Imagine being one of the most powerful voices in late-night television, only to be completely blindsided when your own network yanks you off the air. That’s precisely the jarring reality Jimmy Kimmel faced, and he's finally breaking his silence on why ABC's decision to suspend his show left him so stunned.
Speaking on a recent Bloomberg Screentime interview, the host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” delved into the whirlwind controversy that saw his show temporarily shuttered last month. The firestorm ignited following comments Kimmel made in the aftermath of the tragic assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Kimmel firmly believes the entire situation was a setup, stating his words were “intentionally and, I think, maliciously mischaracterized.”
For Kimmel, the initial backlash felt like business as usual. He explained that he didn't grasp the gravity of the situation, viewing the uproar as predictable “distortion on the part of some of the right-wing media networks.” His plan was simply to get on the air and correct the record. However, the network had other plans. The first real indication that this was different came when ABC announced “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” would be “preempted indefinitely,” a move that caught the host completely off guard.
“I have problems, like, all the time,” Kimmel candidly admitted, reflecting on the unpredictable nature of public outrage. He described the strange calculus of controversy, where sometimes a non-issue explodes into a massive problem, while other times, a comment he’s certain will cause trouble goes completely unnoticed.
But here's where the story takes a turn behind the scenes. Following the suspension, Kimmel spent a weekend in deep conversation with top Disney executives, including Dana Walden, the co-chair of Disney Entertainment. He described these talks as crucial for helping him “just kind of understand where everyone was coming from.” This period of forced reflection, which ultimately lasted for six days, also prompted some introspection. “I can sometimes be reactionary. I can sometimes be aggressive. And I can sometimes be unpleasant,” Kimmel conceded, adding that having those days to step back and think was genuinely helpful.
And this is the part most people miss: the intense political pressure that was building. While Kimmel and Disney were navigating their internal situation, external forces were mobilizing. Former President Donald Trump publicly celebrated the suspension and even threatened to sue ABC if they brought the show back. Yet, in a testament to his style, Kimmel says he “would love to have Trump on the show for sure.”
However, there's one figure he has no interest in hosting: Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Carr had been a fierce critic of Kimmel's remarks, but he didn't just voice an opinion—he issued what many interpreted as a direct threat to Disney's broadcast licenses. Hours before the suspension was announced, Carr told a right-wing podcaster that Disney could resolve the issue “the easy way or the hard way.”
This raises a deeply unsettling question: Was ABC’s decision a principled stand, or was it a capitulation to a thinly veiled threat from a powerful government regulator? The line between corporate responsibility and political coercion becomes incredibly blurry here. When Kimmel eventually returned to the air, he and Disney had an agreement on “the spirit” of his opening remarks, but notably, there was no pre-approved script, allowing him to speak his mind.
Shifting gears, Kimmel also offered his skeptical take on another major late-night development: CBS's announcement that Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show” would be canceled next year. While CBS cited the move as a “purely a financial decision,” Kimmel wasn’t buying it. He offered a simple, cutting piece of industry logic: “I know that if we’re losing so much money, none of us would be on,” he stated. “That’s kind of all you need to know.”
What do you think about this whole ordeal? Was Kimmel unfairly targeted by a political machine, or did his comments cross a line that justified a suspension? More importantly, should a government official like the FCC chair be able to pressure a media company over the content of a comedy show? Drop your thoughts in the comments below—we want to hear your take.
