Kimmel
see late night
MERRI OK
---
---
=-=-=
an 8 26
Trump’s war against ABC and Disney for platforming comedian Jimmy Kimmel has boomeranged on him, with the entertainment behemoth suing Trump’s FCC for violating their First Amendment rights. More recently, the FCC has challenged ABC’s broadcasting licenses.
Even a conservative newspaper is siding with ABC and Disney over the Trump administration.
“ABC sued the FCC on Tuesday for ‘coercing and retaliating’ because it ‘refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands,’” wrote The Wall Street Journal editorial board on Tuesday. “The lawsuit says the government has violated its First Amendment rights ‘by launching pretextual regulatory investigations and threatening the Stations’ valuable broadcast licenses.’”
Describing FCC Chairman Brendan Carr as a “mob-boss” and agreeing with the premise of the lawsuit, the Journal opined that Trump’s FCC is indeed violating “the First Amendment by letting the FCC interfere in editorial judgments and suppress disfavored content and viewpoints. ABC’s lawsuit says the FCC’s pressure has resulted in it ‘passing on further consideration of booking several political candidates,’ and none have appeared on the program since February.”
The Journal added that Carr once criticized Democratic administrations for violating free speech rights, and concluded that “in 2020 he lambasted a progressive media group for petitioning the FCC to censor broadcasts of Mr. Trump’s Covid press conferences, calling it a ‘dangerous and sweeping attempt by the left to weaponize the FCC.’
"It’s a shame Mr. Carr won’t defend ABC’s free-speech rights today," the board added.
Trump’s war against Kimmel began in September when he falsely claimed that the talk show host had disparaged the late right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk after he was assassinated. ABC initially took Kimmel’s show off the air but reversed course after a mass protest.
"But then, you know what happened?” Kimmel said at the time. “A Christmas miracle happened. Well, it was September, it was a September miracle. But the holiday does seem to come earlier and earlier every year, doesn’t it? Millions and millions of people stood up and said: ‘No, this is not acceptable’ ... Our show came back stronger than ever. We won, the president lost and now I’m back on the air every night giving the most powerful politician on earth a right and richly deserved bollocking.”
He added, “That’s a word, right? I used it properly?"
In April Kimmel again was in the spotlight when the administration falsely claimed that one of his jokes had inspired an assassination attempt against the president.
“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country,” First Lady Melania Trump declared on social media at the time. “His monologue about my family isn’t comedy — his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America.”
She continued, “People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him. Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.”
-=-=
---
4 26
Melania Trump demands ABC 'take a stand' against 'hateful' Jimmy Kimmel - Alternet.org
---
AN 5 26
The Trump administration has called on TV network ABC to “take a stand” after a joke from its late night comedy host Jimmy Kimmel offended the US president and first lady.
Two days before the White House Correpondents’ dinner on April 25, Kimmel broadcast what he said was a “roast” of the Trump administration. Roasts are typically quite savage comedic attacks which have become a traditional part of the dinner.
Trump, who was famously the target of jokes from former president, Barack Obama, at a dinner in 2011, had never attended the dinner while in office. This year he opted to attend, but the comedian’s spot was taken by what was described as a “mentalist”.
So Kimmel said he decided to supply the roast on his show as an “all-American” version of the Correspondents’ Dinner. In what he said was a joke about the 24-year age difference between the couple, he described Melania Trump as “having a glow like an expectant widow”. But after a would-be assassin tried to launch a murderous attack two days later at the dinner, the Trumps have demanded his sacking.
“Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behaviour at the expense of our community,” Melania Trump wrote in a post on X.
But it appears that ABC, a subsidiary of Disney, is instead standing by Kimmel, who has not been taken off air, in contrast to an episode in September 2025 when Kimmel was suspended after comments he made following the death of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, a close friend of the Trumps. After a public outcry, ABC relented and restored Kimmel’s show.
