Maher Defends Kimmel in Kilmeade Comparison, Drawing Backlash

Bill Maher sparked criticism Friday after defending Jimmy Kimmel by drawing a parallel between Kimmel’s remarks about a slain activist and comments by Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, while omitting a key difference critics say matters for accountability. Maher argued that Kilmeade was not fired for his remarks and suggested the two episodes were treated differently, a contrast that quickly drew pushback from viewers and media observers alike.

During Friday’s Real Time, Maher pointed to Kilmeade’s on-air moment on Fox News and connected it to Kimmel’s suspension, noting that Kilmeade remained on the air after the backlash. He described Kilmeade as a journalist who did not lose his job, and he highlighted what he called a disparate treatment of the two programs. Maher also referenced Kilmeade’s later on-air apology as part of his framing. The remarks came as critics pressed questions about free speech, accountability, and the handling of controversial statements on broadcast vs. cable platforms.

Kimmel’s suspension stemmed from comments he made on Monday about the suspect in the assassination of a prominent conservative activist. Those remarks, delivered on an ABC broadcast, prompted ABC and its parent company, Disney, to pull the late-night program from circulation while the network reviews the situation. Kilmeade’s remarks, by contrast, were made on Fox News’ cable channel during a segment discussing the state of the country following the death of Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska on Sunday’s Fox & Friends. Kilmeade later apologized on-air on Wednesday after several days of backlash.

The discrepancy Maher underscored revolved around context and enforcement. He argued, in effect, that Kilmeade’s on-air comments did not result in the same immediate removal from the air as Kimmel’s remarks, implying a standard difference between broadcast and cable platforms. Supporters of Maher’s take argued that the distinction between a broadcast network and a cable news channel can influence the scrutiny and repercussions that a host faces. Critics, however, noted that Kilmeade did apologize and that Kimmel has not publicly apologized as the network sought a path forward.

The controversy has extended beyond the hosts themselves to regulatory and corporate responses. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson on Wednesday that ABC risked losing its broadcast license because of Kimmel’s comments, underscoring the regulatory stakes in play when a network’s late-night show is involved. In the days that followed, more than a dozen ABC affiliates announced they would not air Kimmel’s program for the foreseeable future. Disney and ABC subsequently pulled the show from circulation as executives sought a resolution. A market-facing meeting between Disney and Kimmel on Thursday reportedly ended without a resolution, though an industry insider told The Wall Street Journal that Disney’s leadership sees a potential return for Kimmel in the next several days.

Taken together, the episodes have renewed debate over accountability for on-air remarks and how networks respond to controversy. Critics who pushed back against Maher’s comparison argued that Kilmeade’s remarks, while controversial, were made on cable, with an on-air apology following the backlash, whereas Kimmel’s comments were aired on a broadcast network platform and prompted a broader network sanction. Others argued that Kilmeade faced consequences that reflected a different corporate and regulatory environment, and that Kimmel’s silence amid internal negotiations raised questions about timing and transparency.

Behind the public relay of the story lies a broader context. The Kimmel suspension followed a period of intense public attention to political rhetoric on late-night television, a landscape that has endured since high-profile incidents earlier in the year. The Kilmeade episode occurred in the wake of coverage of a deadly incident and a national conversation about homelessness and public safety, further complicating the media environment surrounding these hosts. As networks navigate the legal and reputational implications, observers will be watching closely to see whether Kimmel returns to the air in the coming days or weeks, and how the network and its affiliates will frame the episode for audiences.

In short, Maher’s remarks highlighted a tension at the heart of contemporary U.S. media: the uneven application of consequences for controversial statements across broadcast and cable platforms, set against a backdrop of regulatory scrutiny and corporate risk. While Kilmeade’s apology and Kilmeade’s continued presence on Fox News have been cited as examples of accountability, Kimmel’s ongoing absence from ABC’s lineup remains a developing story with implications for the network’s strategy and for the broader culture-and-entertainment conversation about responsibility in public discourse.