President-elect Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, spoke with David Faber and Melissa Lee on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street last week to discuss his plans for the commission, which include some issues that touch local television.

Carr is said to have written a chapter about the FCC in Project 2025, the plan to take us back to the Stone Age as far as human decency goes.

He said he wants local broadcasters to operate in the public interest in order to gain back the trust of viewers.

“…We need to look at empowering those local broadcasters to serve their local communities, even if that’s in conflict with the interests of those national networks,” he told CNBC. “I mean, at the end of the day, you’ve got all this content from Hollywood and New York that’s being distributed down through these local broadcasters. Let’s make sure they feel empowered to do the right thing by their local community.”

Here’s part of the transcript of what they spoke about:

DAVID FABER: You know, we’ve talked a lot about the plans for a deregulatory agenda, and so I’m curious for you at the FCC and running that agency, what is top of mind in adding to and/or putting into action those deregulatory plans?

CARR: Yeah, there’s four main ideas that I’ve been talking a lot about in terms of the agenda that I want to run. I mean, obviously, first and foremost, I want to make sure I continue to work with the Trump transition team and make sure I understand 100% what their agenda is. But for my part, number one is looking at tech censorship. Number two, there’s a whole set of media issues that I think deserve the FCC taking a fresh look at. There’s — third, a whole set of economic issues from permitting reform to spectrum to the space economy, where, frankly, we’ve got to add some rocket fuel to that process. And then finally, national security. I think particularly with Salt Typhoon top of mind for a lot of people, it’s important that we continue to make progress there.

FABER: Yeah, I want to get to Salt Typhoon. We’ll talk social media. But I’m curious, you know, when you say things to take a fresh look at, what are you talking about?

CARR: You look on the media side, I think there’s no question that trust in media is at an all-time low. That’s just not my opinion alone. Jeff Bezos did an op-ed recently where he noted how media used to be the most trusted institution in America. And for a long time, at least they could say we’re more trusted than Congress. And now that has passed as well. It’s fallen to the bottom. And so I think there’s a lot that needs to take place to restore trust and confidence in media. And there’s a role for the FCC, at least on the broadcast side, for instance. They have to operate in the public interest. And I think it’s probably appropriate for the FCC to take a fresh look at what that requirement looks like.

FABER: So, I mean, is that signaling that others have said you’ve done, that you’re open to TV networks having their licenses revoked if they have, for example, perceived liberal bias?

CARR: Well, look, the law is very clear. The Communications Act says you have to operate in the public interest. And if you don’t, yes, one of the consequences is potentially losing your license. And of course, that’s on the table. I mean, look, broadcast licenses are not sacred cows. At the same time, when you think about media, separate into two issues, right? You’ve got the national networks, for instance, ABC, NBC, CBS. They provide a lot of the content that the actual licensed local broadcasts disseminate. And so we need to look at empowering those local broadcasters to serve their local communities, even if that’s in conflict with the interests of those national networks. I mean, at the end of the day, you’ve got all this content from Hollywood and New York that’s being distributed down through these local broadcasters. Let’s make sure they feel empowered to do the right thing by their local community.

FABER: It’s funny, when you mentioned, I thought you perhaps were going to talk about some of the antiquated rules around ownership, whether it be cross-ownership, foreign ownership. You know, what about that side of things? Could you imagine a scenario under which CNN and Fox, for example, are owned by the same parent company?

CARR: We need to look at those issues as well. I mean, if you look at big tech, for instance, obviously they can reach 100% of the country, but local broadcasters are limited by FCC rules to only reaching a certain portion of the company. So I’m very open-minded on those separate sets of issues as well, is how do we make sure we get investment in local journalism, investment in local news? For too long, the FCC stood by the wayside as newspapers across the country closed by the dozen. There was a lot of reasons for that, but we also had rules that prevented investment in local newspapers that certainly didn’t help. So we’re going to try to walk and chew gum at the same time. There is that whole set of ownership issues that I want to take a fresh look at as well.

MELISSA LEE: When you say, Brendan, that a broadcaster could lose its license if it’s too liberal, who determines what too liberal is? Is there an example in the marketplace currently that is too liberal? Is there a broadcaster right now that you think is too liberal? And does the same follow for a broadcaster that’s too conservative?

CARR: Yeah, well, just to clarify there, I didn’t say too liberal. I said public interest.

LEE: OK.

CARR: And that’s something the FCC needs to take a look at. What does a public interest mean? What is a narrow interest in comparison? I’m open to all of that. 

You know, look, at the end of the day, obviously there’s a statutory provision that prevents the FCC from engaging in censorship. I don’t want to be the speech police. But there is something that’s different about broadcasters than, say, podcasters, where you have to operate in a public interest. So right now, all I’m saying is maybe we should start a rulemaking to take a look at what that means. There’s other issues as well. Look, there’s a news distortion complaint that’s still hanging out there involving CBS, with NBC and SNL, we had some issues potentially with the equal time provision. I just think we need to sort of reinvigorate the FCC’s approach to these issues, as Congress has envisioned.

LEE: Are you basically saying to broadcasters, be on guard under my watch?

CARR: I’m just saying follow the law. I mean, this law has been on the books for a long time. It’s not my decision to hold broadcasters to a public interest obligation. It’s Congress. And if they don’t like that, then they should go to Congress to change the law. But my job at the FCC is to enforce the law passed by Congress, and that’s what I intend to do.

FABER: Brendan, when it comes to your focus in terms of what you call censorship, you’ve discussed the fact of using and the fact that the tech companies perhaps use Section 230 as a shield and collude not to compete on speech. How aggressive do you see yourself getting beyond that letter that I recently read, of course, that you sent as a commissioner to some of the big tech companies as well in terms of their use of this firm called NewsGuard?

CARR: Yeah, look, this absolutely has to happen. We’ve been sort of living under this wave of unprecedented censorship the last couple of years. It has to come to an end. There’s a lot the FCC can do. I look forward to working with the FTC on this as well. And frankly, this isn’t just a separate issue from the economy. There’s a straight line between censorship of words and censorship of ideas and a wet blanket over economic growth. So I think all of it ends up being connected. What the FTC has said, Commissioner Ferguson in particular, is if you’re agreeing to effectively not compete on content moderation, that’s really no different than an agreement not to compete on, say, pricing. So I would look for ways the FCC and FTC can partner to make sure that we not have collusion with respect to suppression of First Amendment protected rights.