Jimmy Kimmel has long made headlines for mocking politicians, but this time, he didn’t get the last laugh.
In the days after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was gunned down in Utah, the late-night host’s pointed monologue about the fallout sparked a political firestorm — one that ended with ABC pulling his show indefinitely.
Media experts, including Robert Thompson, say Kimmel’s chances of returning are increasingly slim, with many predicting his removal will be permanent. “Anytime a major media company makes a decision this significant in the middle of a week — when the audience is already gathering and guests are booked — you don’t do that without having a great deal of knowledge about the situation,” said Thompson, a professor of television, radio, and film at Syracuse University, in an interview with Katie Couric Media.
So what exactly did Kimmel say and why did it result in such swift, dramatic action? We’re taking a closer look.
What did Jimmy Kimmel say?
In the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s fatal shooting on Sept. 10, Kimmel struck a sympathetic tone. Just hours after the news broke, he posted on social media: “Instead of the angry finger-pointing, can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human? On behalf of my family, we send love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence.”
But five days later, his tone shifted. In his Sept. 15 monologue on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, he went further, referring to Tyler Robinson — the suspect charged with the killing — when he said: “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.”
Why was he yanked off the air?
Two days after Kimmel’s remarks, Disney-owned ABC announced his show was suspended “indefinitely,” then quietly filled the slot that night with a July rerun of Celebrity Family Feud. What raised eyebrows was the lack of explanation; ABC’s spokesperson gave no details about what drove the decision, and The View didn’t touch the subject the next day despite airing on the same network. Behind the scenes, some executives reportedly believed Kimmel “had not actually crossed a line.” But as pressure mounted, Disney CEO Bob Iger and television chief Dana Walden made the call to pull the show.
Conservatives accused Kimmel of mischaracterizing Robinson’s politics, arguing that the late-night host had falsely painted the suspect as a MAGA supporter to score partisan points. By Sept. 17, before the news of Kimmel’s cancellation broke, FCC Chair Brendan Carr was publicly blasting the remarks as “truly sick” on conservative Benny Johnson’s podcast. He went further, warning that the FCC could retaliate against ABC and its licensed broadcasters if they didn’t act: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take actions on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” The Trump administration is especially keen to target media firms as it seeks to suppress criticism of its own streams of misinformation — or simply to spare the president from mockery. The president said Thursday he thinks networks’ broadcast licenses could be revoked if they air overwhelmingly negative perspectives on him.
But according to Brian Hauss, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU, the Trump administration has no such power. “The notion that the FCC’s mandate to regulate in the public interest gives it the authority to engage in content discrimination or censorship of broadcasters’ editorial decisions flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent,” he tells us.
Still, on the same day Carr made his comments, Nexstar Media — which owns dozens of ABC affiliates — announced it would stop airing Jimmy Kimmel Live! because the remarks were “offensive and insensitive.” Facing mounting affiliate pressure and heightened regulatory scrutiny, ABC and Disney pulled the show indefinitely. By Sept. 18, Sinclair, which owns multiple ABC affiliates, dismissed the suspension as “not enough,” urging the FCC to take stronger action. The company also demanded that Kimmel apologize to Kirk’s family and contribute a “meaningful personal donation” to Turning Point USA, the nonprofit founded by the late activist.
The money trail behind Kimmel’s suspension
Nexstar is pursuing a $6.2 billion takeover of rival Tegna — a deal that depends on approval from the Trump administration, specifically the FCC. It wouldn’t be the first such case: Paramount’s sale to Skydance won approval soon after it settled a Trump lawsuit, a deal Stephen Colbert slammed as a “big fat bribe.” Soon after, CBS announced his Late Show would end in 2026 — a move critics tied to the merger, though the company denied a connection.
Hauss argues that Carr’s thinly veiled threat on the Benny Johnson podcast — that ABC and its affiliates needed to act against a comedian — played a key role.
“It would certainly behoove them to get on Carr’s good side to win approval for that merger,” Hauss says. “Carr was sending a very clear message: either you toe President Trump’s line on Kimmel and yank him from the airwaves, or we’re going to make your life a living hell.”
What about free speech
Kimmel’s suspension quickly sparked debate about whether the network was caving to political pressure at the expense of free expression. For some, the episode underscored a broader dilemma: how to respond to political violence without silencing dissent.
“This is an essential moment for public leaders, including elected officials, social media influencers, and cultural elites to unequivocally condemn political violence,” says sociologist Cynthia Miller-Idriss, who studies extremism. “But calls to be unified in our rhetoric to reduce violent escalations should not turn into suppression of free speech or punitive actions that reduce the free expression of ideas or dialogue. That’s a quick and slippery slope into authoritarianism.”
Legal experts voiced similar concerns. Hauss argued that Carr’s warning to broadcasters had no legal standing — and that ABC could have fought back. “The notion that the FCC’s mandate to regulate in the public interest gives it the authority to engage in content discrimination or censorship of broadcasters’ editorial decisions flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent,” he told us.
To Hauss, ABC’s decision represented a failure of courage in defending First Amendment rights. “In order to defend First Amendment rights, people have to be brave. People have to be willing to stand up to the administration,” he said. Instead, the network opted not to “poke the bear” — a choice critics fear sets a dangerous precedent for how media companies handle future political pressure.
