When Stephen Colbert’s contract for “The Late Show” wasn’t renewed by CBS in July, President Donald Trump celebrated on Truth Social. “I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,” he posted. “His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert!”
Fast forward to Tuesday, when Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr claimed on a right-wing podcast that Kimmel had said “the sickest thing possible” about Charlie Kirk’s assassination on his show. “[W]hen we see stuff like this, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr warned. “These companies can find ways to change conduct, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
The late-night host had accused the “MAGA gang” of trying to distance themselves from Kirk’s alleged shooter “as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” Kimmel also mocked Trump’s behavior.
What Carr seemed to be implying with his mob boss talk was that the FCC would not approve a lucrative merger between some of ABC’s stations if they didn’t take action against Kimmel, a situation that echoed the mega-merger between Paramount — CBS’s parent company — and Skydance that was looming ahead of Colbert’s cancellation (and was approved in late July).
It appears ABC got the message. The network, which is owned by Disney, announced on Wednesday night that Kimmel had been “suspended indefinitely.” Shortly after the announcement, Carr sent CNN’s Brian Stelter a celebratory text in reply to the journalist’s request for comment.
It appears ABC got the message. The network, which is owned by Disney, announced on Wednesday night that Kimmel had been “suspended indefinitely.” Shortly after the announcement, Carr sent CNN’s Brian Stelter a celebratory text in reply to the journalist’s request for comment.
Kimmel’s suspension, though, is a bit rich. Because for the past decade, the right has been on a crusade to end what they see as the scourge of “cancel culture.” Republican politicians and members of the right-wing media have railed against firing people for what they say in the classroom and boardroom, or for what they posted years ago as teenagers on social media. They have ranted that no one should lose a job simply for expressing an unpopular opinion, a fate they believed was happening to conservatives throughout society who have had leftist “woke” ideology forced upon them and used as intimidation tactics.
The right, though, has its own very long history of “canceling” those with whom they disagree. In the 1940s and 1950s, the House Un-American Activities Committee and accusations by Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy ruined the lives of many people who were suspected of being members, or simply being member-curious, of the Communist Party. In the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003, dissenters were warned to be careful of what they said, lest they risk being seen as terrorist sympathizers. Radio stations famously banned the Dixie Chicks (now the Chicks) after lead singer Natalie Maines said they were ashamed that President George W. Bush was from their home state of Texas. In recent years we’ve seen a spate of book banning and repression in the classroom by right-wing school boards and politicians.
But during the grievance-driven Trump era, complaints from the right reached fever pitch as cultural upheavals like the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, and push for transgender equality, fed their resentment over social changes they believed were going too far. Nothing exercised them more than the idea that “hate speech” could be sanctioned either informally or by the government. As the late Charlie Kirk wrote on X in May of 2024, “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
Ironically, in the wake of his assassination, there has been a tsunami of calls to honor Kirk by cracking down on “hate speech.” Many high-profile Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance, have called for employees to report colleagues who say negative things about Kirk and push for them to be fired. Even supposedly staunch libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., are calling for a crackdown.
Trump’s right-hand man, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, claimed the presence of a vast left-wing terrorist network that is destroying everything Americans hold dear. Appearing with Vance, who was hosting Kirk’s podcast, he vowed: “With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America safe again. For the American people, it will happen, and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”
Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.
Miller has plenty of company. Attorney General Pam Bondi said earlier this week that the Justice Department plans to target people who have engaged in hate speech. She put employers on notice that they will be held legally accountable if their employees refuse to serve people who wish to valorize Kirk. Bondi later had to walk those threats back after being schooled by MAGA influencers that the 1st Amendment still exists. (She’s only the top government lawyer in the country, you can’t expect her to know everything.)
For his part, Trump has never really believed in all this free speech folderol. Since he first announced his candidacy for president in 2015, he has often said that one person or another should not be “allowed” to say things of which he disapproves. Trump is now leading the charge against the left in the wake of Kirk’s shooting, but he is reserving most of his ire toward the press.
Having successfully extorted $15 million from ABC and $16 million from CBS through absurd lawsuits that legal experts say could never have won in court, Trump now feels free to sue any media outfit he believes has not shown him proper reverence. He filed suit against the Wall Street Journal in July for $10 billion after they published an exclusive report that he had sent the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a lewd birthday message. On Tuesday he filed a defamation suit against the New York Times for $15 billion, citing their critical coverage.
We need your help to stay independent
The suit has to be read to be believed. It’s hard to fathom that any lawyer would put their name to it. In fact, it’s almost certainly nothing more than a sop to appease Trump because the Times, unlike other media companies he’s blackmailed, is only a newspaper company and not a huge conglomerate with business before the government. Trump, in other words, doesn’t have the same leverage. The Times has said they will not settle, and there’s little reason to think they would.
But Trump is on a tear, telling an Australian reporter who asked him about all the money he’s making while in office to be quiet, asserting that the reporter was poorly representing his country because Australia wants to get along with him. Then he insulted ABC’s Jonathan Karl for bringing up Bondi’s promise to go after people for hate speech. “We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly,” Trump said. “You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll have to go after you.”
As in the past, it would be easy to write off these attacks on reporters as Trump being Trump. But when put in context of what his entire administration has been saying in the wake of Kirk’s death, the comments take on a much more ominous cast. They appear to be using Kirk’s assassination as a pretext for a more restrictive autocratic crackdown on their political opponents and the media.
Jimmy Kimmel’s indefinite suspension should not be dismissed lightly as repercussions for a comedian going a little too far. Carr’s interference and threats mark the latest escalation of the administration using government power to curtail free speech as we know it — and shred the 1st Amendment.