In response, Brendan Carr, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has brought forward a review of ABC’s station licences, which were previously not scheduled until 2028 or later. Carr’s actions follow a press conference at the White House on April 26 at which press secretary Karoline Leavitt said coverage critical of Trump, including from his Democrat opponents, was responsible for the rise in political violence in the US by creating what she called a “leftwing cult of hatred”.
These examples highlight the politicisation of “free speech” by the Trump administration as a cudgel to silence disfavoured viewpoints under the guise protecting the public from harm.
First amendment protection for free speech
But these political debates are becoming increasingly distanced from the first amendment. That is, the interpretation of the first amendment by the Supreme Court and the protections it provides to individuals and entities, including media outlets and broadcast companies, from government interference. The wider this gulf becomes, the greater the space between the principles underlying the expansive protections afforded to speech in the US and the public’s understanding of the democratic principles that underpin these protections.
This is more important than ever in the Trump era. Actions taken by the administration to target broadcast networks and individuals for political speech are precisely what the first amendment protects against. It was designed, among other things, to protect individuals, entities and the press from government interference by creating an open marketplace in which ideas compete freely.
This is particularly true for dissenting political speech, which is the core of the first amendment. This explains why government interference with speech based on “the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker” – known as “viewpoint discrimination” – is expressly prohibited.
Additionally, whether and to what extent speech is offensive is irrelevant to the protection it enjoys. When it comes to the value of public debate, the first amendment is not neutral. Indeed, as a Supreme Court judgment, Baumgartner v. United States (1944) found: “One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.” Moreover a more recent judgment, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988), found that “robust political debate” is expressly encouraged, given that such debate “is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office”.
Importantly, the Supreme Court found in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) that such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate and that public figures as well as public officials will be subjected to “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks”.
The motive of the speaker is also irrelevant, as the Supreme Court held in Hustler v Falwell that while a “bad motive” may be deemed controlling for tort liability and in other areas of the law, “the first amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures”.
Stakes couldn’t be higher
By expressly linking Democrat criticisms of the president, and pointed critiques (however off-colour) from Kimmel and his fellow political satirists to an upsurge in political violence, the Trump administration is trying to silence criticism of its actions. But it’s also clear that this behaviour is precisely what the first amendment prohibits.
Ironically, the media often portrays these episodes as “feuds” between Trump and his critics.
But when viewed through the lens of the first amendment and its core values in this context, the stakes are much higher. These episodes constitute an effort to wrest control of public discourse by interfering in the marketplace of ideas in order silence those critical of the government.
And history tells us that a government that can silence its critics often does so in pursuit of unchecked power. Viewed through this lens, perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy is the government itself.
Eliza Bechtold, Programmes Manager and Research Fellow, the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
---
Donald Trump is the greatest threat to our free speech rights
The president’s new comment demolishes the pathetic argument some elements of the right have pushed over the last week
Written by Matt Gertz
:{:{Published09/24/25}:
The greatest threat that free speech currently faces in this country is that the president doesn’t believe in it. Donald Trump treats criticism of himself, his administration, and his policies as fundamentally illegitimate, and he is eager to use government power to curtail it. When Trump’s allies downplay or spin the anti-speech activity flowing downstream from his whims, they engage in willful ignorance or deliberate deception.
Trump responded to Jimmy Kimmel’s Tuesday night return to ABC’s airwaves following a suspension his administration helped bring about by once again threatening the network with retribution. After claiming that ABC had reversed a decision (apparently announced only privately to the White House) that Jimmy Kimmel Live! “was cancelled,” the president accused Kimmel of being an “arm of the DNC,” which he alleged makes Kimmel’s show “a major Illegal Campaign Contribution.” He went on to say: “I think we’re going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do.”
The president’s comment demolishes the pathetic argument some elements of the right have pushed over the last week.
According to Fox News stars, Republican members of Congress, and Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, ABC’s decision to take Kimmel off the air was purely a “business decision.” In their telling, it was simply a quirky coincidence that the move came just hours after Carr said that ABC’s affiliates and parent company Disney could “do this the easy way or the hard way” and either “take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead” — a credible threat given his history of leveraging regulatory power for the right’s benefit.
