Late-night television, politics, and the First Amendment collided in dramatic fashion this week, as ABC announced it would resume filming and airing Jimmy Kimmel Live! after a nearly weeklong suspension. The move comes in the wake of a national uproar set off by Kimmel’s controversial comments about the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, a tragedy that took place on a Utah college campus and quickly became a flashpoint in the country’s ongoing culture wars.
But ABC’s decision to bring back the show has hardly put the controversy to rest. Two of the nation’s largest local television station operators, Nexstar and Sinclair, have chosen to continue boycotting the program, refusing to air it on their ABC-affiliated stations. Nexstar, which owns 200 stations (including 28 ABC affiliates), and Sinclair, which owns 66 stations (with 38 airing the show locally), together represent roughly a quarter of Kimmel’s national audience, according to The Los Angeles Times. That’s a huge chunk—one likely to dent both viewership and advertising revenue for the network.
In a statement released Monday, Nexstar explained its position bluntly: “We made a decision last week to preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! following what ABC referred to as Mr. Kimmel’s ‘ill-timed and insensitive’ comments at a critical time in our national discourse. We stand by that decision pending assurance that all parties are committed to fostering an environment of respectful, constructive dialogue in the markets we serve.” Sinclair echoed the sentiment, announcing late Monday, “Beginning Tuesday night, Sinclair will be preempting Jimmy Kimmel Live! across our ABC affiliate stations and replacing it with news programming. Discussions with ABC are ongoing as we evaluate the show’s potential return.”
The controversy stems from remarks Kimmel made on his show, in which—according to reporting—he falsely claimed that Kirk’s killer was “MAGA.” This assertion, broadcast to a national audience, immediately drew the ire of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Brendan Carr. Carr, a persistent voice in the debate, stated on a podcast that Kimmel’s removal was necessary: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” He accused the comedian of being part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people” and suggested that the FCC would have to consider possible regulatory action against ABC under the so-called “News Distortion” doctrine.
This doctrine, which allows the FCC to take action against broadcasters who intentionally air false information on matters of public concern, is itself a subject of heated legal debate. As noted in one commentary, the policy is “constitutionally dubious at best,” especially in light of recent Supreme Court rulings that have limited government regulators’ ability to penalize organizations based on their viewpoints. In fact, some argue that Carr’s threats only served to make Kimmel a martyr, as public outrage alone may well have led to his suspension without the need for federal intervention.
The stakes are high for Nexstar, which is currently seeking FCC approval for its $6.2 billion acquisition of another major broadcaster, Tegna. The company’s decision to stand firm on its boycott could be seen as both a business calculation and a political signal, especially given Carr’s prominent role in the FCC and his outspoken criticism of Kimmel. Meanwhile, Sinclair has its own history of conservative leanings. Its CEO, David Smith, is a well-known Republican donor and friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. According to The Washington Post, Sinclair has in the past required its stations to air stories critical of Democratic leaders, and under Smith’s leadership, the company has moved closer to the Republican Party and former President Trump.
While Nexstar and Sinclair dig in, other local station groups—including Hearst and Gray—have opted to resume airing Jimmy Kimmel Live! starting Tuesday night, raising no objections to ABC’s decision. Typically, local affiliates have the right to refuse network programming they deem unsuitable for their audiences, but such moves are rare. The New York Times recalls a notable 2006 incident when a Utah station refused to air a Madonna special over concerns about religious sensitivity, but such cases are the exception, not the rule.
The fallout from Kirk’s murder and its aftermath has also reignited fierce debates about free speech, accountability, and the limits of both in American society. Some voices on the Right have insisted that firing employees who celebrate violence online is not an infringement of free speech, but rather “accountability culture.” As one commentator put it, “Cancel culture centers on deplatforming people from the public square because they hold a policy view different than yours… [but] most private employees cannot invoke the First Amendment against their employers because it does not apply in the absence of governmental action.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi further stirred the pot by asserting that the federal government could prosecute people for “hate speech” against Kirk and force private companies to produce flyers for a Kirk vigil—claims that critics swiftly labeled unconstitutional. Bondi later partially walked back her comments about hate speech, but maintained that companies could be compelled to make materials supporting the vigil, drawing comparisons to Supreme Court cases involving religious freedom and compelled speech.
Bondi’s deputy, Todd Blanche, added fuel to the fire by suggesting that paying people to protest—including those who confront figures like President Trump in public—could constitute a RICO violation, a claim widely criticized as a dangerous overreach. The commentary observed, “Charging them under RICO is as outrageous as what the Democrats did to Trump in Georgia when they claimed his contesting the outcome of the 2020 election was a criminal conspiracy.”
Against this charged backdrop, the National Association of Broadcasters stepped in with a call for calm. In a statement titled “Protecting the First Amendment: Why This Moment Matters for Broadcasters,” the group defended the freedom of local stations to make programming decisions while condemning “veiled threats suggesting broadcasters should be penalized for airing content that is contrary to a particular point of view”—a practice it called “wrong.”
Meanwhile, the political temperature continues to rise. References to Senator Chuck Grassley’s revelations about the Biden Justice Department’s “Operation Arctic Frost”—an alleged effort to target rightwing political groups—have further inflamed the debate, with some on the Right warning against using government power to “dismantle the Left” in retaliation. Instead, they call for a renewed commitment to the “battle of ideas” and the values of the First Amendment, urging political engagement rather than legal warfare.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the intersection of politics, media, and free speech remains as volatile as ever. The fate of Jimmy Kimmel Live! is just one front in a much larger struggle over who gets to speak, who gets to decide, and where the boundaries of public discourse should be drawn.