It starts subtly: a comedian’s sharp wit, a biting cartoon, or a provocative television show dares to challenge a powerful leader. These acts of creative expression, meant to entertain or enlighten, inadvertently strike a nerve.
In response, the offended leadership and their allies quickly condemn the creators and their organizations, accusing them of undermining moral standards and national values. What follows is a swift government crackdown: threats are issued, financial leverage is applied, and hints of network shutdowns circulate. Soon, comedians seek legal counsel, executives become apprehensive, and a chilling realization settles over everyone: no criticism, no embarrassment, and no negative portrayals of the government or its allies will be tolerated.
This unfolding scenario is alarmingly familiar to citizens in countries like China, India, Iran, Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela. These nations, each operating under varying degrees of authoritarian rule, have consistently stifled comedians, broadcasters, journalists, and cartoonists, forcing them into submission.
Now, the United States finds itself on a similar path. President Trump’s recent threats to revoke broadcasting licenses from networks whose late-night hosts mock him, coupled with lawsuits against media companies, defunding public broadcasting, and wielding regulatory power to block mergers while favoring friendly news sources, reveals a troubling pattern that echoes these global authoritarian playbooks.
President Trump, seen on Air Force One, has publicly threatened to strip broadcasting licenses from networks featuring late-night hosts who dare to satirize him.
Jennifer McCoy, a political science professor at Georgia State University specializing in democratic erosion, explains that ‘controlling information and media is one of the initial and crucial steps for an authoritarian regime. This is invariably followed by the suppression of dissent and criticism, extending beyond the media to political opponents and the general populace.’
While no expert on free expression equates these actions with the most egregious human rights abuses seen in the world’s harshest authoritarian regimes – where critics are murdered, dissidents imprisoned, and media outlets seized outright – the parallels are nonetheless stark.
Historically, the United States has championed free speech. However, Mr. Trump’s adoption of tactics that imply only government-sanctioned opinions are legitimate and protected places the nation in uncomfortable alignment with less democratic states.
Alarmingly, freedom of expression is on a downward spiral, not only in America but in 43 other countries — a quarter of the world’s nations, according to the 2025 Democracy Report from the V-Dem Institute. This number has risen from 35 countries just a year prior, marking a decade-long trend of worsening conditions.
Across the political spectrum, from struggling democracies to entrenched dictatorships, humorists who package their critiques in comedy have become prime targets for repression.
* Last month in Iran, comedian Zeinab Mousavi, a pioneer in female stand-up, faced morality charges for a video featuring explicit language in a parody of an ancient Persian poem. This marked her third police summons since she introduced her popular character, the Empress of Kuzcoo.
* In July, Turkish authorities arrested four cartoonists from the satirical magazine LeMan for an image depicting Moses and the Prophet Muhammad conversing peacefully in heaven, contrasted with earthly conflict between Jews and Muslims. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced it as ‘a vile provocation,’ leading to charges of ‘insulting the president’ against one artist.
* India, too, has seen its free expression decline. In March, comedian Kunal Kamra faced severe backlash for a seemingly innocuous joke about a local politician at a Mumbai comedy club, using the word ‘gaddar’ (traitor). This prompted the state’s chief minister to demand legal action, resulting in government employees vandalizing the venue.
Police officers stand outside Kunal Kamra’s studio in Mumbai, India, following threats of legal action against the comedian in March.
Helmut K. Anheier, a sociology professor at the Hertie School in Berlin, notes that this pattern — attacking free expression and punishing intellectual elites for populist political advantage — was first analyzed by Antonio Gramsci, the Italian sociologist imprisoned by Fascists in the 1920s.
Whether then or now, the objective for many demagogues remains the same: to ‘achieve cultural and political dominance,’ or, as some scholars articulate it, to redefine public ‘common sense.’
The subjugation of independent institutions is merely one component of a broader strategy to impose a new narrative, one that glorifies a burgeoning strongman at the expense of fundamental public freedoms.
From his prison cell around 1930, Gramsci famously observed, ‘The old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.’
