California Governor Gavin Newsom has stepped squarely into the center of America’s intensifying debate over free speech, government oversight, and the future of late-night television. On September 18, 2025, Newsom issued what he called a "final warning" to Fox News, demanding the suspension of late-night host Greg Gutfeld. The governor leveled his accusations in a striking all-caps post on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, claiming that Gutfeld "needs a fake laugh track," "makes things up," and is "easily triggered" by co-host Jessica Tarlov. Newsom went a step further, threatening to urge the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to intervene if Fox failed to act, writing, "Fox do the right thing or I will make the FCC take care of you. Final warning."
This dramatic escalation comes as late-night television, once a relatively safe haven for satire and celebrity interviews, finds itself embroiled in a series of controversies that have rippled across the political spectrum. According to BBC, Newsom’s remarks were prompted in part by the recent suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! by ABC. The network pulled the show following a monologue in which Kimmel accused the MAGA movement of politicizing the murder of 22-year-old Tyler Robinson—a case that had already drawn national attention due to the involvement of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Kimmel’s comments ignited widespread backlash and renewed scrutiny of late-night commentary, ultimately leading ABC to announce an indefinite suspension of the show on September 17, 2025.
Meanwhile, Fox’s Gutfeld!—helmed by Greg Gutfeld, the self-styled "King of Late Night"—has become a lightning rod for criticism and praise alike. Gutfeld, who also co-hosts the highly rated program The Five, is known for his libertarian humor and sharp-edged political satire. Yet Newsom’s claim that the show is suffering from declining ratings adds a new wrinkle, as Fox has long touted Gutfeld as a ratings powerhouse. The governor’s threat to involve the FCC has only heightened tensions, raising questions about the appropriate boundaries for government intervention in broadcast content.
President Donald Trump, never one to shy away from the media spotlight, weighed in on the controversy the following day. According to AFP, Trump blasted US media coverage as "unduly negative" and, in a remarkable turn of phrase, called it "illegal." Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on September 19, 2025, Trump said, "They'll take a great story and they'll make it bad. See I think it's really illegal, personally." Trump, who has filed multiple lawsuits against major news organizations this year, doubled down on his longstanding claim that "97 percent" of media coverage about him and his administration is negative.
Trump also leapt to the defense of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who found himself at the center of the storm after threatening broadcasters with sanctions over controversial content, including Kimmel’s remarks about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Carr’s comments sparked a national debate over the role of the FCC and the limits of governmental authority in regulating broadcast speech. Trump called Carr "an incredible American patriot with courage," signaling strong support for the embattled chairman.
The FCC’s involvement has not gone unchallenged. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a close Trump ally but a staunch defender of free speech, voiced sharp criticism of Carr’s threats. Cruz warned that it’s dangerous for the government to decide what speech is acceptable, likening Carr’s tactics to mafia-style intimidation. In a colorful analogy referencing a Martin Scorsese gangster film, Cruz said, "I got to say that's right out of 'Goodfellas'. That's right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, 'Nice bar you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.'"
The political stakes have only grown higher as networks face mounting pressure from both sides. CBS, for its part, announced that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert will end in May 2026, citing financial concerns despite the show’s strong ratings. The decision comes amid Paramount’s legal settlement with Donald Trump and its planned merger with Skydance Media, fueling speculation about the broader future of late-night television and the economic realities facing traditional broadcasters.
While Newsom’s critics accuse him of overreach and censorship, his supporters argue that he’s holding Fox News accountable for what they see as dangerous misinformation and declining journalistic standards. Newsom’s claim that Gutfeld "makes things up" and needs a "fake laugh track" is more than just a jab at the show’s comedic style—it’s an indictment of what he views as a broader trend of partisan distortion in American media.
For their part, Fox News and Gutfeld’s defenders point to the host’s consistent ratings success and his role as a counterweight to what they perceive as liberal dominance in late-night television. Gutfeld’s brand of political satire, they argue, resonates with viewers who feel alienated by the mainstream media. The show’s critics, however, contend that its humor too often veers into the realm of misinformation and personal attacks.
The debate has also reignited longstanding questions about the First Amendment and the boundaries of free speech. Newsom’s threat to involve the FCC has alarmed civil libertarians and media watchdogs, who warn that government intervention in broadcast content sets a dangerous precedent. Senator Cruz’s warning about the perils of government overreach echoes the concerns of those who fear that the line between regulation and censorship is growing ever thinner.
Meanwhile, President Trump’s own crusade against the media suffered a setback when a federal judge dismissed his $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. The ruling, described as "scathing," underscores the legal and constitutional hurdles that public figures face when challenging media organizations in court. For Trump, the decision is the latest in a series of legal battles with the press, even as he continues to rail against what he sees as unfair treatment.
As late-night television grapples with suspensions, cancellations, and shifting audience loyalties, the broader debate over free speech and media accountability shows no sign of abating. The stakes are high—not just for the hosts and networks involved, but for the future of public discourse in America. Will government intervention become the new norm, or will the pendulum swing back toward greater tolerance for controversial speech? Only time will tell, but for now, the battle lines are drawn, and the eyes of the nation remain fixed on the late-night stage.
