for broadcast.” The show is trimmed each year for time constraints, including last year, when Conan O’Brien was honored.

But on her podcast earlier this month, Cummings talked about the situation, noting that the joke was “already out there” given press reporting on the ceremony. “But then they said, ‘We need to cut it from the broadcast.’ I’m like, well, it’s already out there. Who cares?’ They’re like, ‘He will sue you.’”

Cummings said that while she wasn’t trying to be the “bratty” comedian saying, “I’m on the front lines.”

“I don’t care. It’s like, ‘Great. Cut it.’ But this is the Mark Twain Prize. This is the only time that you shouldn’t get censored, because it’s about comedians using humor to criticize our elected officials. So I was in this jam where I was like … ‘I need to fight for this joke because it’s the Mark Twain Prize, and this is the time I feel like I have to. But also, I don’t want anyone losing their job. But if it’s just about him suing me, I was like, ‘Okay.’ I mean, I have to fly to DC, which is kind of annoying. But I would win.”

Cummings posted on X, “I was super clear that Netflix did not cut anything from my Mark Twain prize set. Netflix always supports comedy and comics. Quit spreading rumors ya weirdos.”

Throughout the ceremony, Maher was honored as a champion for free expression, with humor that skewered the right and the left. During her tribute, Cummings called Maher a “warrior for free speech.” Then she quipped, “He believes you should be able to say anything at anytime, especially when someone else is mid sentence.”

Shortly after he returned to office, Trump ousted the center’s board members who were appointed by Joe Biden and Barack Obama, ensuring that he would be elected its chairman, a first for a sitting president.

A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order that will pause Paramount‘s merger with Warner Bros Discovery for 14 days.

The order, issued Monday, is in response to a lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and 11 other states, claiming that the proposed merger violates antitrust laws.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin wrote that the state AGs “present compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market.”

“On this combined firm market share alone, the Court is persuaded that it can presume the proposed merger is likely to violate antitrust laws,” the judge wrote.

Click here to read the judge’s order pausing the merger.

The judge’s order bars Paramount and Warner Bros “from closing or consummating the Transaction or taking any steps, directly or indirectly, to integrate or consolidate their operations pursuant to the Transaction.”

The states claim that the merger creates undue concentration in the markets for wide release films, distribution of anticipated top-grossing theatrical films, and licensing of basic cable channels.

A TRO is an order to preserve the status quo in the short term as the judge more fully considers the merits of the case. But in her order, Martinez-Olguin wrote that the “balance of equities, combined with the public’s vital interest in antitrust enforcement, therefore tips sharply in favor of the requested injunctive relief.”

The states had asked that a temporary restraining order was needed because Paramount had not made any guarantee that it would not close the transaction after July 22. The European Union is expected to make its decision on the transaction around that date.

RELATED: Paramount Submits Concessions To Gain EU Approval For Warner Bros. Discovery Deal

The judge’s granting of a TRO is not a major surprise, and Paramount had signaled that it would delay a close to the transaction. At a hearing on Friday, Paramount’s lead attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, said that they were prepared to commit to not closing the merger for the next 28 days.

Bonta said in a statement, “This is a critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day.”

He added, “We have a full tank of gas, the law on our side, and look forward to continuing to make our case.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James said, “This lawsuit is about a simple fact: when one company controls a massive share of our film and television industries, workers, artists, businesses, and consumers suffer.”

A Paramount spokesperson said, “We are confident the evidence will demonstrate that the State AGs’ antitrust arguments are without merit as their alleged markets and claims of anticompetitive effects are without any basis in modern market realities.  This merger is lawful, pro-competitive, and will benefit consumers, creators, workers, and the entertainment industry. We will continue to vigorously defend the transaction and will look forward to the hearings on the substance of the State AGs’ action.”

The timing of the legal proceedings is significant. Paramount faces the prospect of paying a $7 million-per-day “ticking fee” to Warner Bros for each day that the transaction is not closed after September 30. That was a sweetener that Paramount made to win the bidding for WBD.

The judge set a schedule for the stage AG’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which could halt the merger indefinitely as the legal process plays out. She set a hearing date of August 3, with the motion due by Thursday, the opposition brief from Paramount due by July 27 and the state AGs’ reply by July 30.

The judge wrote that even though Paramount’s legal team argued that certain market concentration figures are not binding on the courts, they did not present “countervailing evidence” to rebut the data.