Even Senate Republicans who criticized the administration’s clear violation of the First Amendment focused their attention solely on Carr while leaving a Trump-shaped hole in their arguments.
Trump’s post, however, shows that Carr’s actions were totally in keeping with the president’s desire to use state power to try to impose censorship on media outlets. Trump is not concerned that his administration was violating the First Amendment by trying to force his critics off the air — he is concerned that it didn’t work, and he is making it abundantly clear to everyone who works for him that he wants them to keep trying.
That position is hardly a new revelation. Denunciations of critical media coverage are a hallmark of Trump’s politics, and he has frequently used personal lawsuits and government authority to try to strong-arm outlets into submission.
:{:{We saw a similar inability to grapple with Trump’s closely held and consistent position that his administration should be able to punish critics for their speech earlier this month. After Attorney General Pam Bondi declared that the Justice Department would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech,” the floodgates opened.}:
Commentators across the right condemned her comments as an affront to free speech principles. They wrote that she “fails to understand the basics of the U.S. Constitution” (the editors of National Review), lacks “a basic understanding of the First Amendment” (The Wall Street Journal editorial board), and should be fired (The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh). The response was so furious and widespread that Bondi was forced to clarify her remarks.}:
That’s commendable as far as it goes. But it’s not like Bondi is some sort of wild outlier in a Trump administration otherwise committed to free speech. When an ABC News reporter asked the president about Bondi’s remarks the following morning, he didn’t even try to distance himself from them. Instead, he told the reporter, “She’ll probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly, it’s hate.”
Trump’s remarks once again give the game away — he views potential “hate speech” prosecutions as an extension of his desire for his administration to punish his critics and media outlets that publish or air them. But right-wing criticism of Trump’s comments was far more muted than the backlash Bondi faced.
Perhaps they think that it’s much more important that an attorney general support the Constitution’s protections than that the president do so. I think it’s more likely they understand the president’s position is a threat to the First Amendment, but also recognize that it is impossible to remain a conservative in good standing while voicing such concerns about the president and have simply decided not to talk about it.
Meanwhile, the president will continue his administration’s efforts to punish critics and coerce media outlets until he can turn on his TV, flip through the channels, and see nothing but Fox-style propaganda on every network.
MMA //
09/18/25 12:00 PM EDT
08/25/25 12:40 PM EDT
07/21/25
---
MMA
Joe Rogan on Jimmy Kimmel's suspension: “I definitely don't think that the government should be involved, ever, in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue. That's fucking crazy.”
Rogan: “The problem is the companies, if they're being pressured by the government, so if that's real, and if people on the right are like, yeah, go get them. Oh my god. You're crazy. You're crazy for supporting this, because this will be used on you.”
Written by Media Matters Staff
Published09/23/25
Video
Citation
From the September 23, 2025, edition of The Joe Rogan Experience, posted to YouTube
JOE ROGAN (HOST): Speaking of adapting, like this, this whole Jimmy Kimmel situation that is happening right now.
...
ROGAN: And so these, what, what you're dealing with even — first of all, I definitely don't think that the government should be involved, ever, in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue. That's fucking crazy.
ANDREW SANTINO (GUEST): It's crazy.
ROGAN: Now, if — the problem is the companies, if they're being pressured by the government, so if that's real, and if people on the right are like, yeah, go get them. Oh my god. You're crazy. You're crazy for supporting this, because this will be used on you.
You don't think that the fucking globalist lizard people who run the world are sitting here going, great. What do we got? Three years? We'll wait this out. We'll wait this out. Yeah, yeah, yeah, let them say the government should be involved in, in censoring people's speech. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let 'em support that. Let these fucking dumbasses, because Jimmy Kimmel's a leftist, let these dumbasses think it's a good idea and we should celebrate that.
SANTINO: That's the most toxic shit I keep seeing online, when people are like, yeah, shut them down.
AN 9 25
---
---
AN 9 25
Disney's abrupt announcement that it was reversing its suspension of late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel's show came in response to Americans doing just a handful of specific things, according to attorney Norm Eisen.
