Late-Night TV, Trump, and the Fight Over Free Speech

Late-Night TV, Trump, and the Fight Over Free Speech

The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! has sparked a storm of debate about free speech, political pressure, and the independence of America’s media. On 17 September 2025, ABC who is owned by Disney, pulled the program indefinitely after Kimmel criticized how some conservatives were exploiting the killing of activist Charlie Kirk. Several affiliates, including Nexstar and Sinclair, refused to air the show, and the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, condemned Kimmel’s remarks and hinted at possible regulatory repercussions.

It comes After Colbert's Show was Canceled

The move comes on the heels of CBS’s decision to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, slated to end in 2026. Officially, CBS attributed the cancellation to rising costs and shifting advertising trends. Yet Colbert’s sharp criticism of both Donald Trump and CBS’s business dealings with him has led many to question whether the decision was truly financial. For critics, the timing of both Colbert’s cancellation and Kimmel’s suspension feels less like coincidence and more like part of a broader trend of silencing Trump’s detractors in mainstream media. 

Trump himself has only fueled those concerns. He openly celebrated Colbert’s cancellation, mocking the late-night host’s ratings and declaring that he “loved” the firing. After Kimmel’s suspension, Trump praised ABC for “doing what had to be done,” disparaging Kimmel as talentless and urging NBC to “follow suit” by canceling other shows critical of him. He has even suggested that television networks who are “negative” toward him should lose their broadcast licenses.

This rhetoric dovetails with Trump’s oft-repeated vow to act like a “dictator on day one” if he returns to office. While the legal limits of presidential authority prevent the wholesale silencing of media, critics fear that using regulatory bodies like the FCC to intimidate or punish networks represents a dangerous step toward authoritarian governance. The threat alone, they argue, can chill speech and push media companies toward self-censorship.

Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, weighed in with biting satire. Opening his program, Stewart quipped that it would be “another fun, hilarious administration-compliant show,” mocking the idea that late-night comedy might need to align itself with the president’s preferences. He also invited Nobel laureate journalist Maria Ressa, author of How to Stand Up to a Dictator, to discuss the parallels between tactics in authoritarian regimes and the pressures now facing American broadcasters.

Former President Barack Obama was more direct. Speaking about the controversy, he condemned Kimmel’s suspension as “government coercion,” pointing out the hypocrisy of railing against “cancel culture” while simultaneously using state power to suppress critical voices. Obama argued that media companies have too often capitulated under pressure and urged them to resist, warning that democracy depends on a free press unafraid to challenge those in power.

Taken together, the cancellations of Colbert and Kimmel, Trump’s threats toward networks, and the willingness of some affiliates to preemptively pull programming suggest an unsettling trend. While no formal censorship order has been issued, the combination of political intimidation, corporate caution, and regulatory threats creates a climate in which dissenting voices may be silenced without the government ever needing to pass a law.

For critics, this is what makes Trump’s “dictator on day one” language so alarming. It is not the legal feasibility of seizing total control that worries them most, but rather the erosion of norms that protect free expression. In that sense, the battle over late-night television is more than an entertainment industry story—it is a test of whether America’s cultural and political institutions will resist authoritarian pressure or quietly accommodate it.