There are moments in television history that feel less like scheduling decisions and more like sharp turns in where free speech is headed. ABC’s recent move to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely has become one of those moments—and Stephen Colbert didn’t mince words. He called the action “blatant censorship,” and in doing so, opened a flurry of questions about the influence networks, political pressure, and broadcast regulation have over comedy and criticism.
On September 17, 2025, ABC, with backing from some major ABC-affiliated stations, confirmed that Jimmy Kimmel Live! would no longer air on a schedule, following controversy over remarks Jimmy Kimmel made about Charlie Kirk. Kimmel had used a recent monologue to criticize what he saw as attempts by some MAGA-aligned figures to frame Kirk’s shooter as someone outside their movement before the facts were established.
Colbert’s response came quickly, during a Q&A before his show taping the next day. He described ABC’s decision not as a heavy edit or a suspension, but a real line crossed. By calling it “blatant censorship,” he argued that letting media companies pull shows under pressure sets a dangerous precedent—and it isn’t one that serves comedy, viewers, or democracy.
What Led to the Show Being Pulled
It’s important to understand the sequence of events, because they expose just how tangled politics, broadcasting rules, and corporate pressures have gotten:
Kimmel’s remarks came during a monologue just days after Charlie Kirk was killed while speaking at a public event. In that segment, Kimmel criticized “the MAGA gang” for trying to rush to classify the shooter’s political alignment or lack thereof, calling that urge to politicize a tragedy “scoring political points.”
Some ABC-affiliated stations, especially those under Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group, preempted the show in their markets, saying Kimmel’s comments did not reflect their local community values. Nexstar’s ABC affiliates were especially vocal, objecting to the tone and content.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by Chairman Brendan Carr, weighed in. Carr had previously suggested that broadcasters might face consequences—possibly including license challenges—if shows violate community standards or broadcasting regulations.
Under mounting pressure from affiliate stations, political figures, and regulatory threats, ABC announced that Jimmy Kimmel Live! would be “pulled indefinitely,” though it was not formally cancelled (at least not yet).
Colbert’s Take: More Than Just a Colleague Speaking Up
For Colbert, this isn’t only about defending a peer. It’s personal and ideological. He recently had his own late-night show cancelled by CBS, in a controversial move that many saw as tied to his critique of corporate behavior and political influence. So when Colbert speaks about this, he’s speaking from experience—or at least close proximity.
At his Thursday taping, Colbert said ABC’s move is weak, not an act of courage. He warned that conceding to pressure—even when it seems small—encourages more pressure. He said it emboldens authoritarians and those who would narrow what is permissible in public discourse. “With an autocrat, you cannot give an inch,” Colbert asserted. And he pledged his full solidarity to Kimmel and the Jimmy Kimmel Live! staff, adding that he believes the show’s removal sends chilling signals.
Colbert also drew parallels between what happens when shows are pulled and what happens when powerful interests push to shape content by threatening regulatory action. He suggested that the sequence—comments, backlash from affiliates, warnings from the FCC—reads like a roadmap for how dissident voices can be silenced.
The Stakes: Comedy, Speech, and Television in a Changed Climate
This incident is more than just entertainment news. It strikes at the core of how speech operates when filtered through networks, advertisers, and political institutions.
Free Speech vs. Corporate Pressure
-
- The question being asked is: how free is the speech we see when showrunners, hosts, networks, and station owners all must consider sponsors, public relations, affiliate stations, and regulatory bodies? Comedy has always pushed against boundaries. But what happens when pushing too far triggers consequences not just in ratings, but in removal from air?
Broadcast Regulation and the Role of the FCC
-
- The FCC exists to enforce broadcasting standards—but its influence is often ambiguous. When a regulatory agency suggests it may act because of content, it introduces a level of pressure that can lead networks to self-censor. The threat of losing a license is heavy, so even without formal action, broadcasting entities might preemptively remove content to avoid risk.
Media Consolidation and Local Affiliates
-
- Many local TV stations are owned by large media groups. When those groups object, they can pull shows from their stations, regardless of what the network wants. This raises the question of how much power distributors have—and how much the distributed content becomes hostage to local, political, or financial concerns.
Public Expectations vs. Comedy Norms
-
- Audiences often expect comedians to speak freely—and frequently, that’s where satire and commentary bite. But there’s also a growing split: what certain viewers see as necessary criticism or humor, others see as disrespectful. This divide makes any provocative comment a risk for backlash—and worse, removal from air.
Precedents for the Future
- If a late-night show can be pulled after one controversial episode, what’s next? Are shows going to be more cautious? Will hosts self-censor? Will networks avoid any monologue that could anger political factions or regulators? The precedent here could reshape late-night on air, or off.
Reactions Across the Industry
Colbert’s reaction isn’t isolated. Other late-night hosts, media experts, and cultural critics are raising alarms.
Jon Stewart, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers and others publicly commented, many expressing support for Kimmel and concern about what the pull says about free speech and media control.
Fallon, for one, described Kimmel as a “decent, funny and loving guy” and expressed hope that he returns to the air.
Media watchdogs and journalists questioned whether political pressure or fear of regulatory consequences is becoming a tool used to control what is shown on national television.
Many see this not just as a conflict between one host and one network, but a larger battle over who decides what is “acceptable” speech—and who gets to decide it.
Where This Might Be Heading
Given how quickly things escalated, the future is uncertain. But here are possibilities and things to watch:
Will Jimmy Kimmel Live! return, and under what conditions? Is ABC willing to bring it back without changes to Kimmel’s format or editorial control? Will there be internal pressure to tone down political monologues?
Further regulatory claims or actions. If the FCC follows through with threats or investigations, ABC and Disney could face legal challenges. Those could force changes in how content is reviewed before broadcast.
Shifts in late-night content. Hosts might steer clear of certain political topics, especially those considered razor-thin or controversial. Some may adapt formats to avoid risking affiliate or regulatory backlash.
Audience pushback or support. Viewers who perceive the removal as censorship might shift their viewing, seek content elsewhere, or support hosts in other ways. Alternatively, some audience members may agree with the removal and demand more “responsible” commentary.
Corporate strategy and media group alignments. The role of affiliate station owners (like Nexstar) and local vs national network power may be spotlighted. Corporate mergers, license renewals, and regulatory scrutiny may increase the tension.
Final Thoughts
The removal of Jimmy Kimmel Live! is more than just a programming change—it’s a test case in the age of media, politics, comedy, and speech rights. When a network removes a show following critique, the message doesn’t just go to one host or one audience—it echoes to any entertainer, any writer, any public voice.
Colbert’s pushback reminds us that satire, commentary, and critique are central to public life, especially in a time when polarizing issues dominate headlines. But whether we value that kind of voice depends on whether we accept that networks will choose comfort over courage when tensions rise.
If you watch closely, this moment might be remembered as one of those pivot points—for how television handles politics, how corporations respond to public pressure, and how comedy survives (or doesn’t) when speech is punished. Because when a late-night legend goes dark, it isn’t just one stage that grows quiet—it’s dozens of minds and voices that ask themselves: If not now, when?
Leave a Reply