Harris denounces Disney over Kimmel suspension as affiliates balk at comeback
Formervice president Kamala Harris criticizes Disney after Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, while ABC affiliates and local stations weigh return amid political and corporate pressure.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday criticized Disney’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel, saying the move undercuts the guardrails she has long trusted in the private sector to defend democracy. In her first interview since the 2024 election, Harris told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that she has spent decades working with private industry but believes some corporate leaders have become silent in moments of rising national tension. She cautioned that when push comes to shove, industry titans should be the guardrails for democratic institutions, not spectators.
The remarks come as Disney, the parent company of ABC, suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! last week over his comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, saying the action was intended to avoid inflaming a tense moment for the country. Disney later said Kimmel would return to air on Tuesday after what it described as thoughtful conversations with the late-night host. Still, the decision touched a broader chorus of corporate and political figures who have questioned the balance between free expression and public discourse in a charged political climate.
Nexstar Media Group, which owns 28 ABC affiliates, and Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns 32 ABC affiliates, said they would not broadcast the comeback. Nexstar reiterated that it would maintain the preemption as it seeks to ensure its stations meet local audience needs, noting that Kimmel Live! would be available on Disney’s streaming platforms. Sinclair echoed a similar stance, arguing that local stations should decide how to respond to national programming in their markets. In total, about 70 ABC affiliates indicated they would not air the Tuesday show, prompting questions about how such a decision would affect national ratings and advertiser interest.
The flare-up drew immediate comments from across the political and regulatory spectrum. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr criticized Democratic critics, arguing that local stations have obligations to reflect their communities and suggesting that the current episode highlights the value of empowered local broadcasting. He framed the dispute as a confrontation over who controls the airwaves and stressed that local outlets should decide whether national programming aligns with their viewers’ needs. Carr’s comments also touched on broader tensions over media consolidation and the role of regulators in defining acceptable conduct by national and local broadcasters.
Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg weighed in on the politics of the episode, arguing on social media that the controversy reflects pressure from political leadership rather than a straightforward corporate misstep. He warned business leaders against yielding to government pressure, warning that capitulation could shrink corporate latitude in the future. Buttigieg emphasized that the balance between political accountability and free expression is delicate, and that public policy should avoid turning every disagreement into a test of loyalty to any administration.
Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz also weighed in, criticizing Carr after the FCC threatened action against Disney and ABC for Kimmel’s remarks. Cruz warned that government interference in media could set a troubling precedent for conservatives and warned that such moves could erode First Amendment protections. His comments highlighted the broader partisan tensions surrounding media policy and persuasion in a polarized political environment.
Nexstar’s position remained clear as the network prepared for Kimmel’s return: the affiliate group would not air the show on its stations and would instead rely on national distribution through Disney platforms. The company stressed that its decision was intended to foster respectful, constructive dialogue in its markets while continuing to produce locally relevant news and programming. The stance underscored the growing friction between national programming decisions and local accountability to audiences, a friction amplified by investor concerns and market-specific standards.
Amid the corporate and regulatory drumbeat, late-night hosts and political commentators weighed in on the clash between free expression and corporate discretion. Seth Meyers argued that public pressure and major backlash can affirm the right to stand up to attempts at suppressing dissent, while John Stewart and Stephen Colbert offered satirical takes on what the episode reveals about power, media, and accountability. Meyers suggested that the public reaction to government pressure demonstrates a broad resistance to attempts to dictate dialogue across media channels. Stewart and Colbert used the moment to reflect on how audiences respond to perceived censorship while acknowledging the role of entertainment in shaping political conversation.
A separate study noted that Kimmel’s show has recently leaned heavily into coverage of the presidency, with the number of jokes about Donald Trump outpacing those about Joe Biden by a wide margin. The analysis, conducted by a media monitoring outlet, found that Kimmel delivered thousands more jokes about Trump than Biden in a given period, a factor some observers say could influence how networks calibrate political content and comedians’ leverage during periods of controversy. The study’s findings add another layer to the ongoing debate about where comedy ends and political influence begins, especially in a climate where corporate decisions about programming can become political flashpoints.
As the dispute over Kimmel’s suspension and return stretches into a broader debate about media independence, Harris’s public remarks offer a political dimension to a case that has already attracted attention from regulators, local broadcasters, and the entertainment industry. With Tuesday’s return pending in markets across the country and a complex web of local decisions shaping what viewers will see, the episode remains a focal point for questions about how much influence corporations should wield over political discourse, and how public figures should respond when private companies intersect with national politics.