 |
| It was a different world in 2016: Donald Trump visited Jimmy Kimmel's show on ABC. Randy Holmes/Disney General Entertainment Content via Getty Images |
When a government regulator pressures a media company to silence a critic — and the company complies — it sets a chilling precedent for free expression in America.
Why Kimmel’s Suspension Matters
Let’s not mince words: what happened to Jimmy Kimmel is very bad.
The late-night host was suspended “indefinitely” from ABC just hours after Brendan Carr, Donald Trump’s appointee to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), publicly demanded Disney “take action” following Kimmel’s joke about Trump supporters and conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Yes, Disney CEO Bob Iger has the right to discipline an employee. And yes, affiliate station owners like Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group can choose what programming they carry.
But when a government regulator — one with the power to approve mergers, renew broadcast licenses, or make corporate life very difficult — urges media companies to silence a voice and couples that with a threat, it crosses a dangerous line.
Carr himself framed it bluntly on a conservative podcast: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”
That’s not corporate discretion. That’s government pressure — and it should alarm anyone who values the First Amendment.
The Slippery Slope of Political Censorship
Carr praised Nexstar after Kimmel’s suspension and then appeared on Fox News to rail against late-night comedians, accusing them of enforcing a “narrow political ideology.”
But imagine a mirror scenario: a Democratic administration threatening Fox News or conservative radio hosts for mocking liberal politicians. The outcry over censorship would be deafening — and rightfully so.
When Saudi Arabia pressured Netflix to remove an episode of Patriot Act critical of its crown prince, global observers condemned it as authoritarian censorship. Should Americans accept similar tactics at home?
The precedent being set here is simple — and deeply troubling: if the government dislikes what you say, your show can be shut down.
Trump’s Expanding Grip on Institutions
The Kimmel episode is not an isolated case. It fits into a broader pattern of Trump and his allies demanding that American institutions bend to his will:
-
Media companies — pressured into silencing critics, settling lawsuits, or altering programming.
-
Colleges and law firms — targeted over diversity programs or political stances.
-
Tech giants — threatened with regulation unless they amplify certain voices or remove others.
Earlier this week, Trump called on NBC to take Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers off the air, echoing his long-standing hostility toward late-night hosts who mock him.
During his first presidency, Trump often made these demands rhetorically. Now, in his second term, he has allies like Carr willing to act — and companies willing to comply.
Not Everyone Is Folding — Yet
To be clear, not every Trump target has capitulated.
-
Gannett and respected pollster Ann Selzer are fighting a dubious Trump lawsuit tied to Iowa polling.
-
The New York Times has pledged to fight a defamation case Trump filed against it this week.
But the pattern is undeniable: we are only eight months into Trump’s second presidency, and his administration has already crossed lines that once felt unimaginable.
A Warning Sign for American Democracy
Historically, the FCC’s role in regulating “public interest” broadcasting has been narrowly defined — explicit content, indecency, or technical compliance. Revoking licenses over political commentary has been virtually unheard of.
That’s why Carr’s use of the FCC as a political cudgel is so alarming. Even if no licenses are ever revoked, the threat alone pressures media companies into self-censorship.
And this is only the beginning. If Trump and his allies feel emboldened by Kimmel’s suspension, it’s hard not to imagine other critics — comedians, journalists, or entire networks — being next.
