The law at issue regarding James Talarico’s interviews on The Late Show and The View, explained
If you’re a fan of the cerebral Stephen Colbert, you may have caught the recent drama on The Late Show. The dapper talk show host opened an episode in February 2026 by telling viewers that CBS lawyers had told him he could not air an already‑taped interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico on his broadcast show because of federal rules that require TV stations to offer equal on‑air time to competing political candidates.
Colbert then used his monologue to narrate, critique, and lampoon that decision on air, turning a behind‑the‑scenes legal call into a very public fight over how far an old broadcast rule can reach into late‑night comedy. His core critique was that CBS had effectively caved to political and regulatory pressure by hiding behind the equal‑time rule, allowing fear of Trump‑appointed regulators—not editorial judgment—to determine what his show could air.
The controversy makes for great TV, but the rule at its center is anything but simple. Let’s walk through the Talarico saga before diving into the legal fine print underneath.
Small Talk Sparks Big Trouble
The late‑night drama actually started on daytime television.
Days earlier, Talarico appeared as a guest on ABC’s panel show The View, a program that ABC has treated as “bona fide news” and thus exempt from equal‑time requirements. That on‑air interview prompted Brendan Carr, the new Republican chair of the Federal Communications Commission, to launch an enforcement action to decide whether the segment triggered “equal‑time” obligations.
You might be wondering what’s so special about Talarico that he’s at the center of this equal‑time firestorm, but the answer is: not much. Apart from the fact that he’s an active candidate with a decent chance of winning his primary race, the controversy is less about him than about the timing and format of his appearances. He just happened to show up on two high‑profile, politically outspoken broadcast talk shows — right as an aggressive FCC chair was looking to challenge them by flexing the equal‑time rule.
Last year, at the start of his second term, President Trump designated Carr to lead the commission. The new chair spent 2025 consolidating his agenda and then, in January 2026, pushed out new guidance explicitly warning late‑night and daytime talk shows that they can no longer assume they’re “bona fide news” and exempt from equal‑time obligations.
Carr has been explicit that he wants to dust off the nearly century‑old equal‑time provision and apply it across the board to politically-tinged talk programming, not just traditional newscasts. In speeches and recent guidance, he has framed shows like The View and Colbert’sLate Show as partisan vehicles masquerading as news. He vowed to “hold broadcasters accountable” by narrowing the news exemptions and forcing stations to treat candidate interviews on these programs as triggering equal‑time obligations.
The Equal‑Time Rule, Explained
Okay, what’s this “equal-time” rule we keep referencing? Glad you asked.
The equal-time provision dates back to the Radio Act of 1927 and was later codified in the Communications Act of 1934. The rule basically says that if a political candidate gets airtime on a broadcast TV or radio station, their opponents can ask for a similar amount of time on that station. It’s about giving equal opportunities to both sides.
In 1959, Congress trimmed that back by making clear it only covers over‑the‑air TV and radio (not cable, streaming, or social media) and by saying the rule doesn’t apply to live breaking‑news coverage, documentaries, and what it calls “bona fide” newscasts and interviews. What’s that last one, you ask? As often happens, the statute itself doesn’t shed light on what counts as “bona fide.”
Instead, the meaning of bona fide newscasts has been built out through FCC cases and other rules. This jurisprudence involves four main factors: whether the program is regularly scheduled, controlled by the broadcaster (rather than the candidate), makes guest and content decisions based on news value (rather than partisan goals), and reflects good‑faith journalistic judgment (rather than an effort to boost a particular campaign).
When Talk Shows Count as ‘News’
So, where do shows like The View and The Late Show fit into this? Well, for much of the modern broadcast era, regulators treated most talk‑show interviews with politicians as if they were part of news‑interview programming and therefore exempt from the equal‑time rule. That understanding solidified after a 2006 decision in which the FCC said that regularly scheduled interview shows that meet the four factors described above could qualify for the bona fide news‑interview exemption.
Many broadcasters took this as practical approval for handling both daytime and late‑night talk‑show interviews outside the equal‑time regime. After that, networks and their lawyers regularly made booking decisions on that assumption. The current upheaval is jarring precisely because the actions of the new FCC under Carr and Trump appear to walk back that settled understanding and reopen the question of whether these shows really count as “bona fide” news for equal‑time purposes.
Guidance That Feels Like a Guardrail
As we mentioned earlier, last month, the FCC’s Media Bureau issued a Public Notice that refocused how the agency says it will apply the equal‑time provision to talk shows. In plain English, the agency told stations: stop assuming your daytime and late‑night talk shows automatically count as bona fide news, and start treating candidate interviews on those programs as potential equal‑time events unless you can justify the exemption on a show‑by‑show, segment‑by‑segment basis. The guidance explicitly said that “a program that is motivated by partisan purposes would not be entitled to an exemption” from the bona fide news interview carve‑out–effectively yanking the safe harbor many lawyers thought they had.
On paper, this kind of notice doesn’t change the statute or the rule. The underlying legal framework is exactly the same now as it was the day before the Public Notice. FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez (a Democrat) even wrote a separate statement to stress that “nothing has fundamentally changed with respect to our political broadcasting rules” and that “[b]roadcasters should not feel pressured to water down, sanitize or avoid critical coverage out of fear of regulatory retaliation.” She expressed concern that some of the document’s rhetoric may blur that line by implying that previously recognized talk programs have somehow “lost” their exempt status without any Commission vote.
A New Headache for Broadcast Counsel
In practice, the Public Notice has bite because the same agency issuing it also renews licenses and can open headline‑grabbing investigations — exactly what happened with The View. In addition, Paramount is in the midst of an attempted merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, which requires regulatory approval from the FCC. While CBS maintains the decision was entirely based on legal guidance, some critics, including Stephen Colbert, have hinted the move was more about maintaining good graces with the FCC than purely following legal guidance.
Regardless, no general counsel wants to explain to a board, or to the front page of a national paper, why the company is suddenly in the middle of an enforcement action by the FCC during campaign season. Faced with that mix of legal uncertainty and reputational risk, it’s not surprising that network lawyers are steering well clear of the line: shifting candidate interviews to YouTube only, delaying or declining politically sensitive bookings, and drafting new internal guidelines that treat talk‑show politics as a compliance hazard, not just a ratings play.
If that sounds like a lot of regulatory dogma for one pulled interview, well, it certainly is. But for media and campaign lawyers, it’s also the new terrain they have to navigate every time a candidate sits down on a talk‑show couch.
Related Resources
- Cumulus Scores a Win In Their Antitrust Lawsuit Against Nielsen (FindLaw's Courtside)
- X Fights for Twitter’s Trademark Ghost (FindLaw's Courtside)
- How Meta Beat Antitrust Allegations and What It Means for Tech Companies (FindLaw's Courtside)
