In July 2025, CBS announced the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.[1] In September 2025, ABC indefinitely suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live.[2] CBS has stated that they cancelled The Late Show for purely financial reasons, while ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live following Kimmel’s comments regarding Charlie Kirk’s assassination.[3] However, there is skepticism that the shows were canceled due to political pressure from the Trump Administration.[4] Notably, The Late Show was canceled very shortly after Stephen Colbert criticized CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, for settling a controversial lawsuit with Donald Trump for $16 million.[5] At the time of the cancellation, Paramount Global was attempting to close a merger with Skydance Media, which is owned by Trump’s friend and supporter.[6] The timing and circumstances surrounding this cancellation have prompted questions about true motives, indicating the cancellation was a condition of the Paramount Global merger with Skydance Media stemming from Trump’s influence.[7] Trump himself has stoked this question, stating, “I absolutely love that Colbert’ got fired,”[8] and “I hear Kimmel is next.”[9] 

Jimmy Kimmel was, indeed, suspended from the air following his comments about the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.[10] On his show Kimmel stated, “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.”[11] These comments enraged Trump and his supporters.[12] Kimmel recalled ABC executives telling him his suspension was indefinite and meant to “take the temperature down.”[13] These two incidents have sparked concern over governmental coercion and censorship of content that is critical of the president, creating concern over future First Amendment free speech violations.[14]

Private entities, such as broadcasting stations, have significant discretion in deciding what is seen on television, and First Amendment constraints do not apply to them.[15] Therefore, the cases of Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel are not themselves First Amendment violations. However, it does indicate possible political pressure in governmental speech restrictions that could implicate the First Amendment in the future. There are very few instances where the government can limit free speech, and there are multiple tests.[16] It is likely both kinds of speech that are at risk of regulation, as indicated by the cancellation of Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel.

In free speech cases, there are two levels of scrutiny: strict or intermediate scrutiny.[17] Strict scrutiny is applied to speech based on “its subject matter, topic, or substantive message.”[18] To survive strict scrutiny, the government must show that the restriction is intended to advance a compelling governmental interest, the law is the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the law is narrowly tailored to advance that interest.[19] This means the law cannot be underinclusive or overinclusive, and there cannot be a less restrictive means of achieving the governmental interest.[20] Further, the Supreme Court has stated that restrictions on viewpoints are “egregious” and occasionally strikes down these laws without any analysis.[21]

For example, in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, a California law prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors.[22] This was challenged by several video game and software companies, who argued that this law was a violation of the First Amendment.[23] The Court held this law must survive strict scrutiny to be valid, and the state must identify an “‘actual problem’ in need of solving,” and any law that restricts based only on content will rarely be upheld.[24] There is no evidence that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively.[25] Therefore, there is no actual problem in need of solving. There are two identified interests claimed by the government: addressing a societal problem and helping parents control their children.[26] This law is underinclusive in addressing a societal problem and overinclusive in helping parents.[27] Therefore, this law is not narrowly tailored and must be stricken down.[28]

Intermediate scrutiny is applied to content-neutral laws that, on their face, do not regulate speech but do so in effect.[29] Content-neutral laws are valid if they are “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest[,] . . . are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”[30] Narrow tailoring under this level of scrutiny requires the law to be reasonably tailored in proportion to the interest it is meant to serve.[31]

For example, Ward v. Rock Against Racism, an amphitheater faces a grassy area that is designated as a quiet area in New York City.[32] The city attempted to regulate amplified music at the amphitheater so it would not disturb people in the quiet area.[33] The Court held that this restriction should be evaluated using intermediate scrutiny.[34] The city stated an interest in controlling noise levels while maintaining sound quality at the amphitheater.[35] This regulation was upheld because it is narrowly tailored to fit a significant interest, and there are alternative channels for communication.[36]

As discussed above, the cancellations of Stephen Colbert’s and Jimmy Kimmel’s shows are not in themselves free speech violations; however, they indicate the federal government’s proclivity for pressuring broadcasters to censor their content. They may also serve as a warning to others in television that their words could cost them their jobs. Further, because the government will most likely not face any consequences for its role in pressuring CBS and ABC to cancel Colbert’s and Kimmel’s shows, it may continue to take more explicit steps in censoring speech. In any event, the regulation of and suppression of dissenting viewpoints is a hallmark of dictatorships. Dictators remain in power by isolating individuals, preventing them from coordinating to work toward freedom, and instilling fear of sharing negative feelings toward the dictatorship.[37] They achieve this by restricting speech.[38] The result is that people do not resist, and the dictator remains in power.[39] The implications of the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live are indicative of the federal government’s suppression of dissenting viewpoints.[40]