In a bold satirical move, comedian Larry David has crafted a biting response to Bill Maher’s recent dinner with former President Donald Trump, publishing an essay in the New York Times titled “My Dinner With Adolf.” The piece, released on April 21, 2025, cleverly mimics Maher’s tone and sentiments while lampooning the idea of finding common ground with controversial figures.
David’s essay is a fictional account of a dinner with Adolf Hitler, the infamous dictator, set in 1939. In it, he reflects on his past as a vocal critic of Hitler, stating, “I had been a vocal critic of his on the radio from the beginning, pretty much predicting everything he was going to do on the road to dictatorship.” Yet, he ultimately concludes, “hate gets us nowhere.” This mirrors Maher’s own recent experience dining with Trump, during which Maher praised the former president as “gracious” and “much more self-aware than he lets on.”
During an episode of “Real Time” aired on April 12, Maher expressed surprise at the dinner, saying, “Everything I’ve ever not liked about him was — I swear to God — absent, at least on this night with this guy.” He also made a notable remark, stating, “A crazy person doesn’t live in the White House. A person who plays a crazy person on TV a lot lives there, which I know is fed up. It’s just not as fed up as I thought it was.”
David’s satire reflects this sentiment, as he describes his fictional dinner with Hitler, revealing a surprisingly “human” side to the dictator. He writes, “Suddenly he seemed so human. Here I was, prepared to meet Hitler, the one I’d seen and heard — the public Hitler. But this private Hitler was a completely different animal. And oddly enough, this one seemed more authentic, like this was the real Hitler.”
Amidst the humor, David’s essay raises serious questions about the nature of public figures and the complexities of human interaction. New York Times Deputy Opinion Editor Patrick Healy defended the publication of David’s piece, emphasizing that it does not equate Trump with Hitler but rather explores the idea of seeing people for who they really are. Healy noted, “Larry David, in a provocation of his own, is arguing that during a single dinner or a private meeting, anyone can be human, and it means nothing in the end about what they’re capable of.”
The juxtaposition of David’s fictional dinner with Hitler and Maher’s real-life dinner with Trump highlights a cultural conversation about how we perceive and engage with those we fundamentally oppose. Maher’s dinner, which many in the liberal media criticized, was characterized by an unexpected warmth, with Maher admitting that he found Trump to be a more agreeable figure than he had anticipated.
In David’s essay, he humorously recounts moments of levity with Hitler, including a joke about the dictator’s dog, which he claimed had diarrhea. He writes, “Then a beaming Hitler said, ‘Hey, if I can kill Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals, I can certainly kill a dog!’” This dark humor serves to underscore the absurdity of the situation and the difficulty of reconciling personal interactions with the broader implications of someone’s actions.
David’s choice to address such a sensitive topic through satire reflects a long-standing tradition in comedy, where humor serves as a tool for critique and reflection. He concludes his piece with a sardonic farewell to Hitler, stating, “Although we disagree on many issues, it doesn’t mean that we have to hate each other. And with that, I gave him a Nazi salute and walked out into the night.” This line encapsulates the complex emotions surrounding dialogue with those whose actions have caused immense suffering.
The reaction to Maher’s dinner with Trump has been mixed, with some praising his willingness to engage with the former president, while others argue that it undermines the accountability that Trump should face. Washington Post columnist León Krauze echoed these sentiments, stating that Maher’s softened view of Trump makes it more challenging to hold him accountable for his actions.
As David’s essay circulates, it adds fuel to the ongoing debate about how public figures interact with each other and the implications of those interactions on public perception. In a world where political polarization is rampant, the idea of finding common ground can be both appealing and deeply troubling.
Ultimately, Larry David’s satirical take on Bill Maher’s dinner with Donald Trump serves as a reminder of the complexities of human relationships and the often absurd nature of political discourse. It challenges readers to reflect on their own beliefs and the ways they engage with those they disagree with, all while delivering a sharp critique wrapped in humor.