In a Monday appearance on former CNN host Jim Acosta's Substack show, Eisen celebrated Disney's statement that Kimmel would be returning to his show Tuesday night. He chalked the decision up to Americans using what he called the "five P's" in an immediate and effective manner to force Disney's hand.
According to Eisen, Americans that were upset about the sudden preempting of Kimmel's show (which was attributed to comments Kimmel made about the Republican response to MAGA activist Charlie Kirk's death) made it impossible for Disney to stand by the Trump administration in five particular ways: Legal proceedings, popular protests, polls, the press and political leadership.
Eisen's first point about legal proceedings never got a chance to play out, though a Newsweek analysis found that Kimmel may have had grounds to sue on the basis that FCC chair Brendan Carr made a coercive threat against broadcasters who continued to air his show. However, his argument that popular protests drove action may have merit, given that Kimmel's suspension brought out Americans into the streets on both coasts over the weekend.
The attorney further pointed out that the Trump administration has been taking a beating in recent special elections, noting that Democrats have either won or overperformed polling expectations in 42 of 43 special elections just this year, according to the Democratic National Committee. Eisen also pointed out that both traditional and independent media had been doggedly reporting on the Kimmel's suspension and the FCC's actions leading up to it, helping to spread awareness among the American public. And he concluded by saying there was enough political leadership on the part of Democrats to result in Disney switching gears and bringing Kimmel back less than a week after suspending him.
"A lot of people got really down in the dumps and thought, OK, this is it. We're backsliding, the First Amendment is getting torched," Eisen said. "But you cannot count out the American people and you cannot count out the idea of collective action. I mean, that to me is the big takeaway from this."
"It's a small world after all, you might say Norm," Acosta said. "And to me, that is the perfect lesson to be taken away from all of this. This really was like a shot heard around the world."
---
---
AN 9 25
Disney and ABC announced Monday that late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel would be returning to his show on Tuesday after he was abruptly taken off the air last week.
NBC reporter Sahil Kapur tweeted the Walt Disney Company's announcement Monday, which stated that while it felt Kimmel's comments about Republicans' response to the death of Charlie Kirk were "ill-timed and thus insensitive," the company had "thoughtful conversations with Jimmy" and "reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday."
Disney's statement comes on the heels of the company losing so many subscribers to its Disney+ platform that the subscription cancellation page reportedly crashed. Business Insider reported that even Americans who didn't personally watch Jimmy Kimmel's show viewed his suspension as "the last straw" and decided to cancel not only their Disney+ and Hulu subscriptions, but to also no longer take Disney cruises or visit Disney theme parks. The Walt Disney Company lost roughly 2 percent of its total market cap in roughly a week, amounting to several billion dollars.
Kimmel's return was praised on social media, though many journalists, political commentators and others observed that the company's decision was almost certainly financially motivated. Journalist David Dayen of the American Prospect wrote that ABC "created a total mess for themselves with this," and that "saying no to bullies is always the better move." Attorney Guy Hamilton-Smith opined that Disney's "thoughtful conversations with Jimmy" were instead "thoughtful conversations with our shareholders."
"Incredible how dumb these companies are. You made everybody mad! Conservatives are gonna be mad you’re putting him back on the air. Liberals were already mad you took him off," tweeted food scientist Isaiah Walker. "All this did was show you stand for nothing, no beliefs, no morals. Just whatever you think earns favor."
"The fight to defend free speech reaffirms our fight to defend the civil rights and liberties of the American people," tweeted Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) "The voice of the People is hard to ignore."
Author Don Winslow declared that Kimmel's return meant that "WE THE PEOPLE hold the power. Donald Trump does not. Never forget that and start USING YOUR POWER." He added in a separate post: "The ONLY reason @Disney is bringing @jimmykimmel back is because the American people stood up, called out the executives by name, Disney's stock plummeted and Disney lost a lot of money. Get it? That's the playbook for the next three years of Trump. YOU must be LOUDER than him."
