Newsom Mocks Trump and FCC Chair Over 'Made Up' Rule to Oust Jimmy Kimmel

California Gov. Gavin Newsom used a social-media post to take aim at Donald Trump and Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr over what he described as a “made up” rule that would supposedly remove Trump from television. Newsom’s missive arrived as ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel after the late-night host criticized the right-wing reaction to the death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, triggering a broader dispute over media power and political pressure. The governor’s post also touched on Carr and the broader issue of how, or even whether, regulators should influence broadcast content, as Nexstar Media Group presses forward with a merger that would require FCC approval.

Newsom’s post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, included an all-caps jab at Trump and a provocative demand that Carr apply the so-called “Jimmy Kimmel rule” to kick Trump off TV. The message concluded with a direct call to action for Carr, using the endearing rallying cry that has become a fixture of conservative online discourse. The exchange comes as the regulatory and media landscapes intersect in a high-stakes debate over where government ends and private business begins in determining what viewers see on their screens.

The incident centers on the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! on Wednesday, following Kimmel’s criticism of the right-wing response to Charlie Kirk’s death. Nexstar Media Group subsequently said it would pull the show from more than 200 local channels, a move that amplified concerns about the leverage that large broadcasters wield over programming. Carr defended the decision in an appearance on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street, saying the FCC’s mission is to ensure broadcasters serve the public interest and that contractual rights give local stations the option to preempt programming if they believe it does not meet that standard. “Our goal and our obligation here is to make sure that broadcasters are serving the public interest,” Carr said, arguing that stations can exercise their rights under contracts if they disagree with a given program.

Newsom’s post and Carr’s defense come amid a broader, ongoing debate over the balance between free expression, regulatory oversight, and corporate prerogatives in American media. Critics argue that suspensions and preemptions in response to political content illustrate the risk of political pressure shaping what audiences can watch, especially when large ownership groups coordinate with the regulatory apparatus. The episode echoes longstanding arguments about whether the public-interest standard used by the FCC provides adequate safeguards or invites manipulation by political actors seeking to influence programming.

Former FCC chairs and industry observers weighed in on the situation. Tom Wheeler, who led the commission under President Barack Obama, told The Guardian that “it’s not the appropriate job of the FCC chairman to become the censor-in-chief,” adding that Carr appeared to be exploiting vagaries in the term “the public interest” to justify intervention. While supporters of the agency’s approach argue that public-interest obligations are essential to maintaining responsible broadcasting amid shifting media ecosystems, critics worry that the line between enforcing standards and curbing speech can blur under political pressure.

The timing of the controversy is notable: Nexstar’s pending merger with Tegna would consolidate a large share of local television markets and intensify scrutiny of how programming decisions are made and who exerts influence behind the scenes. The FCC, chaired by Carr, must weigh antitrust and public-interest concerns before approving the deal. The current dispute over Kimmel’s suspension and the broader regulatory framework adds a high-profile, real-world dimension to those deliberations, illustrating how policy decisions in Washington and Los Angeles can ripple through local affiliates, advertisers, and viewers.

Observers say the episode underscores a persistent tension in U.S. politics: how to safeguard free expression and journalistic independence while ensuring broadcasters serve the public interest in a rapidly changing media environment. For Newsom, the incident provided a political opening to frame the debate around perceived overreach by the executive branch and the regulatory apparatus. For Carr and the FCC, it underscored the ongoing task of defending a standard that remains open to interpretation as new business models and content practices emerge. In the weeks ahead, lawmakers, regulators, and industry players will continue to navigate the delicate balance between accountability, access, and the practical realities of modern broadcasting.