Paramount also argued that the state AGs presented “fundamental misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions regarding the economics of theatrical film distribution in the United States,” pointing to the opinion of a competing expert witness. But the judge wrote that their proof still did not show that the merger would not “substantially lessen competition.”

She wrote, “At best, Defendants’ proof regarding these robust, dynamic markets creates disputes regarding the facts and legality of the Transaction’s market effects.” She wrote that the state AGs showed that “serious questions going to the merits remain, weighing in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.”

The judge also signaled that she was not sympathetic to Paramount’s arguments of economic harm if the merger is blocked beyond September 30. She waived the security requirement, typically the posting of a bond, “because Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Plaintiff States bring suit to enforce important public interests.”

She wrote, “Even if Defendants argued that they would suffer economic harm as a result of delaying the merger, the equities do not weigh in their favor when contrasted with the potential public harms that would result from consummation of the Transaction, including the loss of competition.”

The transaction looked to be on its way to closing in June, after the Justice Department announced that it was closing its investigation and, in a statement, explained why it believed that the merger was not anticompetitive.

Paramount contends that the transaction would bolster competition in streaming, as the combination of Paramount and Warner Bros would stand a better chance against stronger rivals like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon’s Prime Video.

The states, though, focused on theatrical and cable markets, arguing that consolidation impacts theater owners and cable distributors, with consumers ultimately feeling the impact.

In a footnote, the judge wrote that she could “not accept” that the transaction would benefit the streaming market, which is a Paramount defense. She wrote that courts “have expressly and repeatedly rejected the defense that a challenged merger will result in economic efficiencies ancillary to competition in the relevant market.”

Jill Goldsmith contributed to this report.

A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order that will pause Paramount‘s merger with Warner Bros. Discovery for 14 days.

The order is in response to a lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and 11 other states, claiming that the proposed merger violates antitrust laws.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin wrote that the state AGs “present compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market.”

“On this combined firm market share alone, the Court is persuaded that it can presume the proposed merger is likely to violate antitrust laws,” the judge wrote.

Read the judge’s order pausing Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger.

The judge’s order bars Paramount and Warner Bros. “from closing or consummating the Transaction or taking any steps, directly or indirectly, to integrate or consolidate their operations pursuant to the Transaction.”

The states claim that the merger creates undue concentration in the markets for wide release films, distribution of anticipated top-grossing theatrical films and licensing of basic cable channels.

A TRO is an order to preserve the status quo in the short term as the judge more fully considers the merits of the case. But in her order, Martinez-Olguin wrote that the “balance of equities, combined with the public’s vital interest in antitrust enforcement, therefore tips sharply in favor of the requested injunctive relief.”

The states had asked that a temporary restraining order was needed because Paramount had not made any guarantee that it would not close the transaction after July 22. The European Union is expected to its decision on the transaction around that date.

The judge’s granting of a TRO is not a major surprise, and Paramount had signaled that it would delay a close to the transaction. At a hearing on Friday, Paramount’s lead attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, said that they were prepared to commit to not closing the merger for the next 28 days.

Bonta said in a statement, “This is a critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day.”

He added, “We have a full tank of gas, the law on our side, and look forward to continuing to make our case.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James said, “This lawsuit is about a simple fact: when one company controls a massive share of our film and television industries, workers, artists, businesses, and consumers suffer.”

A Paramount spokesperson said, “We are confident the evidence will demonstrate that the State AGs’ antitrust arguments are without merit as their alleged markets and claims of anticompetitive effects are without any basis in modern market realities.  This merger is lawful, pro-competitive, and will benefit consumers, creators, workers, and the entertainment industry. We will continue to vigorously defend the transaction and will look forward to the hearings on the substance of the State AGs’ action.”

The timing of the legal proceedings is significant. Paramount faces the prospect of paying a $7 million per day “ticking fee” to Warner Bros. for each day that the transaction is not closed after Sept. 30. That was a sweetener that Paramount made to win the bidding for WBD.

The judge set a schedule for the stage AG’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which could halt the merger indefinitely as the legal process plays out. She set a hearing date of Aug. 3, with the motion due by Thursday, the opposition brief from Paramount due by July 27 and the state AGs’ reply by July 30.

The judge wrote that even though Paramount’s legal team argued that certain market concentration figures are not binding on the courts, they did not present “countervailing evidence” to rebut the data.

Paramount also argued that the state AGs presented “fundamental misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions regarding the economics of theatrical film distribution in the United States,” pointing to the opinion of a competing expert witness. But the judge wrote that their proof still did not show that the merger would not “substantially lessen competition.”

