Imagine a scenario: a comedian cracks a joke, a cartoonist draws a caricature, or a television program airs a segment that deeply offends a powerful leader. What happens next?
Typically, the offended leaders and their supporters swiftly condemn the creators and their employers, accusing them of undermining moral standards or national pride. This often leads to state-backed retaliation: threats, financial pressure, or even hints of outright shutdowns. The message is clear: no negative or embarrassing content about the government or its allies will be tolerated.
This alarming pattern is all too familiar to citizens in countries like China, India, Iran, Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela. These nations, governed by varying degrees of authoritarian control, have systematically silenced comedians, broadcasters, journalists, and cartoonists who dare to speak out.
Now, the United States is finding itself in unsettling company. President Trump’s recent threat to revoke broadcasting licenses from networks whose late-night hosts mock him aligns precisely with this global authoritarian strategy. His administration’s approach—including lawsuits against media organizations, reductions in public broadcasting funding, and leveraging regulatory power to reward allies while punishing critics—reflects a deeply troubling worldwide trend.
Jennifer McCoy, a political science professor at Georgia State University and an expert on democratic decline, emphasizes that “controlling information and media is one of the early and necessary steps of the authoritarian.” She adds that “repressing dissent and criticism, not just among the media, but among political opponents and citizens follows.”
It’s important to note that no free expression watchdog or expert is equating President Trump with the most egregious human rights violators globally. The most brutal authoritarian regimes have gone so far as to murder critics and imprison anyone perceived as a threat, with many dictators seizing control of media outlets immediately upon ascending to power.
However, the United States has long championed free speech. The tactics Mr. Trump employs—implying that only government-approved opinions are legitimate and protected—place the nation in an uncomfortable, historically uncharacteristic position.
The 2025 Democracy Report by the V-Dem Institute in Sweden reveals a stark decline in freedom of expression, affecting America and 43 other nations—a quarter of the world’s countries. This represents an increase from 35 nations just a year prior, with the institute indicating a worsening trend over the past decade.
Across both democracies and dictatorships, individuals who wield humor as a tool for critique have increasingly become targets.
-
Last month in Iran, prosecutors brought “morality charges” against Zeinab Mousavi, a pioneering female stand-up comedian. Her offense? A video that incorporated explicit language into an ancient Persian epic poem. This marked at least her third police summons since she introduced her character Empress of Kuzcoo, a satirical portrayal of an elderly villager in a revealing hijab.
-
In Turkey, four cartoonists faced arrest in July for an image published in the satirical magazine LeMan. The artwork depicted what appeared to be Moses and the Prophet Muhammad conversing amiably in heaven while bullets flew between Jews and Muslims below. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced the image as “a vile provocation,” and one cartoonist was subsequently charged with “insulting the president.”
-
India, a nation witnessing its own decline in free expression, has made even subtle jabs at local politicians taboo. In March, comedian Kunal Kamra, known for his political satire, performed a playful song at a Mumbai club, reportedly using the word “gaddar” (traitor) in reference to a local politician. This single act prompted the state’s chief minister to demand legal action, leading to government employees vandalizing and ransacking the venue.
Police officers were seen outside Kunal Kamra’s studio in Mumbai, India, in March after the comedian was threatened with legal action following a performance.
Helmut K. Anheier, a sociology professor at the Hertie School in Berlin, points out that this pattern—attacking free expression and punishing elites for populist political gain—was first observed by sociologist Antonio Gramsci during his imprisonment by Italian Fascists in the 1920s.
According to Anheier, the consistent goal for demagogues, both historically and in the present, is to “achieve cultural and political dominance” by reshaping the public’s perception of “common sense.”
This involves compelling independent institutions to conform, thereby enforcing a new narrative and elevating a powerful leader at the expense of public freedoms.
Gramsci, writing from prison around 1930, famously noted, “The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”
Modern China stands as a prime example of effective expression management. While media controls have fluctuated over time, under President Xi Jinping, Beijing has significantly tightened its grip, transforming news outlets, film, comedy, and social media into tightly controlled platforms for government-sanctioned messages.
