Kimmel to Return Tonight as Astrology Expert weighs in on Comeback After Indefinite Suspension

Jimmy Kimmel is set to return to late-night television tonight after ABC suspended his show indefinitely following comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a move that drew swift backlash from conservatives and liberals alike. The network said the remarks, which targeted supporters of Kirk and a political movement, crossed a line for a program that has long traded in sharp satire.

The suspension came after Nexstar Media, which operates dozens of affiliate stations nationwide, warned it would pull the program from its lineup if the network did not address the issue. Sinclair Broadcast Group also pressed for changes, urging Kimmel to issue a direct apology to the Kirk family and to make a donation to both the family and Turning Point USA, a conservative campus organization linked to Kirk. By all accounts, the situation underscored a wider industry push and raised questions about the balance between satire and accountability on late-night television. It remains unclear whether Kimmel will apologize on Tuesday night’s show or how a potential apology would be received by some affiliates and viewers.

Amid the controversy, a celebrity astrologer offered a private reading for Daily Mail that framed Kimmel’s upcoming move in astrological terms. Aliza Kelly, host of the Horoscope Weekly podcast, described Kimmel as a Scorpio sun with an Aries moon, born on November 13, 1967. Kelly noted that both Scorpio and Aries signs are ruled by Mars, a planet she described as “the planet of war” and “aggressive.” She said Mars imbues ambition, courage and a willingness to stand up for what the hosts believes is true, suggesting that Kimmel may not back down in the face of demands to bow to anyone’s terms.

“Because of this, Mars points toward action rather than retreat,” Kelly told Daily Mail in an exclusive remark. “He is not afraid to stand up for himself and what he believes in.” Kelly added that the reading could position Kimmel as a public defender of the First Amendment, a role she described as a potential evolution for the host as he returns to the airwaves.

The debate over Kimmel’s remarks quickly became a flashpoint in the broader discourse on free speech, political satire and the boundaries of late-night humor. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson publicly challenged the administration’s handling of the episode, arguing that the actions appeared to weaponize criticism of the First Amendment against dissenting voices. Barack Obama also weighed in, describing the suspension as a troubling moment for free expression. The episodes underscored a national conversation about the power of satire to provoke, and the risks networks face when they respond to political pressure.

In parallel, the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of stars sprang to Kimmel’s defense. An open-letter signed by more than 430 figures, including Robert De Niro, Jane Fonda, Ben Affleck, Jamie Lee Curtis, Selena Gomez, Natalie Portman and Mark Ruffalo, asserted that government pressure on media and artists to silence speech runs counter to constitutional protections. The letter framed the episode as a test case for free speech in the entertainment industry and urged Americans to stand with those who defend expressive rights, regardless of political affiliation.

Kimmel’s own response has been comparatively quiet publicly. On Tuesday morning, he posted a tribute on social media, sharing a photo with Norman Lear, the late TV producer known for landmark shows such as All in the Family and The Jeffersons, who died last year at 101. “Missing this guy today,” Kimmel wrote in the caption, a gesture that some observers read as a nod to Lear’s legacy in defending the First Amendment. The post drew messages of support from colleagues and fans alike, including some of the stars who signed the ACLU letter.

The evolving story highlights the tenuous line between provocative late-night satire and the political sensitivities that can accompany it. For ABC and its affiliates, the key question remains: how to balance accountability with the protections that allow comedians to challenge power and express political viewpoints. As Kimmel returns to the screen, audiences will be watching not only for jokes but for signals about how far networks will go in defending or limiting bold, boundary-pushing commentary in an era of heightened political polarization.

As the dust settles, industry observers note that the case could influence how networks and studios navigate similar disputes in the future. A rising number of shows are weighing the potential consequences of inflammatory remarks, not merely from a legal standpoint but from their relationships with affiliates, sponsors and audiences who have become increasingly vocal about what they consider acceptable discourse on public platforms. The incident thus becomes a touchstone for ongoing debates about satire, censorship, and the responsibilities of both entertainers and broadcasters in a highly charged political climate.