FCC to investigate 'DEI discrimination' at Disney, ABC
"I want to ensure that Disney and ABC have not been violating FCC equal employee opportunity regulations by promoting invidious forms of [diversity, equity and inclusion] discrimination," FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said Thursday in a letter to Walt Disney Company Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger.
The FCC investigation is to ensure Disney and ABC have ended "any and all discriminatory initiatives in substance, not just in name," Carr said.
He also wants to determine whether Disney's actions complied at all times with applicable FCC regulations, even if those actions have ended.
"Disney started out a century ago as an iconic American company," Carr said.
"For decades, Disney focused on churning out box office and programming successes," he continued. "But then, something changed. Disney has now been embroiled in rounds of controversy surrounding its DEI policies."
Carr said "numerous reports" suggest Disney's leaders "went all-in on insidious forms of DEI discrimination" in a manner that "infected" the company's decision making.
The Communications Act and FCC rules prohibit entities like Disney and ABC from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age or gender, Carr wrote.
"I am concerned that ABC and its parent company have been or may still be promoting invidious formed of DEI in a manner that does not comply with FCC regulations," he said.
Carr said Disney in recent years prioritized DEI and "embedded explicit race- and gender-based criteria across its operations."
Such practices include implementing "racially segregated affinity groups and spaces" and launching Disney's "Reimagine Tomorrow" initiative that Carr called a "mechanism for advancing its DEI mission."
Carr also accuses ABC of imposing mandatory "inclusion standards" that require half of all regular and recurring characters to depict underrepresented groups and at least half of all writers, directors, crew and vendors be hired based on group identity.
"It appears that executive bonuses may also have been tied to DEI 'performance,' and ABC has utilized race-based hiring databases and restricted fellowships to select demographic groups," Carr wrote.
He said it is unclear if Disney and ABC have fundamentally changed their recent DEI-driven policies and if their past practices violated FCC regulations.
Disney officials are reviewing Carr's letter, according to a prepared statement shared with the BBC.
"We look forward to engaging with the commission to answer its questions," the statement said.
ABC officials did not respond to a UPI request for comment on Saturday afternoon.
The Trump administration has banned DEI practices within the federal government and is opposing discrimination among U.S. employers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
28 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Jerome Powell's job just got a whole lot easier as inflation data sidesteps disaster
July inflation data suggests the FOMC's dual mandate may not be in as much of a pickle as economists had previously feared. CPI rose 0.2% month-on-month in July. It was 2.7% year-on-year, the same level as the month before. Core inflation edged up to 3.1%, however, keeping it above the Fed's 2% target. Flatter headline inflation and falling energy prices bolstered expectations for a September rate cut, though analysts warned that sticky service costs and potential tariff impacts could limit further easing in 2025. Markets rallied on the data, but Fed officials are likely to remain focused on upcoming jobs reports before committing to additional cuts. July's inflation report went about as well as the Fed (and the White House) could have hoped for. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) summary released Tuesday reported inflation notched up 0.2% in July, that's down compared to the 0.3% increase in June. Over the past 12 months, this brings the headline inflation rate to 2.7%—admittedly still comfortably ahead of the Federal Reserve's 2% target but the same level as it was in June. Shelter was the primary factor for the overall rise, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) said, rising 0.2% in July. Meanwhile, key categories such as the food index were largely unchanged, with food at home falling 0.1% and food away from home rising 0.3%. Elsewhere, the energy index fell 1.1% while gasoline costs were also reduced by 2.2%. Supporters of Trump 2.0 will use the relatively flat report as ammunition to urge U.S. Federal Reserve Jerome Powell to cut the base interest rate, arguing that tariffs are not (yet) proving as inflationary as many economists previously feared. Indeed, President Trump wrote on Truth Social moments after the data was released: 'Jerome 'Too Late' Powell must NOW lower the rate. Steve 'Manouychin' really gave me a 'beauty' when he pushed this loser. The damage he has done by always being Too Late is incalculable. Fortunately, the economy is sooo good that we've blown through Powell and the complacent board.' When the White House announced its tariff regime, particularly following its 'Liberation Day' announcements in April, analysts and investors feared the significant added costs to global trade would be passed to American consumers. Surveys indicate that this is the intention of the majority of businesses: To pass the increased levies on to the public, thus pushing up inflation. But with various agreements with key partners now made, and delays with the likes of China to boot, economists are now beginning to wonder when (or if) the sharpest end of the tariff agenda will be felt. The report is likely to have eased some of the friction members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) were readying themselves for. For many months, the FOMC had been warning it was mindful of the two sides of its mandate when making decisions about the base rate. Those two sides are maximizing employment and keeping inflation to 2%. With a shocking and negative update on the labor market from earlier this month, a spiking inflation report for July would have put those two factors at even greater odds. As it is, many analysts are seeing the inflation report as another tick in the box for a cut at the FOMC's next meeting in September. After all, they believe it means Powell and the FOMC can breathe easier about tariffs and give the economy and employment market a boost by lowering interest. At the opening bell investors certainly seemed to think so: The S&P 500 was up 0.65%, the Dow Jones up 0.6%, the Nasdaq up 0.76%. However, while headline inflation stayed below 3%, core inflation (excluding the often volatile food and energy categories) rose to 3.1% over the past 12 months. Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management, wrote in a note seen by Fortune that July inflation data isn't hot enough to 'derail the Fed from cutting rates in September. There is some sign of tariff pass through to consumer prices but, at this stage, it is not significant enough to ring alarm bells.' But Shah added that further cuts in 2025 are not a foregone conclusion: 'The concern for the Fed is that with inventory run-down, the tariff-induced boost to inflation is likely to grow over the coming months, meaning that inflationary pressures are likely to pick up just as the Fed starts to resume rate cuts. Markets like today's inflation print as it means the Fed can lower rates unheeded next month – rate cut decisions in October, December and beyond may well be more complicated.' Don't count your cuts While Powell has been fending off criticism from the White House, analysts are warning against baking in further and significant cuts for the remainder of the year. The FOMC have their next meeting in September, followed by two more in October and December, and one member, Michelle Bowman, has already confirmed she would be open to such a trajectory. Indeed, UBS's Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, CIO Americas and global head of equities, wrote in a note to clients: 'With overall inflation likely under control amid a slowing economy, our base case remains that the Fed will resume rate cuts at the September meeting and continue cutting for a total of 100bps.' Indeed, CME's FedWatch shows more than 94% of the market expect a cut at the next meeting. But analysts are wary to be overly confident beyond the next meeting. Elyse Ausenbaugh, head of investment strategy at J.P. Morgan Wealth Management, wrote in a note to clients that while she was still expecting a 0.5% cut in rates by the end of the year, 'It seems fair to say that the Fed could be considering a move in September, but I don't think a cut at that meeting is as much of a given as market pricing is implying. We will get plenty of data between now and then that could give the Fed pause one more time before taking action in the fourth quarter.' Michael Pearce, deputy chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, wrote in a note to Fortune that the details of the CPI report don't even guarantee a September cut. 'The larger rise in core prices in July provides mixed evidence around the tariff boost to inflation. For the Federal Reserve, inflation is much further from its target than the unemployment rate, which is why we expect them to hold off rate cuts another few months. However, another weak set of jobs data in August would force their hand early,' Pearce wrote. 'Core inflation edged up to 3.0% in July and we expect it will rise further to a peak of 3.8% by the end of the year as tariffs bleed through more fully to consumer prices. 'In our view, the upside risks to inflation will keep the majority of the FOMC preferring to sit on the sidelines for a few more months. The large downward revisions included in the July employment report heightened concerns around the labor market, and another weak report in August could tip the odds in favor of a September rate cut.' Pearce was echoed by Bill Adams, chief economist for Comerica Bank, who said the Fed is now less likely to cut because the inflationary factors in the July report came from sticky service prices as opposed to tariff-related goods. Adams said: 'Jobs data scheduled for release in early September will have more sway over the Fed's next decision than this inflation report.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Hypebeast
an hour ago
- Hypebeast
Nike Sues Edison Chen For $126 Million USD
CLOTfounderEdison Chenis being sued by former partnerNikefor breach of contract, demanding a sum of more than $126 million USD. Multiple sources, including@SneakerLegalhave shared the information, including the case number (2:25-cv-07447), cause (28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract), and the demand of $126,615,000. Other than these details, still little is known about the specific violations and events that led to the escalation. The lawsuit has emerged more than a year after Chen terminated his collaborations with the American sneaker label and began releasing products with adidas, like the CLOT Silk Gazelle and the CLOTAnthony EdwardsAE-1. For years, the CLOT designer worked closely with Nike on various models before partnering with the Three Stripes brand in 2023. In 2004, Chen founded CLOT in Hong Kong and began partnering with Nike in 2006. The brand still maintains special popularity in the Asia Pacific region for its exploration of Eastern heritage and aesthetics, but has become increasingly global thanks to partnerships with sportswear titans. As the brand charges forth with a new CEO at the helm, it seems that it's become more vigilant of its brand universe than ever, targeting direct collaborators like Chen and even designers outside of their direct sphere, likethe Shoe Surgeon. Nike's move to sue Chen comes right after the brand finally settled with the famous custom-sneaker designer, a de-escalation from the $60 million originally demanded. Stay tuned to Hypebeast as more details emerge on the case.