'Crazy how fast fascism happens/goes away," wrote Rolling Stone journalist Daniel Boguslaw.
---
AN 9 25 COMM DR
After the Trump administration successfully pressured ABC to kick Jimmy Kimmel off the air last week, hundreds of artists signed an open letter Monday denouncing the government’s campaign to “pressure” entertainers and journalists into silence.
The letter, organized by the ACLU, was signed by numerous household names, including Jason Bateman, Jamie Lee Curtis, Ariana DeBose, Jane Fonda, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Regina King, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Diego Luna, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Natalie Portman, Olivia Rodrigo, Martin Short, and Ramy Youssef.
“Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air after our government threatened a private company with retaliation for Kimmel’s remarks. This is a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation,” the letter says. “This is unconstitutional and un-American. The government is threatening private companies and individuals that the president disagrees with. We can’t let this threat to our freedom of speech go unanswered.”
Kimmel’s suspension came hours after the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, threatened to revoke the broadcast license of ABC Newsaffiliates unless the network pulled the comedian’s late-night show off the air following comments he made criticizing the President Donald Trump’s reaction to the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
Major entertainment unions have condemned Kimmel’s suspension, including SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America, which organized demonstrations in Times Square and outside ABC’s parent company Disney over the weekend that drew hundreds of protesters, while some actors have pledged to stop working with Disney until Kimmel is reinstated.
In subsequent days, Trump continued to issue threats to the media, suggesting that he would seek to strip the broadcasting licenses of networks that give him “bad press,” saying, “They’re not allowed to do that.”
The letter says that “In an attempt to silence its critics, our government has resorted to threatening the livelihoods of journalists, talk show hosts, artists, creatives, and entertainers across the board. This runs counter to the values our nation was built upon, and our Constitution guarantees.”
Members of the Trump administration, including JD Vance, have also promoted a wide-ranging campaign to have private citizens reported to their employers over critical comments they made about Kirk following his assassination.
Students for Trump National Chair Ryan Fournier created a database with tens of thousands of social media accounts and has boasted of having gotten dozens of people fired over their posts, many of which simply state disagreement with Kirk even without endorsing his assassination.
“We know this moment is bigger than us and our industry. Teachers, government employees, law firms, researchers, universities, students, and so many more are also facing direct attacks on their freedom of expression,” the letter says. “Regardless of our political affiliation, or whether we engage in politics or not, we all love our country. We also share the belief that our voices should never be silenced by those in power—because if it happens to one of us, it happens to all of us.”
Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, described these blacklisting efforts as the dawn of “a modern McCarthy era” with Americans “facing exactly the type of heavy-handed government censorship our Constitution rightfully forbids.”
Noting that former Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) “was ultimately disgraced and neutralized once Americans mobilized and stood up to him,” Romero said that “we must do the same today because, together, our voices are louder and, together, we will fight to be heard.”
---
mma
09/19/25 7:38 PM EDT
09/19/25 6:43 PM EDT
09/19/25 5:09 PM EDT
09/19/25
===
--> FASCISM
an 9 25
In an article for Salonpublished Sunday, the outlet’s executive editor, Andrew O’Hehir, argues that Americans have been given a harsh reminder: Democracy isn’t guaranteed, and beyond merely consenting to be governed, citizens must take an active role to defend it.
He warned that many of the formal institutions, especially the U.S. Constitution, are showing signs of decay, undermined “from within” by what he sees as encroaching authoritarianism.
O'Hehir writes that the confrontation over late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s show is presented not as just a media squabble, but a test case.
"Jimmy Kimmel’s cancellation is a test case, designed to measure the breadth and power of the accelerating authoritarian coup now underway in America," he said.
Late-night comedy and other cultural institutions become battlegrounds, in part because they sit at the intersection of public opinion, dissent, and broad reach, he noted.
O’Hehir added that large media companies, many now under oligarchic ownership or dominated by finance capital and big tech, are becoming more reliant on those in power.