She wrote, “At best, Defendants’ proof regarding these robust, dynamic markets creates disputes regarding the facts and legality of the Transaction’s market effects.” She wrote that the state AGs showed that “serious questions going to the merits remain, weighing in favor of preliminary injunctive relief.”

The judge also signaled that she was not sympathetic to Paramount’s arguments of economic harm if the merger is blocked beyond Sept. 30. She wrote, “Even if Defendants argued that they would suffer economic harm as a result of delaying the merger, the equities do not weigh in their favor when contrasted with the potential public harms that would result from consummation of the Transaction, including the loss of competition.”

The transaction looked to be on its way to closing in June, after the Justice Department announced that it was closing its investigation and, in a statement, explained why it believed that the merger was not anticompetitive.

Paramount contends that the transaction would bolster competition in streaming, as the combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. would stand a better chance against stronger rivals like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime.

The states, though, focused on theatrical and cable markets, arguing that consolidation impacts theater owners and cable distributors, with consumers ultimately feeling the impact.

Jill Goldsmith contributed to this report.

The judge overseeing the state attorneys general challenge to the Paramount-Warner Bros Discovery merger did not issue a ruling Friday on an emergency motion to pause the transaction, but said she would do so by July 22.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín heard arguments from both sides in an 80-minute hearing in Oakland. The states are seeking a temporary restraining order that would bar the companies from closing the deal for up to 28 days. That would be a prelude to a further ruling on a preliminary injunction, which would perhaps pause the transaction indefinitely, or until the legal process plays out.

Jeffrey Kessler, representing Paramount, told the judge that the transaction will not close by July 22, which is Wednesday. That is around the time that the European Union is expected to issue its decision on the $110 billion transaction.

Much of the hearing was devoted to argument on how narrowly the market for theatrical and cable distribution should be defined, as the states claimed that they had shown that the transaction on its face is illegal.

But timing is also top of mind in the litigation. Kessler also told the judge that they were “prepared to stipulate we won’t close for 28 days,” but Paramount also wants what is essentially a mini trial that would ensure that there would be a ruling on the preliminary injunction before September 30. As part of its agreement with WBD, Paramount agreed to pay a $7 million per day ticking fee if the transaction does not close by then. The states oppose that scheduling plan.

California attorney general Rob Bonta and 11 other states filed suit to block the merger on Monday. They claim that the transaction is “presumptively unlawful,” likely to substantially lessen competition in the markets for wide release theatrical distribution, anticipated top grossing film releasing, and basic cable channel licensing.

The AGs claim that the merger will lead to “higher prices and degraded quality,” as a combined Paramount and Warner Bros will be able to extract a greater portion of box office revenue from exhibitors.

They also argued that the transaction was presumptively illegal by pointing to market shares. Paramount-WB represent about 27% of the box office, per the state attorneys general, and will control more than 30% of big-budget theatricals for wide release. When it comes to cable, the combined company would control more than a quarter of all basic cable channels by revenue, per the lawsuit. The transaction will not only put two legacy film studios under the same corporate owner, but Paramount will have amassed a collection of basic cable outlets, ranging from MTV and Nickelodeon to TNT and Cartoon Network.

Kessler called the state AGs’ market figures misleading. He argued that they don’t account for the impact of distributors like Amazon MGM or for unexpected successes like Obsession, “made for a million dollars that comes out of nowhere and earns over $450 million I think so far this year.”

He also pointed to F1, contending that the state AGs did not account for the “dramatic theatrical success” of that movie even though it came from Apple, not one of the five major legacy studios. But the attorney for the state AGs, James Weingarten, pointed out that F1 was distributed by Warner Bros.

Kessler accused the states of dismissing the impact of streaming, arguing that the growing market “compels the increase in production for theatrical. It compels it because it is the only way streaming can succeed.”

Paramount has said that under the merger, it will boost theatrical output to 30 films per year. Kessler said that the company is making the commitment “because it has to.”

As for cable, Kessler said that the collection of channels from the merged company would be “complementary, and there is no increase in bargaining power.”

Cable distributors take both packages of channels from Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery, and “if they’re combined, they’re going to take both packages. There’s no change in the competitive dynamic.”

Weingarten told the judge that the market definitions in the lawsuit do reflect the way that business is currently practiced, even if streaming has gained a foothold.

