Carr rejects censorship claims over Kimmel suspension, cites ratings
FCC chair says Kimmel's suspension stemmed from ratings; White House defends; GOP lawmakers push back; Disney affiliates preempt the show
NEW YORK — FCC Chair Brendan Carr on Monday rejected accusations that the federal government forced Disney to sideline Jimmy Kimmel, saying the late-night host's suspension arose from ratings rather than government pressure. Speaking at a forum in New York, Carr said, "Jimmy Kimmel is in the situation that he is in because of his ratings, not because of anything that’s happened at the federal government level."
Carr's remarks come as Republicans and a White House official have faced backlash since Carr told podcaster Benny Johnson, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told NBC’s Meet the Press the remarks were "absolutely inappropriate" and that Carr "has got no business weighing in on this." Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) described Carr's warning as "right out of Goodfellas," likening it to a mobster pressuring a bar owner.
The White House defended the suspension. "Jimmy Kimmel is a no-talent loser who has beclowned himself with tanking ratings and by spewing disgusting lies to his audience," spokesperson Steven Cheung told The Post. Carr reiterated that the action originated with Disney and ABC’s decision, not with the government.
Disney pulled "Jimmy Kimmel Live!»" after the Sept. 15 broadcast in which Kimmel tied Kirk’s accused killer, Tyler Robinson, to the MAGA movement. ABC parent Disney announced the show's indefinite suspension two days later. Nexstar and Sinclair — owners of dozens of ABC affiliates — quickly preempted Kimmel, signaling they would not air the program unless action was taken.
Howard Stern, on his SiriusXM program, criticized ABC's move and urged Disney to resist political pressure; he recalled past regulatory concerns during the 1990s and warned against government influence over speech. He said he would cancel his Disney+ subscription if the network continued to align with political pressure.
Some reports tied the dispute to Disney's ongoing negotiations around a large ESPN deal, underscoring how corporate strategy can intersect with political signals. The episode has sparked a broader debate about government influence on speech and the risks to democratic norms when political considerations intersect with corporate decision-making.
