Sen. Ted Cruz used his Commerce Committee chairmanship to push a bipartisan bill that could hand Jimmy Kimmel and other progressive media figures a courtroom weapon against the president's broadcast policies.
The Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Cruz, marked up the JAWBONE Act on Wednesday morning, advancing the bill to the full Senate floor. Senate Bill 4749 would make it illegal for any federal agency, officer, or employee, including the president and vice president, to coerce or attempt to coerce a broadcaster. The bill was co-introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat, and now awaits a vote before the full chamber.
The bill does more than set a standard. It creates a private right of action, meaning broadcasters, networks, and potentially their allies could drag the federal government into court seeking monetary damages, including punitive damages. It shifts the burden of proof onto defendants, who would have to demonstrate their conduct fell within narrow exceptions written into the statute. And it authorizes plaintiffs to move straight into discovery, the expensive, time-consuming process of forcing the other side to hand over internal documents and communications.
For a Republican committee chairman to advance legislation co-sponsored by one of the Senate's most reliable progressives, at a moment when the Trump administration is actively pressing broadcasters on licensing and content decisions, raises a pointed question: whose side of the fight does this bill serve?
Cruz shared a statement from Wyden ahead of the markup that made the Democrat's priorities plain. Wyden said:
"Nearly all of Americans' speech, including TV news, online streams, and social media, flows through private corporations that are highly susceptible to government pressure. Regular Americans can't count on those companies to stand up to government jawboning, they need a way to level the playing field. The most blatant example is Trump threatening cable companies because he doesn't like their late-night shows, but jawboning isn't partisan, and it isn't new."
Wyden pointed directly at the president's public comments about cable networks and late-night programming. That framing turns the bill into a response to Trump, not to the broader, bipartisan history of government pressure on media companies that both parties have engaged in for years.
Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat remaining on the Federal Communications Commission, endorsed the legislation and went further. She claimed the current administration is running a censorship campaign against broadcasters who criticize the government.
"We're now seeing an unprecedented number of investigations and enforcement actions launched against broadcasters as part of a broader campaign of censorship and control aimed at silencing government critics and punishing dissenting voices."
Gomez offered no specific evidence for that characterization in her statement. But her endorsement signals where the institutional left sees this bill heading, straight at the Trump White House.
The bill's practical implications become clearer when matched against recent events. Jimmy Kimmel, the host of ABC's late-night show, described Second Lady Melania Trump as an "expecting widow" on air. President Trump responded on TRUTH Social: "Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC."
Under the JAWBONE Act, a presidential social media post like that one could become Exhibit A in a federal lawsuit. If a broadcaster or network argued that the president's public call for a firing amounted to coercion, or even an attempt at coercion, the bill's burden-shifting provisions would force the government to prove otherwise. Discovery would follow, opening up internal White House communications to hostile litigants.
Trump has also called for broadcasters' licenses to be revoked over their refusal to air presidential addresses and over what he views as inaccurate coverage. The FCC chairman previously stated that ABC's decision not to carry one of Trump's election speeches would factor into licensing review. Each of these actions could become the basis for a lawsuit under the JAWBONE Act's broad language.
The coalition backing the bill tells its own story. Four groups are listed as supporters: the ACLU, the First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Americans for Tax Reform, and Public Knowledge, a progressive tech and telecommunications advocacy organization. Three of the four are firmly left of center. Americans for Tax Reform is the lone conservative name on the list, and its presence gives bipartisan cover to legislation that, in practice, would most likely be wielded by progressive plaintiffs against a Republican administration.
This is not the first time Cruz has used his committee perch to advance legislation that drew sharp criticism from the right. He previously pushed the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, known as the JCPA, which would have given legacy media companies special antitrust exemptions to collectively negotiate with tech platforms. Conservative media critics warned at the time that the JCPA would entrench establishment outlets at the expense of independent and right-leaning competitors.
Cruz's recent public appearances have also drawn attention. Earlier in September, he appeared on ABC's The View, where host Whoopi Goldberg, no friend to conservative causes, stepped in to defend Cruz from a booing studio audience. Days later, Cruz appeared during an ESPN broadcast in Texas and was met with chants of "Ted, you suck!" from the crowd.
Separately, Cruz has been reported to be positioning himself for a potential anti-Trump presidential campaign in 2028. He also declared himself the "leader of opposition" to Trump on the question of dividends. Taken together, the JAWBONE Act fits a pattern: Cruz building alliances with Democrats and progressive institutions on issues where the political cost falls on the current president and the broader conservative movement.
The JAWBONE Act's supporters frame it as a neutral safeguard against government overreach, any government, either party. Wyden himself acknowledged that "jawboning isn't partisan, and it isn't new." But the bill's structure tells a different story.
Consider who holds the institutional advantages in broadcasting, entertainment, and media litigation. Networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS skew left in their editorial choices and programming. Late-night hosts like Kimmel have spent years using their platforms to attack Republican politicians and conservative policies. Progressive legal organizations, including the ACLU and Columbia's First Amendment Institute, both listed as JAWBONE Act supporters, have deep litigation infrastructure and a track record of filing suits against Republican administrations.
Now consider who would be on the receiving end. A Republican president who posts on social media about a broadcaster's content. An FCC that reviews licensing decisions. Federal officials who publicly criticize media coverage they view as biased. Under the JAWBONE Act, any of these actions could trigger litigation, discovery demands, and the threat of punitive damages.
The bill does not need to be used successfully to achieve its purpose. The mere threat of expensive litigation, with discovery that could expose internal government deliberations, would create a chilling effect on any administration official who might otherwise push back against hostile media coverage. That chill would fall almost entirely on Republican officials, because the media institutions most likely to file suit are the ones that already oppose conservative governance.
A hypothetical plaintiff list is not hard to imagine. A state attorney general like New York's Letitia James, who has built her career on lawfare against Republican targets, could potentially use the JAWBONE Act's provisions as another tool in that effort. Networks facing license scrutiny could file preemptive suits. Late-night hosts could claim that presidential criticism of their programming constitutes attempted coercion.
The Biden administration's own record of pressuring social media companies to suppress speech, from COVID-related posts to political content, demonstrated that government jawboning is a genuine problem. But the JAWBONE Act does not simply codify the principle that the government should not censor Americans. It builds a litigation machine with financial teeth, burden-shifting mechanics, and discovery powers that will be aimed overwhelmingly in one direction.
Cruz chairs the committee that advanced this bill. He chose Wyden as his partner. He moved the markup forward knowing that the ACLU and progressive advocacy groups were cheering the result. And he did all of this while the Trump administration is engaged in an active, public dispute with left-leaning broadcasters over content and licensing.
The bill now awaits action before the full Senate. Whether it reaches the floor, and whether Republican senators follow Cruz's lead or recognize the one-sided weapon he has built, will say a great deal about whether the party's elected officials understand who this legislation actually serves.
When a Republican senator hands the ACLU and progressive broadcasters a new way to sue a Republican president, the conservative base is entitled to ask whose interests he is advancing, and whose he has forgotten.
