Imagine this scene: A comedian delivers a sharp joke or a pointed comment that irks a powerful leader. Or perhaps it’s a political cartoon or a television show that really hits a nerve.
What happens next? The offended leader and their allies swiftly accuse the creators and their networks of undermining moral standards and national pride. The state then moves in, issuing threats, applying financial pressure, and even hinting at outright shutdowns. Faced with this, comedians consult lawyers, executives grow wary, and a clear message emerges: No criticism or embarrassing portrayals of the government or its associates will be tolerated.
This scenario is all too familiar to people living under various authoritarian regimes in countries like China, India, Iran, Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela. In these nations, comedians, broadcasters, journalists, and cartoonists alike have been systematically silenced.
Now, a concerning pattern is emerging in the United States. Following his recent threat to revoke broadcasting licenses from networks whose late-night hosts poke fun at him, President Trump appears to be steering the nation closer to this authoritarian group. His approach, which includes lawsuits against media companies, reductions in public broadcasting funds, and threats to deny mergers while favoring compliant outlets, aligns with a troubling global trend.
As Jennifer McCoy, a political science professor at Georgia State University who studies democratic decline, explains, ‘Controlling information and media is one of the initial and crucial steps an authoritarian takes. This is then followed by suppressing all forms of dissent and criticism, not just within the media, but among political opponents and the general public.’
While no expert or free expression watchdog is equating President Trump with the most brutal authoritarian rulers — who have murdered critics, imprisoned dissidents, and seized media outlets outright — his methods are still alarming.
The United States has long championed free speech. However, Mr. Trump’s tactics, which imply that only opinions favored by the presidency are legitimate and protected, place the nation in uncomfortable alignment with less democratic societies.
Alarmingly, freedom of expression is on the decline in America and 43 other nations—a quarter of all countries globally—according to the 2025 Democracy Report from the V-Dem Institute. This number has risen from 35 countries just a year prior, indicating a worsening trend over the last decade.
Across both democracies and dictatorships, individuals who use humor to package their critiques have increasingly found themselves in the crosshairs.
- Consider Iran: Last month, morality charges were brought against Zeinab Mousavi, a pioneering female stand-up comedian, for a video that infused an ancient Persian epic with modern, explicit language. This marked at least her third police summons since she introduced her satirical character, Empress of Kuzcoo, an elderly, nose-only-visible villager wearing a hijab.
- Or in Turkey, where in July, four cartoonists faced arrest for an image in the satirical magazine LeMan. The drawing depicted Moses and Prophet Muhammad in friendly conversation in heaven, while chaos unfolded between Jews and Muslims on Earth. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced the image as a ‘vile provocation,’ leading to one cartoonist being charged with ‘insulting the president.’
- And in India, where free expression is also diminishing, even subtle jokes about local politicians can be taboo. In March, comedian Kunal Kamra, known for his political humor, performed a lighthearted song that included the word ‘gaddar’ (traitor), seemingly referencing a local politician. This was enough for the state’s chief minister to demand legal action, resulting in government employees vandalizing the comedy club.
Police were seen outside comedian Kunal Kamra’s studio in Mumbai, India, in March, following legal threats issued after one of his performances.
According to Helmut K. Anheier, a sociology professor at the Hertie School in Berlin, the strategy of attacking free expression and targeting elites for populist political advantage was first observed by sociologist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci noted this dynamic during his imprisonment by Italian Fascists in the 1920s.
For many demagogues, both historically and today, the aim is to ‘achieve cultural and political dominance’—or, in simpler terms, to redefine what society considers ‘common sense,’ as other scholars have described it.
Compelling independent institutions to conform is a key part of this strategy: it’s about enforcing a new narrative and elevating a rising strongman, often at the cost of essential public freedoms.
Gramsci, writing from prison around 1930, famously stated: ‘The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.’
Today, China stands out as a prime example of successful expression management. While media controls have historically fluctuated, under Xi Jinping, Beijing has significantly tightened its grip, transforming news outlets, film, comedy, and social media into meticulously controlled platforms for state-approved narratives.
During a 2016 tour of Chinese media outlets, Mr. Xi made it clear that ‘media sponsored by the party and government’—encompassing virtually all major Chinese media—’should serve as propaganda platforms for the party and government.’
Since that declaration, investigative journalists, who once bravely scrutinized government abuses and corruption even while working for state-controlled media, have largely disappeared. This mirrors a trend seen in countries like Hungary and Russia, where loyalists are placed in charge of what were once independent publications.
Furthermore, authorities have increased oversight of movies and books, placing them directly under the Communist Party’s propaganda department. Censors scrutinize content not only for political messages but also for anything that deviates from the party’s official priorities.
The consequences of overstepping are severe. In 2020, Hong Kong’s public broadcaster aired an episode of its popular satire show, “Headliner,” which implied that police were stockpiling masks during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. Despite a long history of such satire since 1989, that single episode led to the show’s cancellation months later.
The set of “Headliner” at Radio Television Hong Kong in 2020. The satirical program was later canceled after an episode touched on coronavirus masks.
Just last year, a Beijing stand-up comedian faced accusations of insulting the Chinese military with a joke about stray dogs. This resulted in a nearly $2 million fine for his comedy studio, and a woman who defended him online was even detained by police in northern China, far from the performance venue.
Despite these global examples, the United States still sees a robust flow of satire and criticism, including sharp commentary and investigations into potential corruption involving the Trump family, reaching wide audiences.
However, experts note alarming similarities to authoritarian tactics as Mr. Trump threatens broadcasters’ licenses and initiates lawsuits against educational institutions and prominent newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
Mr. Trump’s remarks came after ABC’s indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, a move that followed pressure from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. Carr had criticized Kimmel for comments regarding Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin, implying that Trump supporters sought to distance themselves from Kirk’s conservative roots. Mr. Trump then suggested that merely canceling the show might not be sufficient punishment.
These threats of regulatory strong-arming resonate with historical precedents: Italians recall Silvio Berlusconi, who leveraged his political and media power to blacklist critics and silence dissent. Venezuelans remember Hugo Chávez, who revoked radio licenses and compelled TV networks to air his populist addresses. Viktor Orban of Hungary, admired by the Trumpist right, employed tax policies to undermine major media organizations.
Russian scholars, meanwhile, draw parallels between Mr. Trump’s targeting of late-night comedians and Vladimir Putin’s early tactics in Moscow.
In the 1990s, a satirical Russian TV show called “Kukly” (Puppets) featured oversized, somewhat grotesque puppets mocking political figures and current events, from the Chechen war to Boris Yeltsin’s well-known drinking habits. During Russia’s post-Soviet democratic aspirations, the Kremlin largely tolerated the show.
However, everything changed with Mr. Putin’s ascent to power. Through initial harassment, followed by a complete takeover by the state oil monopoly, the independent network airing “Kukly” was transformed into a compliant, government-friendly channel—with no room for “Kukly.”
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.’ Putin himself was reportedly infuriated by his depiction as an ‘evil dwarf.’
The El Capitan Theater in Los Angeles, home to “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” was seen on Thursday, the day ABC announced the show’s indefinite suspension.
It appears Mr. Trump might be taking these jokes personally, or perhaps amplifying the outrage of his political base.
He stated, ‘They give me only bad publicity,’ referring to the major networks.
Many Russians have already warned America: ‘Watch out for what comes next.’ Viktor Shenderovich, the head writer for “Kukly,” was himself forced to leave Russia due to state harassment and death threats.
Indeed, numerous other individuals involved with the satirical program also fled Russia in fear.