In a dramatic escalation of the ongoing culture wars, the abrupt removal of Jimmy Kimmel from ABC’s late-night lineup has sent shockwaves through the American media and political landscape. The decision, announced on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, comes in the wake of the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University just a week earlier—a tragedy that has become a flashpoint for fierce debate over free speech, political influence, and the boundaries of public discourse.
For years, former President Donald Trump railed against what he called "cancel culture," vowing to protect free speech and resist efforts to silence dissent. Yet, as reported by multiple outlets including The New York Times and Vulture, Trump’s administration now appears to be embracing the very tactics it once condemned, targeting media figures and critics in a bid to consolidate control over the national conversation. The Kimmel affair is the latest and most high-profile example.
The controversy began with a brief, one-minute segment that aired during Kimmel’s monologue on September 15. In it, Kimmel criticized the reaction of Trump supporters to Kirk’s murder, saying, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately 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.” He went on to mock President Trump’s public response to Kirk’s death, drawing a parallel between the president’s focus on White House renovations and a child’s way of coping with loss: “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four year old mourns a goldfish, okay?”
While the clip drew ire from conservative commentators, close examination reveals that Kimmel did not directly accuse Kirk’s alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, of being a Trump supporter. As Vulture noted, “You need to read Kimmel’s comments in the most critical way possible to concoct a justification for his cancellation.” Nevertheless, the backlash was swift and severe. Trump’s allies, including prominent MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, seized on the segment as evidence of disrespect and demanded Kimmel’s removal.
President Trump himself wasted no time amplifying the outrage. On his social media platform, Truth Social, he praised ABC’s decision and called for similar action against other late-night hosts. “Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED,” Trump posted. “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC. Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”
The pressure on ABC and its parent company, Disney, intensified after FCC Chairman Brendan Carr appeared on the show of MAGA influencer Benny Johnson. Carr labeled Kimmel’s comments “some of the sickest conduct possible” and suggested that the FCC could take action, warning, “Frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, we can do this the easy way or these companies can find ways to change conduct… to take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”
Behind the scenes, Disney CEO Robert A. Iger and TV chief Dana Walden reportedly made the call to pull Kimmel’s show, according to The New York Times. The network issued a terse statement: “Jimmy Kimmel Live! will be preempted indefinitely.” The move was echoed by Sinclair and Nexstar, two major owners of ABC-affiliate stations. Sinclair demanded that Kimmel apologize to Kirk’s family and make a donation to Turning Point USA, refusing to air the show until ABC demonstrated “commitment to professionalism and accountability.” Nexstar, meanwhile, was seeking FCC approval for a $6.2 billion merger with Tegna, raising questions about whether its decision was influenced by regulatory considerations.
The Kimmel saga is just one front in a broader campaign by Trump and his allies to clamp down on dissent. Attorney General Pam Bondi, a close Trump confidante, sparked controversy with remarks on The Katie Miller Podcast, vowing to target “hate speech” across the political aisle. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything — and that’s across the aisle,” Bondi declared. “You can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live.”
Bondi’s comments alarmed civil liberties advocates and even some conservatives, who noted the difficulty of defining “hate speech” under the U.S. Constitution. Charlie Kirk himself, in a May 2024 post, had written, “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.” When Bondi threatened to prosecute an Office Depot employee for refusing to print flyers for a vigil honoring Kirk, the employee was fired, further inflaming the debate.
The rhetoric escalated as Stephen Miller, another key Trump ally, began referring to Democratic-aligned groups as “terrorists,” vowing to “channel all of the anger that we have over the organized campaign that led to this assassination to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks.” Miller’s language, reminiscent of justifications for recent military actions abroad, raised alarms about the potential for government overreach and the chilling effect on political discourse.
Facing mounting criticism, Bondi attempted to clarify her stance in a statement to Axios: “Freedom of speech is sacred in our country, and we will never impede upon that right. My intention was to speak about threats of violence that individuals incite against others. Under President Trump, the Department of Justice will be unabashed in our efforts to root out credible, violent threats. We will investigate organizations that pursue illegal activities, engage in political violence, violate our civil rights, and commit tax or nonprofit fraud.”
Yet, for many observers, the damage was already done. The rapid succession of punitive actions—Kimmel’s ouster, threats against media and private citizens, and executive orders targeting flag burning—have fueled fears that the administration’s definition of unacceptable speech is expanding. Former GOP congressman Justin Amash, a prominent libertarian, called for Bondi’s resignation, arguing, “Pam Bondi is now doubling down by conflating ‘hate speech’ with true threats and actual crimes and other acts that aren’t crimes—packaging it all under the label ‘violent rhetoric.’ She is deeply confused and unfit to be the attorney general.”
The chilling effect is already being felt beyond the world of television. As Kat Tenbarge, a former NBC News reporter, noted on social media, academics and experts are increasingly hesitant to speak publicly for fear of government retaliation. “I’ve been reporting on influencers for more than seven years now and today I had an academic decline to do an interview about them for the first time out of fear of government retaliation,” she wrote.
As the nation grapples with the fallout from Kirk’s murder and the government’s aggressive response, the stakes for free expression and democratic norms have rarely felt higher. The Kimmel controversy, far from being an isolated incident, may well mark a turning point in the struggle over who gets to define the boundaries of public debate in America.
