Howard Stern slams ABC for suspending Jimmy Kimmel over Charlie Kirk remarks

Howard Stern criticized ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel over the comedian’s remarks about Charlie Kirk, calling the move ridiculous and out of control. In a Monday appearance on SiriusXM's The Howard Stern Show, Stern said the network may be weighing whether to fire Kimmel, though he stressed he did not know for sure. He said he spoke with Kimmel and asked how he was holding up amid the controversy, expressing support for his friend while framing the situation as a broader test of government influence over media.

Stern tied the dispute to concerns about government interference in speech, arguing that public officials should not dictate what broadcasters say. He suggested that a government-facing pressure campaign against a private channel would set a troubling precedent for free expression in the United States. The radio personality said that broadcasters should step up rather than bow to external demands, and he announced a personal protest by canceling his Disney+ subscription in solidarity with Kimmel. The remarks added a voice of high-profile concern amid a controversy that has roiled late-night television and the broader entertainment industry.

The broader context surrounding Kimmel’s suspension centers on his comments about Charlie Kirk, a right-wing activist who was shot and killed on Sept. 10 while speaking at Utah Valley University. Kimmel addressed the incident again on Sept. 15, alleging that supporters of Kirk had used the murder to score political points, a critique that triggered a response from Sinclair, the operator of ABC's largest affiliate group. Sinclair reportedly demanded that Kimmel issue an on-air apology to Kirk’s family and donate to Turning Point USA, the non-profit organization associated with Kirk, to keep the show on the air. Kimmel reportedly refused, and ABC and Disney subsequently pulled the program from the schedule indefinitely. The case touched on a broader debate about how media outlets handle political content and accountability in an era of intense political polarization.

Trump weighed in on the dispute on his social platform Truth Social, praising ABC’s decision to suspend Kimmel and calling the show a ratings loser. The post reflected ongoing partisan reactions to the incident, which drew statements of support from some in Hollywood and condemnation from others who argued for safeguarding free speech. Industry observers noted that Kimmel’s future at ABC appeared uncertain even before the Kirk remarks, given that his contract with Disney reportedly had only months left to run.

In the days that followed, commentaters connected the episode to the larger media reckoning over how corporate ownership, affiliate networks, and political rhetoric intersect in late-night television. The public response included vocal defense from Kimmel’s colleagues, with fellow hosts such as Stephen Colbert and Seth Meyers emphasizing support for the host in the face of corporate and political pressure. Conservatives, meanwhile, publicly celebrated the suspension in some corners, highlighting the partisan contours of the dispute.

Jimmy Kimmel’s family footprint in the public narrative entered the conversation when Sal Iacono, Kimmel’s cousin and a longtime writer and performer on the show, spoke on The Bill Simmons Podcast. Iacono hinted that there could be more drama to come and suggested there are still bombshells to be revealed. He offered cautious optimism about Kimmel’s future, noting the emotional toll on the staff and acknowledging that people would likely find a path forward, whether that means returning to the air, pursuing other ventures, or exploring new opportunities. Iacono also emphasized the need for discretion given the sensitive nature of the ongoing fallout.

As the industry watches these developments, the episode illustrates the unsettled landscape in which entertainment media navigate political controversy, corporate oversight, and public debate. The situation remains fluid, with no clear resolution in sight as networks, showrunners, and talent weigh the implications for free expression, audience trust, and the economics of late-night television.