In a dramatic turn of events that has set off fierce debate across the political spectrum, ABC’s decision to indefinitely preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” has become the latest flashpoint in America’s ongoing struggle over free speech, cancel culture, and the role of government in policing media content. The move, which followed pointed remarks by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr, has drawn swift reactions from politicians, media executives, and commentators, revealing deep rifts not just between left and right, but within conservative ranks themselves.
The controversy erupted on September 17, 2025, when Jimmy Kimmel used his late-night monologue to lambast conservatives’ reaction to the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said, according to CBS News and NBC News. He also mocked former President Donald Trump’s response to the tragedy, further inflaming tensions.
Kirk, a prominent conservative figure and a speaker at the 2020 Republican National Convention, was shot and killed on September 15 by Tyler Robinson. According to court documents cited by NBC News, Robinson, who had grown up in a conservative household, had begun leaning left politically in the year prior to the attack. In text messages released by authorities, Robinson reportedly said he targeted Kirk because he “had enough of his hatred.”
Kimmel’s remarks, delivered just days after the killing, provoked outrage among conservatives and Trump administration officials. The backlash intensified on September 18 when FCC Chair Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, called Kimmel’s comments “some of the sickest conduct possible” in an interview with right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson. Carr suggested that ABC should suspend Kimmel and urged independent ABC affiliates to “push back” against the show, referencing FCC rules that require broadcast stations to act in the public interest.
That same day, major media companies Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcast Group—each owning dozens of ABC affiliate stations—announced they would preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Nexstar, which has a pending deal to acquire rival station owner Tegna, stressed in a statement to CBS News that its decision was made “unilaterally by the senior executive team at Nexstar, and they had no communication with the FCC or any government agency prior to making that decision.”
By the evening of September 18, ABC confirmed the show would be “pre-empted indefinitely,” effectively taking Kimmel off the air nationwide. The network’s move was met with immediate condemnation from the FCC’s lone Democratic commissioner, Anna Gomez, who accused ABC of a “shameful show of cowardly corporate capitulation” and warned, “This FCC does not have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to police content or punish broadcasters for speech the government dislikes.”
Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, added his voice to the chorus of criticism—but not in the way some might expect. On his podcast, Cruz called Carr a “good guy” but slammed his intervention as “dangerous as hell,” likening it to a mafia shakedown. “That’s right out of ‘Goodfellas.’ That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar, going, ‘nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it,’” Cruz said, mimicking a mob boss’s accent. While Cruz had little sympathy for Kimmel, whom he labeled “profoundly unfunny” and “bitter and nasty,” he warned that government efforts to silence speech could backfire. “If the government gets in the business of saying, … ‘we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives,” he argued.
Former President Trump, for his part, praised Carr as a “courageous person” and dismissed Cruz’s concerns. Speaking to reporters, Trump argued that Kimmel was fired “because he had bad ratings more than anything else, and he said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk.” Trump continued, “Jimmy Kimmel is not a talented person. He had very bad ratings, and they should have fired him a long time ago. So you can call that free speech or not. He was fired for lack of talent.” Trump also floated the idea that broadcasters who offer negative coverage of him might lose their FCC licenses, telling reporters, “They’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal, personally.”
The episode has sparked a broader debate about the boundaries of free speech and the evolving meaning of cancel culture. Five years ago, at the 2020 Republican National Convention, Trump and his allies decried cancel culture as a threat to the First Amendment. “To the voiceless, shamed, censored and canceled, my father will fight for you,” Eric Trump pledged at the time. Now, critics say, some of those same figures are embracing what they call “consequence culture,” arguing that speech perceived as harmful should have repercussions.
Vice President JD Vance has been among the most vocal proponents of this new approach. “The First Amendment protects a lot of very ugly speech, but if you celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death, you should not be protected from being fired for being a disgusting person,” Vance said in a Fox News interview. Attorney General Pam Bondi has raised the possibility of cracking down on “hate speech,” though she later clarified that the Justice Department would target only speech that leads to violence.
Some conservatives, however, are uneasy with the apparent shift. Commentator Tucker Carlson cautioned on his podcast, “You hope that Charlie Kirk’s death won’t be used by a group we now call bad actors to create a society that was the opposite of the one he worked to build. … There is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience than that, ever, and there never will be.” Guy Benson, another conservative commentator, remarked that “the overt government meddling in all of this remains very concerning.”
Democratic leaders have also seized on the controversy. California Governor Gavin Newsom declared on social media, “There is no such thing as free speech under Donald Trump’s reign.” Former President Barack Obama accused Republicans of hypocrisy, writing, “After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, sidestepped the issue, stating, “ABC is a private company, and they can make their own choices on who they want to wear their brand, so to speak. So this is a matter of ABC’s leadership. It doesn’t have anything to do with Congress or anything we’re doing.”
As the debate rages on, some Trump allies have rejected the “cancel culture” label, instead framing recent events as examples of “consequence culture.” Taylor Budowich, a deputy White House chief of staff, posted, “Free speech is alive & well. Kimmel can head down to Sunset Blvd & maybe even attract a bigger audience than his show did. Bad jokes & bad TV are bad for biz. ABC is no longer paralyzed in fear by the woke mob.”
With both sides accusing the other of hypocrisy and overreach, the fallout from Kimmel’s removal has become a symbol of the nation’s polarized media landscape—one where the lines between government, business, and free expression grow ever blurrier. Whether this marks a turning point in the culture wars over speech or just another volley in a never-ending battle remains to be seen, but for now, the airwaves are quieter—and the debate, louder—than ever.