"The MAGA assault on late-night comedy — which is doubly vulnerable, as both a fading cultural institution and the veritable definition of First Amendment-protected speech — represents a kind of pincer movement, bringing together multiple overlapping fascist tendencies," he wrote.
"On one hand, we see the consolidation of mainstream media companies, now increasingly under the oligarchic control of Big Tech and finance capital, and increasingly dependent on the corrupt Trump regime to approve their corrupt cartel-building mergers and acquisitions. On the other, we see the regime’s undisguised campaign to restrict and punish dissent, and to redefine 'free speech' as a conditional benefit conferred only on its most loyal grovelers and forelock-tuggers, and subject to revocation at any time.
He cited Sinclair and Nexstar as examples of companies that pushed against Kimmel, seemingly aligning with Trump-friendly narratives.
The editor argued that many of the pillars of democracy — courts, civil service, justice departments, regulatory agencies — are weakened, co-opted, or acting as enforcers of the regime rather than checks upon it.
"The Supreme Court has given Trump free rein, the FBI and Justice Department have become his enforcers, the civil service has been co-opted and subverted, the public health agencies have been conquered by moonbats and Republican state legislatures are doing their best to rig the midterm elections. As [Bill] Curry puts it, leaders at white-shoe law firms, elite universities and major foundations have repeatedly surrendered without a shot, revealing themselves as 'traitors, cowards, rank opportunists or simply inept.'"
---
---
RWW
09/18/2025
by
- Joe DePaolo @ Mediaite: ‘Great News for America!’ Trump Absolutely Revels in Kimmel Suspension — Pushes NBC to Axe Jimmy Fallon Next
Despite a five-hour time difference in the UK, news of Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension got to President Donald Trump before he fell asleep Wednesday night — and he wasted little time celebrating.
- Greg Sargent @ The New Republic: Trump’s Ouster of Jimmy Kimmel Is Much Worse Than You Think It Is
The startling decision by ABC to pull comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s show under pressure from President Trump requires a real response from Democrats. It has to go well beyond expressions of outrage and defenses of the First Amendment—though those are critical—and spell out potential future consequences, political and possibly even legal, for those participating in this escalating lawlessness.
- Adam Serwer @ The Atlantic: The Constitution Protects Jimmy Kimmel’s Mistake
The Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, went on a conservative podcast and threatened Disney, which owns ABC, saying, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” In 2023 Carr posted on X that “censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.” At the time that was a criticism of censorship; now it reads like a statement of intent.
- Adam Kinzinger: Brendan Carr’s FCC Power Play: How One Weak Man Threatens America’s Free Speech
After Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks on the Charlie Kirk shooting, Carr used FCC leverage to pressure ABC—showing how quickly constitutional rights can be trampled.
- Joe Walsh @ CBS News: Trump announces he's designating antifa as a "major terrorist organization"
President Trump announced Wednesday that he will designate antifa as a terrorist organization, and is recommending investigations into people who allegedly fund it.
- Will Sommer @ The Bulwark: Brutal MAGA Civil War Over Charlie Kirk’s Legacy
Podcasters, pastors, and plutocrats duking it out.
---
---
mma
Jimmy Kimmel and the MAGA strong-arming of American media
Written by Matt Gertz
:{:{Published09/18/25}:
As with so many of the Trump administration’s excesses, a simple recitation of the events leading to Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension sounds like something out of dystopian fiction. ABC’s Wednesday night announcement that it was putting Jimmy Kimmel Live! on indefinite hiatus in the face of White House threats is the latest sign that U.S. media are increasingly coming under the control of President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement.
Trump had been targeting Kimmel and ABC for months. In the wake of frequent administration critic Stephen Colbert’s July announcement that his late-night show was ending, the president gloated that Kimmel would be “NEXT to go.” Last month, Trump argued that the Federal Communications Commission should revoke the licenses of ABC stations because it broadcasts too many “BAD STORIES” about him and provides “unfair coverage of Republicans.” And on Monday morning, he threatened ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl, saying that Attorney General Pam Bondi might target him and his network for purportedly airing anti-Trump “hate speech.”
