Just this past Wednesday, Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, voiced his disapproval over comments Jimmy Kimmel made. Kimmel had spoken about Tyler Robinson, who stands accused of shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and also about former President Trump’s MAGA political movement. Carr outlined what he saw as two possible ways to handle the situation, hinting at the consequences he desired.
His message was clear: ‘We can do this the easy way, or the hard way.’
By the end of that very day, ABC had made their choice, opting for what Carr called ‘the easy way.’
While ABC offered no public explanation for indefinitely pulling Kimmel’s popular late-night program, the chain of events leading to this decision was strikingly straightforward and unsettlingly familiar.
Carr, wielding significant authority over local broadcast licenses, urged ABC affiliates to ‘push back.’ Swiftly, an owner of several affiliate groups, notably one currently pursuing an acquisition deal that requires FCC approval, responded by announcing it would preempt Kimmel’s show.
And so, by Wednesday night, Jimmy Kimmel’s show was off the air, put on an indefinite hiatus.
So, what exactly did Kimmel say that led to his show’s suspension? In his Monday night monologue, he remarked on the ‘new lows’ reached over the weekend, claiming the ‘MAGA gang’ was ‘desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.’
One could argue Kimmel’s interpretation was biased, ungenerous, or simply inaccurate. (Court documents indicate Robinson wrote about Kirk’s ‘hatred’ in private messages, though without specifying the nature of this hatred; his mother informed prosecutors her son had become ‘more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.’)
However, if late-night comedians were held to a strict standard of impartiality, most shows would simply cease to exist. Regarding his comment about ‘scoring political points,’ it’s worth noting that since Kirk’s shooting, former President Trump and his associates have actively sought to link liberal groups to political violence. Interestingly, after Kirk’s death, Kimmel also appealed on social media for a moment of unity, asking, ‘Instead of the angry finger-pointing, can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human?’
Regardless of whether one agrees with Kimmel’s remarks, a clear pattern emerges. Former President Trump and his administration have consistently used various tactics to pressure news and entertainment organizations. These tactics include initiating lawsuits, hinting at investigations, and threatening financial repercussions. (For instance, Trump recently sued The New York Times over its reporting on his business achievements.)
This strategy has frequently proven effective. ABC previously settled a lawsuit with the Trump administration concerning its news coverage. Similarly, Paramount settled another dispute involving ’60 Minutes’ while simultaneously seeking approval for a significant merger. Although Paramount and CBS attributed Stephen Colbert’s late-night show cancellation solely to business decisions, Trump publicly celebrated the removal of his regular critic, just as he did with Kimmel, and even urged NBC to take similar action against Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.
Throughout this period, the demands for apologies, financial settlements, program cancellations, and other concessions have steadily intensified. The underlying message is unmistakable: opposing the president and his allies can come at a steep price.
Evidently, very few in the media and Hollywood are willing to bear that cost. With many others already capitulating and making concessions, why risk standing out? Perhaps it’s seen as wiser to simply be cautious, to avoid giving critics any ammunition, or to refrain from saying anything impulsive.
Perhaps, the safest option is to say nothing at all.
The animated series ‘South Park’ brilliantly satirized this dynamic in a recent season premiere, depicting the Trump administration’s pressure extending even to Jesus Christ, who quips, ‘You really want to end up like Colbert?’ Interestingly, reruns of its second episode, which poked fun at Charlie Kirk’s politics weeks before his death, were removed from Comedy Central after the assassination, though they are still available on Paramount+ streaming. (Before his passing, Kirk himself reportedly found the spoof ‘kind of funny.’)
The tactics employed by Trump and his allies might not perfectly mirror the media control strategies of leaders like Viktor Orban in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, or Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. Some regimes choose a heavy-handed approach, while others prefer a more subtle method. Regardless, every instance of stifled public discourse manifests in its own distinct and unsettling way.
The palpable chilling effect is undeniable. Accepting an Emmy for HBO’s ‘Last Week Tonight With John Oliver,’ writer Daniel O’Brien pointedly remarked, ‘We are honored to share it with all writers of late-night political comedy while that’s still a type of show that’s allowed to exist.’ Following Kimmel’s suspension, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut went further, characterizing it as part of ‘the systematic destruction of free speech.’
It might seem overly dramatic to frame the issue of censorship around late-night shows, which are fundamentally entertainment ventures designed to generate revenue, not primary news sources. Yet, comedy plays a distinct role from traditional news: it often reaches and influences audiences who might otherwise disengage from current events.
Indeed, political leaders often take notice. Russia’s satirical puppet show ‘Kukly’ vanished from television under pressure from Vladimir Putin’s government, and Chinese censors famously banned online memes comparing President Xi Jinping to Winnie-the-Pooh. Throughout his political career, former President Trump’s social media posts frequently served as his own ‘Statler and Waldorf’-esque commentary, often directed at his comedic critics.
The health of a democracy can, in part, be gauged by the public’s freedom to satirize its leaders. This isn’t just about legal protections, but also about the financial, cultural, and logistical space available for such expression. In the realm of television, genuine free speech can only flourish when media companies demonstrate the courage to resist political and financial coercion.
Of course, no one is suggesting Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert are facing imprisonment; they will likely remain personally unharmed. However, a media landscape where comedians are silenced from satirizing political factions by corporate directives is no more functionally free than one where such expression is prohibited by law. The First Amendment doesn’t need to be officially rescinded if those controlling the platforms can be influenced to act as if it has been.
America might not be an overt autocracy. But, alarmingly, it increasingly appears to be acting like one on television.