Kimmel Returns, Defends Remarks on Charlie Kirk Killing as Critics Question Neutrality
Late-night host says he did not intend to blame any political faction for the murder; critics say his words still pointed to a political group.
Jimmy Kimmel returned to television this week after ABC’s parent company, Disney, briefly pulled his late-night show off the air, and he insisted his Sept. 15 monologue did not intend to blame any political faction for the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
In his remarks on Tuesday night, Kimmel said, “It was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man,” and added that he did not mean to “blame any specific group for the actions.” He stressed that the crime was committed by “a deeply disturbed individual” and emphasized that the killer “doesn’t represent anyone.” Kimmel’s comments came hours after ABC and Disney had paused the show the previous week, a move that triggered widespread discussion about accountability and media rhetoric in the current political climate.
The reconciliation comes after Kimmel’s Sept. 15 monologue in which he tied the killing to the political right, blasting what he described as the “MAGA gang.” He said he did not intend to assign collective blame to conservatives, but critics say his earlier language suggested otherwise and reflected a partisan framing that undermined his stated neutrality. A portion of the audience and some observers interpreted the comments as a charge that a political faction bore responsibility for the crime. The host’s latest defense centers on his claim of misinterpretation and his claim that he did not single out a movement as responsible; he said he aimed to call out violence rather than to indict a political ideology.
In the days since his return, criticism has intensified from figures associated with Charlie Kirk and his allies. Andrew Kolvet, executive producer of The Charlie Kirk Show, issued sharply worded remarks about Kimmel’s monologue, calling it “not good enough.” Kolvet also circulated what he described as the apology Kimmel should have delivered: “I’m sorry for saying the shooter was MAGA. He was not. He was of the left. I apologize to the Kirk family for lying. Please accept my sincere apology. I will do better. I was wrong.” Kolvet cast Kimmel as a liar who smeared millions of Americans mourning Kirk’s death, and he accused the host of using emotion to protect his career.
The dispute drew a wider chorus of critics. Reuters, quoting sources familiar with conservative commentary, noted that others—such as Turning Point USA’s spokesperson—tired to frame Kimmel’s remarks as an attempt to redefine the event for political points. Figures like Scott Jennings and Jack Posobiec used social media to argue that Kimmel had weaponized the tragedy for partisan aims, with Posobiec citing a “DARVO” pattern (deny, attack, reverse victim and offender) in the host’s behavior. Dana Loesch pushed back against the idea that Kimmel offered a genuine apology, while Piers Morgan suggested the host had shifted from comedy to activism.
The incident centers on the murder of Charlie Kirk, who was killed in Utah on Sept. 10. Police have not released a motive publicly, but some observers connected the case to broader political rhetoric surrounding the 2024 and 2025 cycles. A Reuters report cited by supporters of Kirk noted the suspect was described as steeped in left-wing ideology, though investigators have not confirmed a political motive as the sole driver of the crime. The Post reported on the evolving debate surrounding Kimmel’s remarks and the broader debate over media accountability in politically charged moments.
The Post has sought comment from ABC and Disney regarding the host’s renewed remarks and the surrounding controversy, but as of publication, no additional statements were provided. The episode has revived questions about how late-night hosts handle politics, tragedy, and audience expectations in a media environment where every word is scrutinized for political implications.
The controversy illustrates the high-stakes intersection of entertainment and politics: a late-night host facing corporate scrutiny, a synchronized chorus of critics accusing him of taking sides, and audiences evaluating whether humor and satire can or should steer public interpretation in the wake of violence. As investigations continue and public debate persists, Kimmel’s return has already become a focal point for discussions about accountability, the line between commentary and advocacy, and how media figures navigate moments that are both emotionally charged and politically fraught.