Former President Barack Obama criticized President Trump for the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, framing it as a dangerous overreach that threatens free speech.

Former President Barack Obama sharply criticized President Donald Trump on Thursday after ABC announced it would pull Jimmy Kimmel’s long-running late-night show from the air indefinitely, citing comments Kimmel made following the tragic death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.

Obama, who has appeared on Kimmel’s program multiple times and is known to share a friendly rapport with the host, posted on X that the Trump administration is taking “cancel culture to a new and dangerous level” by pressuring networks to silence voices it finds unfavorable.

“After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like,” Obama wrote, emphasizing the erosion of First Amendment protections.

Kimmel’s suspension comes in the wake of comments he made regarding the death of Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot on September 10 while engaging in a debate with college students.

Initially, Kimmel suggested the shooter was affiliated with the MAGA movement, a claim that was later refuted by investigators who identified Tyler Robinson, 22, as a far-left radical with no ties to conservative groups.

Robinson, according to law enforcement reports, was in a relationship with a transgender roommate and held far-left ideological views.

Conservatives immediately criticized Kimmel for his remarks, claiming they were politically motivated and insensitive, particularly given the national focus on the tragedy.

In response to the controversy, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr reportedly threatened ABC and Disney with regulatory scrutiny, warning the network to “change conduct and take action” regarding Kimmel’s comments.

Shortly thereafter, Nexstar Communications Group, which broadcasts ABC programming across 23 local affiliates, announced it would no longer air Jimmy Kimmel Live!, effectively taking the program off air in key markets.

ABC, owned by Disney, formally confirmed the indefinite suspension of the show, ending a more than 20-year run that spanned 23 seasons and cemented Kimmel as a fixture in late-night television.

The firing of Kimmel was celebrated by President Trump during a press briefing in London, where he framed the decision as justified due to alleged low ratings and what he described as Kimmel’s offensive comments about Charlie Kirk.

“Jimmy Kimmel was fired because he had bad ratings, more than anything else, and he said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk,” Trump stated. “Jimmy Kimmel is not a talented person… and they should’ve fired him a long time ago.”

He also called for similar actions against other late-night hosts, including Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, whom Trump described as “two total losers on Fake News NBC” with “horrible ratings.”

Late-night hosts have historically been critical of Trump, particularly during his first term, frequently lampooning the president’s policies, personality, and public statements.

However, nine months into Trump’s second administration, networks appear to be responding to declining viewership by removing controversial hosts, a trend that critics say threatens freedom of speech and independent commentary.

Fallon, during a Thursday taping of The Tonight Show, addressed the situation cautiously, telling his audience, “To be honest with you all, I don’t know what’s going on—no one does. But I do know Jimmy Kimmel and he is a decent, funny, and loving guy.

And I hope he comes back.” Fallon, who altered the punchlines of his own monologue to avoid controversy, also revealed that he had reached out to Kimmel via text following the announcement of his show’s suspension.

Obama’s intervention adds a high-profile political dimension to the controversy. While he did not directly reference his personal friendship with Kimmel, the former president framed the incident as an alarming example of governmental overreach.

“This is precisely the kind of government coercion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent,” Obama wrote. “Media companies need to start standing up rather than capitulating to it.”

His statement underscores growing concern among media observers and free speech advocates that political pressure, amplified by regulatory threats, is influencing editorial and programming decisions in major media outlets.

The circumstances surrounding Kimmel’s comments and subsequent suspension have fueled a heated debate over the responsibilities of journalists, entertainers, and media companies in the aftermath of politically sensitive events.

While some critics argue that Kimmel’s initial claim regarding the shooter’s political affiliation was reckless and inflammatory, others contend that punishing commentary through government pressure and network intervention constitutes a dangerous precedent for free expression.

The FCC has not indicated that any formal sanctions have been imposed but has left the possibility open, further contributing to uncertainty among media professionals.

Stephen Colbert, whose show is set to end in May 2026 after similar tensions with Trump and CBS, has also voiced his support for Kimmel, publicly declaring that “Tonight, we are all Jimmy Kimmel.”

Colbert criticized the administration for what he called “blatant censorship” and described the firing as a warning to entertainers and commentators across the political spectrum.

The growing chorus of support from late-night figures highlights a rift between media personalities who view Kimmel’s suspension as an attack on free speech and those who see the incident as a necessary response to insensitive commentary during a sensitive period.

Investigators continue to examine the details of the Charlie Kirk murder, and the media fallout has coincided with renewed scrutiny of ideological polarization, political messaging, and social media influence.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox, for example, commented that Robinson’s leftist beliefs may have been a motivating factor, further complicating public perception of the tragedy.

In the aftermath, media companies are caught navigating a complex landscape in which ratings, regulatory oversight, and public opinion intersect, raising questions about editorial independence and the role of government influence in entertainment.

As the debate unfolds, the long-term implications for late-night television remain uncertain. ABC executives are reportedly evaluating future programming, while rival networks weigh potential adjustments in response to perceived political pressures.

Meanwhile, the discussion sparked by Obama, Colbert, Fallon, and others emphasizes the stakes for the broader media ecosystem.

The controversy surrounding Jimmy Kimmel Live! has become a flashpoint for discussions about the limits of political influence, the responsibilities of media organizations, and the precarious balance between satire, commentary, and accountability in an increasingly polarized society.

With the suspension of one of late-night television’s most prominent shows, the spotlight now falls on the relationships between government, media regulators, and entertainment networks, as well as the enduring challenge of safeguarding free expression in an era of heightened scrutiny and political tension.

The dispute has reignited conversations about the boundaries of satire, the risks faced by media figures who challenge power, and the potential consequences for audiences and culture if political intervention in media continues unchecked.f