During a 2016 tour of Chinese media outlets, Xi Jinping explicitly stated that “media sponsored by the party and government”—encompassing almost all major Chinese media—”should serve as propaganda platforms for the party and government.”
Consequently, investigative journalists, who once dared to expose abuses of power and corruption even within state-controlled media, have virtually disappeared. This trend mirrors similar developments in countries like Hungary and Russia, where loyalists have replaced independent voices in formerly critical publications.
Censorship has also expanded to include movies and books, which are now under the direct scrutiny of the Communist Party’s propaganda department. Censors diligently monitor content not just for political incorrectness, but for anything that deviates from the party’s established priorities.
The consequences for defying these controls can be severe. In 2020, Hong Kong’s public broadcaster aired an episode of “Headliner,” its popular satire program, implying that police were stockpiling masks during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. Despite its long history of critical commentary since 1989, the show was cancelled just months after this episode.
The set of “Headliner” at Radio Television Hong Kong in 2020. The show, which had a long history of satire, was eventually taken off the air after an episode that touched on coronavirus masks.
In 2023, a Beijing stand-up comedian faced accusations of insulting the Chinese military with a joke about stray dogs. This led to a hefty $2 million fine against the comedy studio where he performed. Furthermore, police in northern China, far from the capital, detained a woman who publicly defended the comedian online.
In the United States, media outlets continue to feature vibrant satire and criticism, including sharp commentary and investigations into potential corruption involving the Trump family, reaching vast audiences.
However, experts are detecting concerning echoes of authoritarianism in Mr. Trump’s actions, such as his threats against broadcasters’ licenses or his lawsuits targeting universities and prominent news organizations like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
These licensing threats by Mr. Trump came shortly after ABC’s decision to “indefinitely” pull Jimmy Kimmel’s show, reportedly following pressure from Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr. Carr had criticized Kimmel for remarks about Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin, suggesting Trump supporters were trying to distance themselves from the culprit. Trump, in turn, indicated that merely canceling the show might not be sufficient punishment.
Observers draw clear parallels between Trump’s regulatory aggression and historical precedents. Italians recall Silvio Berlusconi, who merged political power with media ownership, blacklisting critics and coercing executives into silencing dissenting voices. Venezuelans remember Hugo Chávez’s tactic of revoking radio licenses and compelling television networks to air his populist addresses. Viktor Orban of Hungary, admired by many on the Trumpist right, strategically used tax policy to weaken and harass major media organizations.
Russian scholars, meanwhile, find parallels between Mr. Trump’s threats against late-night comedians and the early years of Vladimir V. Putin’s rule in Moscow.
During that period, a satirical TV show named “Kukly” (Russian for “Puppets”) gained popularity, using exaggerated, grotesque puppets to lampoon political figures and current events, including the Chechnya war and President Boris N. Yeltsin’s heavy drinking. Throughout the 1990s, as Russia aimed to project a democratic image, the show was largely tolerated, even by the Kremlin.
However, this changed dramatically with Putin’s ascent. Through a combination of harassment and an eventual takeover by the state oil monopoly, the formerly independent network that broadcast “Kukly” was transformed into a government-friendly mouthpiece. “Kukly” was, naturally, removed from the air.
Daniel Treisman, a UCLA political science professor and dictatorship expert, observes that “few authoritarian leaders have a sense of humor and even fewer can laugh at themselves.” He notes that Putin was reportedly “enraged by his portrayal as an evil dwarf” on the show.
The El Capitan theater in Los Angeles, the recording venue for “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”, was pictured on Thursday. Kimmel’s show was recently pulled by ABC “indefinitely.”
It appears Mr. Trump might be taking these jokes personally, or perhaps he’s effectively channeling the indignation of his political base.
“They give me only bad publicity,” Mr. Trump has stated concerning major networks.
Many Russians have already warned Americans: “Watch out for what comes next.” Viktor Shenderovich, the lead writer for “Kukly,” was later compelled to flee Russia due to sustained government harassment and death threats.
Numerous other individuals involved with the satirical comedy show also sought refuge outside their home country, fearing for their safety.