Full Breakdown
Brendan Carr’s Past Ties to the Midtown “Cult” Alleged AA Offshoot
By Drooid · · How we work
Carr’s Past Involvement with the Midtown Group
Brendan Carr, appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission in 2017, was a member of the Washington, D.C.,-based Midtown Group—a self-described Alcoholics Anonymous chapter—beginning in 1996 when he was a high-school senior. He remained affiliated for roughly nine years, including while attending Georgetown Law School, and is recorded speaking about his sobriety in a 2005 Midtown speech. The Guardian investigation notes that no evidence links Carr to the group’s alleged illegal conduct.
Origins and Practices of the Midtown Group
Midtown was founded by Michael Quinones, who died of cancer in 2007. Former members described Quinones as a controlling figure who dictated members’ living arrangements, employment, and schooling, and who pressured teenage girls and young women to “date” and have sex with older male participants. Fourteen former members interviewed by The Guardian characterized the environment as “sexually exploitative” and likened Quinones to the “Epstein of AA.” Some accounts referred to the group’s operations as a “cult” that recruited youths seeking sobriety, sometimes at parental request.
FCC’s Response to the Allegations
The agency did not immediately comment further on the investigation.
Perspectives from Former Members
Former participants consistently said Carr was not among the predators. Several described him as a “protective” presence who provided “safe respite” for younger girls and even helped a member obtain food during a diet. One former member described Carr as a “victim” of the group’s manipulation, noting his fragile desire for belonging. Another asserted that Carr “never among” the abusers, emphasizing his lack of involvement in the alleged exploitation.
Impact on Carr’s FCC Tenure
The revelation of Carr’s decade-long association with Midtown adds a controversial dimension to his reputation as a “warrior of free speech” and an aggressive regulator. Critics of his FCC policies have cited the past affiliation as part of broader concerns about his approach to media oversight, while supporters point to the lack of any proven wrongdoing during his time in the group.
