Save this storySave this storySave this storySave this story
This past Wednesday, yielding to influence from the Trump White House, ABC ceased broadcasting the nighttime program “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The show, which had aired for over two decades, was put on hold indefinitely following a speech concerning the demise of conservative advocate Charlie Kirk—one wherein Kimmel did not denounce Kirk, nor, in fact, mention him at all. Instead, he aimed his scorn at those keen to take advantage of the activist’s passing: individuals of “the MAGA crowd” who were, according to him, “desperately attempting to portray the individual who killed Charlie Kirk as something other than one of them, and exerting every effort to gain political advantage from it.” It remained unclear if Kimmel implied that Tyler Robinson, Kirk’s supposed murderer, was “one of them,” yet his ideological adversaries seized on the vague wording. Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, deemed Kimmel’s remarks “utterly vile” and threatened retaliation through his office. “We have options to proceed, either easily or with difficulty,” Carr stated, on a conservative podcast. “These entities can discover methods to alter behavior and act, bluntly, concerning Kimmel, or the F.C.C. will face increased responsibilities in the future.”
The narrative surrounding Kimmel’s removal isn’t uncomplicated. Bob Iger, the C.E.O. of Disney, the parent company of ABC, and Dana Walden, the studio’s television head, opted to halt the show’s production after two significant local-station groups, Nexstar and Sinclair, declined to broadcast it. (Sinclair, a right-leaning organization, even demanded that the presenter offer an apology to Kirk’s relatives and contribute financially to his association, Turning Point USA.) Kimmel was apparently willing to discuss the uproar on the program; Disney administrators instead suspended the show. Donald Trump, who had urged ABC to dismiss Kimmel as early as 2018, gloated, inaccurately, on Truth Social that it had been “TERMINATED,” and proposed that Kimmel’s fellow late-night personalities Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers should also be removed. An emboldened Carr hinted that he would next focus on ABC’s daytime show “The View”—another source of irritation for Trump.
The speech that resulted in Kimmel’s unintended break was entirely commonplace for the program. Actually, it was a concise summary of his comedic image: that of an ordinary individual whose political leanings originate from good judgment. After criticizing the actions of the “MAGA gang,” he ridiculed Trump’s reaction to a reporter’s inquiry regarding Kirk, in which he immediately switched the discussion to the White House’s ballroom renovations. (“He’s in the fourth phase of bereavement: construction,” Kimmel quipped. He further added, more thoughtfully, “This isn’t how a grown-up deals with the loss of someone he called a companion. This is how a child grieves for a pet goldfish.”) Prior to his address, the entertainer had issued a statement on social media that showed the widespread common sense he’s become recognized for: “Rather than the angry recriminations, could we simply acknowledge, for once, that it is awful and barbaric to harm another person? On behalf of my family, we offer our support to the Kirks and all children, parents, and innocent individuals who are victims of pointless firearms violence.”
Kimmel’s suppression transpires merely two months following the cessation of Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show,” under comparable stress, although notable distinctions exist between the two situations. Colbert was informed almost a year in advance before his program’s conclusion, allowing him time to finalize things on his own terms. Conversely, the suddenness of Kimmel’s suspension has caused consternation throughout Hollywood. His informal approach to political comedy has positioned him as a mainstay at ABC, where he’s presented everything from game shows to the Academy Awards. Over the recent weeks, his well-meaning inclinations have been observed even in his Emmy campaign—which wasn’t for his own nominated series but for Colbert’s.
At present, it’s apparent that the Trump White House plans to fundamentally alter America. Cultural organizations are considerably part of that plan, which has involved a distortion of the Kennedy Center, a compelled departure at the National Portrait Gallery, and control at the Smithsonian. The President developed crucial partnerships with the globe’s two most affluent individuals, Elon Musk and Larry Ellison (even though his association with the former has since drastically deteriorated). Musk overhauled the site previously known as Twitter to mirror his own vision; Ellison is presently in talks to oversee both TikTok and Warner Bros. Discovery, encompassing CNN and HBO. It was predictable that the White House would pursue television—by all accounts Trump’s preferred channel. During his initial term in office, certain critics censured late-night hosts, denouncing the recurrence of “applause breaks” and their propensity to speak to the converted. Even the release they offered came under doubt; potentially the regular venting of fury also diminished political will. Nonetheless, if progressive late night didn’t impact much within the actual world, it still annoyed the President.
What a self-inflicted wound. Trump already had the upper hand on opposing comedians; his eccentricities render him famously “immune to parody,” and he can be rather amusing himself, particularly with offensive jokes. (“Meatball Ron,” his term for his previous rival Ron DeSantis, continues to be an excellent insult.) Yet the President is surrounded by a more obsequious group this time, and appears more fragile when facing opposition. Lately, he’s been responding to criticism by outright stifling freedom of expression—once again uncovering the right’s exceptionally particular defense of that principle.
He couldn’t accomplish this without the approval of the media firms involved. When Trump initiated an insubstantial legal case against ABC News for employing the term “rape” to characterize his assault of E. Jean Carroll—a case that many considered the network could effortlessly prevail in—Disney proposed a settlement of fifteen million dollars instead. (At the time, Iger was eager to appease MAGA; DeSantis, the Florida governor, had endangered the elimination of Disney World’s tax advantages after the corporation opposed his “Don’t Say Gay” legislation.) Trump then pursued CBS News for typical edits to a Kamala Harris interview; the network, whose parent company required the F.C.C.’s endorsement for a merger, settled for sixteen million dollars. He has since taken legal action against the Times and the Wall Street Journal for their reporting on his finances and his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, respectively, and has threatened to target NBC’s broadcasting permit. Certain of his targets have realized through adverse encounters that preëmptive appeasement solely unlocks the door to increased demands. Allow this White House an opening, and they’ll exploit it extensively. As Carr noted on Thursday, “We are not finished yet.”
Extensively before Trump’s return to the White House, Kimmel entertained the concept of retirement; it’s conceivable we wouldn’t have seen new “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” episodes beyond 2026 regardless. Nonetheless, Disney’s choice seems planned not only to please the proprietors of local branches but also to assure that the F.C.C. will sanction an agreement between the N.F.L. and the media giant’s secondary business ESPN. It would be understandable if someone such as Fallon or Meyers departed due to declining viewership numbers; it would be quite different if they were regarded as tools to be offered up. In some areas, Kimmel’s program will be replaced this evening by a celebration of Charlie Kirk. Thus far, the void in the timetable has been filled by Steve Harvey’s “Celebrity Family Feud”—evidently the sort of programming that Trump would favor, because it conveys absolutely nothing. Yet late-night presenters, even if they’re no longer the final individuals we observe prior to sleeping, foster a connection with their followers rooted in acquaintance and custom. Their voices and viewpoints are a component of our lives. The category’s relevance has progressively been questioned, although the absence of these figures may only hasten their employers’ demise. Boycotts of Hulu and Disney+ have commenced. The networks silence themselves at their own peril. ♦
Sourse: newyorker.com