“It’s no good for a theater owner with 38 or 45 or a hundred theaters to say, ‘But Netflix,’ or “But Amazon.’ They can’t stop showing a blockbuster or an anticipated blockbuster and say, ‘We’re just going to put Amazon or Netflix up on the screen instead. That’s not a substitution for them.”

While there may be breakout hits, he said, there is a market for anticipated top-grossing movies. “The point is there are some movies that get the budget, the marketing, the name brand. We all know, whether we call them blockbuster, tentpole or whatever, these are the lifeblood of the industry.”

He also challenged the notion that Paramount won’t gain bargaining leverage in basic cable.

“It is intuitive and clear that if one company owns 50 of the 100 channels, they will have excessive bargaining leverage, and there will be anti-competitive effects in their negotiations with the cable companies and the satellite distributors,” he said.

A federal judge has denied a group of consumers a preliminary injunction to at least temporarily block Paramount‘s proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.

The judge, Araceli Martínez-Olguín, said that she is taking Paramount’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit under advisement.

The lawsuit was filed in April, one of the early legal challenges to the merger.

This week, attorneys general from California and 11 other states filed their own antitrust lawsuit, and Martínez-Olguín will take up their motion for a temporary restraining order at hearing on Friday.

In her remarks, the judge said that the consumers had failed to meet the threshold to order an immediate halt to the $110 merger.

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing the plaintiff is entitled to such relief,” the judge said at the hearing. “Here, plaintiffs fail to meet that standard. Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence and this have not made a clear showing of a likelihood of success, nor to they make a clear showing of irreparable harm.”

In April, five pay-TV and streaming services subscribers filed a lawsuit challenging the merger, claiming, among other things, that the acquisition would increase prices and diminish the diversity of viewpoints. The lawsuit also seeks the divestiture of Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount Global last year.

In its filing seeking dismissal of the case, Paramount’s legal team argued that the plaintiffs — Pamela Faust, Len Marazzo, Lisa McCarthy, Deborah Rubinsohn and Gary Talewsky — do not have standing. They also argued that they failed to state a plausible claim of competitive harm from the merger.

Joseph Alioto, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that all that they had to show was “a threat to injury.” He cited the price hike for Paramount+ subscriptions after Skydance acquired the studio last year.

He argued that with the debt load that Paramount will take on with the acquisition, “there is no way they can get that unless, among other things, they raise the price.”

Paramount’s lead attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, said that “price increase cannot be attributed to merger seeking to enjoin because that merger has not been completed yet.” He told the judge that there was “no injury identified for these plaintiffs” in the lawsuit.

The judge also rejected plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery. Alioto said that private plaintiffs “don’t get special privileges,” or access to merger materials, unlike the state of California or other government entities.

UPDATED with CNN plans, 3:34 PM: ABC News and NBC News said Thursday afternoon that they will carry Donald Trump‘s primetime address tonight only on their respective streaming sites, ABC News Live and NBC News Now, and not their broadcast networks.

CBS News has yet to reveal its coverage plans. The address is expected to begin at 9 p.m. ET/6 p.m. PT.

Among cable networks, CNN said that it also will not carry the speech live but will run it on CNN.com and its All Access streaming platform.

NBC News said it will air a special report on the network after the speech. ABC News will monitor the speech and will break in for a special report depending on developments.

The broadcast networks do not always carry a presidential primetime speech upon White House request, as decisions were made to bypass Joe Biden and Barack Obama addresses as well.

A CNN spokesperson said that the network “will cover the president’s speech as a news event, and monitor it for news developments, providing analysis and commentary from CNN experts who cover elections, intelligence and the FBI.”

PREVIOUSLY, 10:06 AM: The broadcast networks have yet to announce whether they will preempt programming and carry President Donald Trump’s primetime address to the nation on Thursday evening, but it’s no surprise why the matter is still under discussion.

All week, there has been the expectation that Trump plans to focus on intelligence claims about the 2020 presidential election, and use it as a rationale for passage of the SAVE America Act. The topic puts the networks on the spot — devoting the primetime airwaves to potentially unsubstantiated and unfounded claims that the 2020 election was “rigged,” even though courts rejected dozens of the Trump campaign election challenges that year before the race was certified.

Trump announced his plans for the address Monday, and typically the networks would have some announcement by now.

“Without free and fair elections, you don’t have a country,” Trump told reporters earlier this week when asked to preview his address.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday that the speech will be about the integrity of elections, but she did not reveal the extent to which the president would delve into elections of the past.