Kimmel inaccurately suggested during his Monday night monologue that the alleged killer of Turning Points USA founder Charlie Kirk was part of “the MAGA gang.” Under ordinary circumstances, such a statement could result in a correction and apology. But Kimmel’s remarks occurred in an environment in which Trump and his administration are eager to punish political speech they dislike.
Brendan Carr, the FCC’s Trumpy chair, wielded Kimmel’s monologue as a cudgel against his network during a Tuesday appearance on right-wing influencer Benny Johnson’s show. Carr accused Kimmel of “an intentional effort to mislead the American people” and threatened Disney and ABC’s affiliates with regulatory retribution in response, saying: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
He specifically suggested that affiliate networks should tell Disney that they would not run Kimmel’s show “until you straighten this out” and insinuated that they could face “license revocation from the FCC” if they did not.
Carr’s threats appear to be a clear violation of the First Amendment — but that matters only if Disney and the affiliate networks are willing to fight to uphold those rights in court.
Instead, Nexstar Media Group, which needs FCC approval for its proposed purchase of the stations owned by media company Tegna, said its affiliates would immediately preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! Shortly after, Disney announced that it was putting the show on hiatus. And Sinclair Broadcasting Group, owned by the pro-Trump Smith family, said it would not return Kimmel’s show to its airwaves until ABC committed to “appropriate steps” and called for the late-night host to make a “meaningful personal donation” to Kirk's right-wing political group.
Carr subsequently joined Fox News’ Sean Hannity to take a curtain call and praise Nexstar and Sinclair for following his dictates.
It’s worth pointing out that neither Johnson nor Hannity could operate under Carr’s stated standard — but they had no objections to his statements because they understand that his actual goal is enforcing MAGA political correctness norms by which they already abide.
This capitulation is only the latest sign of increasing MAGA control over the free press
Trump has long benefited from a massive parallel right-wing ecosystem, from Fox News to talk radio to a host of MAGA streamers and influencers. But since Trump won election last fall, more and more of the corporate titans who control the U.S. media have come under his thumb.
When Trump attempted similar extortion tactics during his first term, the heads of media companies and owners of news outlets were willing to fight him in court. But since his election in November, executives at companies like Disney have proved far more willing to bend to his will.
Other news outlets either are owned by businessmen who have become more Trump-friendly (perhaps due to fears of retribution), like The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, or have been taken over by businessmen with close ties to the president, like CBS News’ new Trump approved-owner David Ellison. More such consolidation is under way, with Ellison seeking to take over CNN and the Trump White House effectively nullifying the law as it tries to broker a deal in which TikTok would be sold to a coalition including companies controlled by his father, Larry Ellison, and fellow pro-Trump magnate Marc Andreessen.
Reporters at those outlets can and have continued to do vital reporting about the Trump administration under those circumstances. But they do so with knowledge that their ultimate bosses will not stand behind them in a pinch.
Other potential corporate targets like Comcast, which Trump has previously threatened over the coverage of NBC and MSNBC, have not yet faced the same level of retaliatory scrutiny. But their day will inevitably come, particularly after Trump and Carr saw how quickly Disney folded in the face of their Kimmel attack.
The New York Times is among the few major news outlets that has no choice but to stand up for its output and a free press because its ownership does not have other substantial business interests. But Trump is targeting them in a different way — this week, he launched a $15 billion defamation lawsuit over reporting that questioned his business acumen.
And in a sign that even regime-aligned owners will face punishment for critical reporting, Trump filed a lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its corporate parent’s chairman, Fox founder Rupert Murdoch, seeking $10 billion in damages over the paper’s coverage of his ties to disgraced financier and deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump’s endgame is clear. He wants to ensure that media outlets don’t produce coverage that criticizes him or his administration, but instead convey an endless stream of propaganda about his accomplishments.
He wants every outlet to be Fox News. And at this rate, he may get it.
//
08/25/25 12:40 PM EDT
10/29/24 9:09 AM EDT
09/09/25
---