What?

Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert may host very different late-night shows, but recently they’ve shared a troubling fate. Both used their platforms to criticize power, and both saw their shows swiftly sidelined.

Last week, ABC announced the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! after Kimmel delivered a monologue about the latest disheartening incident of political violence in America. The timing raised eyebrows; just hours before, FCC Chair Brendan Carr had publicly warned broadcasters that continuing to air Kimmel’s show could endanger their licenses. Nexstar, one of the nation’s largest station owners, wasted no time pulling the show from its affiliates. ABC quickly followed suit. 

CBS also canceled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert earlier this summer, with executives describing it as a business decision. The cancellation, however, came immediately after Colbert mocked Paramount, CBS’s parent company, for agreeing to a $16 million settlement with the president. Many observers inside and outside the industry saw the cancellation less as a coincidence and more as capitulation to government pressure.

Carr has also floated the possibility of investigating other network programming to determine whether it qualifies as “bona fide news.” While such phrasing has technical meaning in FCC rules, critics warned it was being weaponized to intimidate. Even Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), hardly a friend to Kimmel, called Carr’s approach “dangerous” and likened his tone to “a mafioso shaking down the corner store.” The public outcry and pressure appear to have had an effect: On Monday, ABC relented and reinstated Kimmel. However, some affiliates suggested they may not immediately return the show to their airwaves.

As the conflict gripped the nation, the president and allies continued to press and promote lawsuits against publishers and news organizations. Whether suing The New York Times and Penguin Random House or threatening broadcasters, the pattern is unmistakable: The administration is increasingly leveraging state power and its vast legal resources to punish those who criticize it.

So What?

Taken together, these actions demonstrate how political power, regulatory intimidation, and corporate compliance can converge to remove high-profile critics from America’s cultural stage – and that means the very shape of public discourse in America is being challenged.

When a figure like Kimmel is punished so openly, the consequences go beyond one late-night TV host. The spectacle tells the rest of the industry that criticism is costly, dissent is dangerous, and even national networks can be brought to heel. That warning ripples downward. Local stations, independent reporters, and small creators, lacking the legal teams and resources of an ABC or CBS, may see what happens at the top and choose silence rather than risk annihilation.

The objective here, however, isn’t entirely about muzzling one individual critic, or even a small group of them. It is to create the illusion that the culture is unified behind the leader. By forcing compliance from networks and publishers, it begins to look as if mainstream America is in lockstep with the administration. That illusion makes it easier to justify further restrictions: If “everyone” agrees, then those who dissent must be radicals, troublemakers, or even traitors.

The tactic, while well-worn, also reshapes the boundaries of acceptable speech. Once criticism of the president is labeled “disinformation” or “distortion,” it no longer counts as protected dissent but as a regulatory violation. Suddenly, the burden flips: Critics must prove their legitimacy, while the state simply asserts its power. That inversion erodes the very foundation of democratic discourse.

Perhaps most alarming is how quickly corporate media capitulated. ABC folded within hours of Carr’s remarks. CBS executives couched Colbert’s cancellation in the language of business decisions. Disney and Paramount have appeared less like independent institutions and more like satellites adjusting their orbit to avoid the administration’s glare.

Now What?

It may feel as though the field of appropriate discourse is being narrowed to an extreme: If billion-dollar networks cannot resist, what chance do ordinary citizens have? But resignation is the outcome that tactics such as these are designed to produce. The truth is, ordinary people remain essential to defending free expression, and there are practical steps we can take.

›› First, as always: Name what’s happening. Refuse to let euphemisms do the work of intimidation. When a network folds under hyperpartisan pressure, call it what it is. Don’t parrot the “business decision” line when everyone knows better.

›› Next, support independent media. When large institutions bend, smaller ones often carry the torch. So, find those sources and support them. Donate to nonprofit media outlets. Amplify the work of journalists and creators who refuse to self-censor.

›› Then, push institutions to be brave. Advertisers, shareholders, and audiences can raise the reputational costs. Networks that sense they are losing public trust may rediscover their independence.

›› Continue to defend legal safeguards. Support strong anti-SLAPP laws that protect against abusive lawsuits, and reforms that limit regulatory retaliation. These measures may sound technical, but they are the bulwark that prevents intimidation from becoming normalized.

›› In your local circles, strive to strengthen civic life. A resilient democracy doesn’t rely solely on a few celebrity commentators. Local newsrooms, community radio, neighborhood newsletters, and even civic forums are all parts of a healthy information ecosystem. They are harder to silence from above and keep dissent rooted in everyday life.

›› Finally, stay visible and stay vocal. The ultimate goal of intimidation is to shrink the space for dissent. The best counter is to keep speaking. Post, write, organize, and talk, even when it’s uncomfortable. Each act of visibility pushes back against the silence that a controlling administration requires to thrive.

This is an ongoing test of whether Americans will accept the administration’s redefinition of dissent. If we do, the silence will only spread. But if we name the tactics, build alternatives, and refuse to be cowed, we preserve not just the right to laugh at a late-night joke – but also the right to question power itself, like Americans.