Today, China stands as a prime example of successful expression management. While censorship has varied over time, President Xi Jinping has consolidated control, transforming news, film, comedy, and social media into meticulously monitored conduits for state-approved messages.
During a 2016 tour of Chinese media, Xi Jinping unequivocally stated that ‘media sponsored by the party and government’—encompassing virtually all major outlets in China—’should serve as propaganda platforms for the party and government.’
Consequently, investigative journalists, who once bravely scrutinized power abuses and corruption even within state-controlled media, have largely disappeared. This trend mirrors similar crackdowns in Hungary and Russia, where loyalists now staff formerly independent publications.
Furthermore, controls over movies and books have been significantly tightened, placing them under the direct oversight 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 directives.
The consequences of defiance can be severe. In 2020, Hong Kong’s public broadcaster aired an episode of its long-running satire, ‘Headliner,’ which implied police were stockpiling masks during the initial phase of the pandemic. Despite its history since 1989, the show was canceled mere months after this particular broadcast.
The set of ‘Headliner’ at Radio Television Hong Kong in 2020. The satirical program was later canceled after an episode highlighted police actions during the coronavirus pandemic.
Just in 2023, a Beijing stand-up comedian faced accusations of insulting the Chinese military with a joke about stray dogs. This resulted in a hefty $2 million fine for the comedy studio and even led to the detention of a woman in northern China who had defended the comedian online.
In the United States, however, media continues to broadcast satire and criticism, often featuring pointed jabs and investigations into potential corruption involving the Trump family, reaching vast audiences.
Nevertheless, experts are detecting alarming echoes of authoritarianism as Mr. Trump threatens broadcasters’ licenses and pursues lawsuits against institutions like universities and prominent newspapers.
These remarks from Mr. Trump came after ABC indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s show, reportedly under pressure from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. Carr had criticized Kimmel for comments regarding Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin, implying Trump supporters sought to distance themselves from Kirk’s conservative background. Mr. Trump then suggested that merely canceling the show might not be a sufficient response.
Such threats of regulatory aggression evoke memories for many: Italians recall Silvio Berlusconi, who leveraged his political and media power to blacklist critics and silence dissent. Venezuelans remember Hugo Chávez revoking radio licenses and compelling TV networks to air his populist addresses. And in Hungary, Viktor Orban, a figure admired by the Trumpist right, systematically used tax policies to weaken and harass major media organizations.
Meanwhile, Russian scholars draw a striking parallel between Mr. Trump’s threats against late-night comedians and Vladimir Putin’s early approach to media control in Moscow.
During that period, Russia’s satirical TV show ‘Kukly’ (Puppets) fearlessly parodied political figures and current events—from the Chechen war to Boris Yeltsin’s alcohol consumption—using oversized, often grotesque, puppets. In the nascent post-Soviet democracy of the 1990s, even the Kremlin largely tolerated the program.
However, this tolerance evaporated with Vladimir Putin’s ascent. Through a campaign of harassment, followed by an outright acquisition by the state oil monopoly, the formerly independent network airing ‘Kukly’ was transformed into a government-friendly mouthpiece. The satirical puppet show was, of course, abolished.
Daniel Treisman, a UCLA political science professor and dictatorship expert, observes, ‘Generally, few authoritarian leaders possess a sense of humor, and even fewer can laugh at themselves.’ He adds that Putin was reportedly ‘enraged by his portrayal as an evil dwarf.’
The El Capitan Theatre in Los Angeles, home to ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’, on Thursday. Kimmel’s show has been indefinitely pulled by ABC.
Mr. Trump’s reactions may stem from taking jokes personally, or perhaps from strategically amplifying the outrage of his political base.
He stated, regarding major networks, ‘They give me only bad publicity.’
Many Russians have issued a stark warning: ‘Watch out, America, for what comes next.’ Viktor Shenderovich, the lead writer for ‘Kukly,’ was eventually forced into exile from Russia due to relentless government harassment and credible death threats.
Indeed, numerous other individuals involved with the satirical program also fled Russia in fear for their safety.