“It will shock you if you have an honest eye listening to the president tonight, and everything he is saying will be backed by facts and evidence that will be provided this evening,” she said. Responding to a CBS News correspondent, she said, “I hope CBS will take this speech,” underscoring the extent to which plans have not been finalized.

The broadcast networks carried Trump’s primetime address April 1 about the war in Iran, but his July 4 speech on the National Mall, billed as a rally, did not get the same treatment.

A speech about election security — with reports that Trump will cite intelligence of foreign interference — puts the onus on networks to aggressively fact check if the president returns to unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Those claims led to the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and Fox News eventually settled a lawsuit brought by voting company Dominion after its hosts and guests amplified allegations that the company was involved in rigging.

Moreover, such a speech may very well get into the politics of the midterms. Democrats see Trump’s efforts to pass the SAVE America Act as a tactic to suppress voting; the act would require documents like a birth certificate or passport in order to register to vote. There also is the fear that he’ll use the failure to pass the legislation — a scenario that seems likely — to try to sow doubt about the integrity of the midterms.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Thursday, “Something is really wrong with this guy. I think he actually needs to be checked out. Why does he continue to focus on a conspiracy theory related to a 2020 presidential election that every rational person in the United States of America knows he lost?”

The three major cable networks — Fox News, CNN and MS NOW — also have not announced their plans, although it’s expected that they will have at least some coverage during the hour, as they will be in the midst of their typical primetime news programming.

Donald Trump lashed out at ABC and NBC, the two networks that chose not to carry his speech live on their broadcast platforms, as he delivered a 25-minute long speech full of claims that included China obtaining voter registration data and the “deep state” withholding that intelligence from him.

Without evidence, Trump claimed that ABC and NBC and others in the media “want to continue this fraud for whatever reason. They want to keep it going. They want to protect the radical left. They can’t have a great country, and that’s true. You can’t have a great country without free and fair elections. Fraud like this should mean a revocation of their licenses. They use our public multi-billion dollar in value airwaves for absolutely no money. They pay nothing. All we want is honesty in our elections and honesty in reporting.”

The networks had announced earlier in the day that they would not carry the speech, but would feature it live on their streaming channels.

CBS News did air the speech — albeit not in its entirety. But anchor Tony Dokoupil preceded the address by telling viewers, “Honestly, much of what the president has said on this topic is false.” He then explained why they were doing a special report, noting, “This speech will be made. It will be news. And it is our job to cover the news.”

Then he went to Major Garrett, who offered some context on what viewers could expect to hear. After CBS News cut away from the speech, Garrett noted that trump’s claim of non-citizens and dead people on the voter rolls was “unsubstantiated.”

Garrett said, “Tony, you have to ask yourself, what does that rhetoric about? Is that rhetoric about setting the stage for federal intervention in the midterms? I mean, we’ve had primary elections all this year. We’re going to have more in August. Those primary elections have been conducted under this system that the president said is catastrophically vulnerable. Yet he and all Republicans and Democrats have accepted the election.”

One of the most newsworthy claims — that China acquired 220 million voter records — was also addressed on the network by David Becker, of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “It sounds bad when you hear about it, right? But the reality is, voter files in the United States are public.”

Trump’s threat of NBC and ABC is nothing new. he’s done that before. But ABC already has been ordered to put the licenses of its eight owned and operated stations up for an early renewal by the FCC and its chairman, Brendan Carr. Such a rare move opens up the stations to challenges to its licenses as the FCC determines whether they have served the “public interest.”

ABC is challenging the early license renewal, calling it an “extraordinary demonstration of power and coercion.” Carr has said that the early license renewal was tied to an investigation of the network’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices, but it was launched after Trump called on the network to fire Jimmy Kimmel.

The FCC also is investigating NBC-parent Comcast over DEI, but Carr has not said whether he would call for additional early license renewals.

Despite ABC and NBC not airing the speech, screen grabs were posted on social media showed that some Sinclair-owned stations did carry it as part of their National Desk. A spokesperson for the broadcast group did not immediately return a request for comment.

In the aftermath of the speech, networks devoted some time to fact checking, while some commentators referred to the newly released intelligence with some skepticism.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, posted on X, “It’s pretty laughable to watch Trump try and pretend accessing the voter file is the same thing as election interference. Any statewide candidate will tell you that information is publicly available to purchase — it’s not some huge breach.”

More to come.