top of page

“No One Silences Us” The View Responds to Jimmy Kimmel Pull-From-ABC and FCC Threats

  • Sep 22, 2025
  • 3 min read

22 September 2025

'The View' panel talks about Jimmy Kimmel on Monday, Sept. 22. ABC
'The View' panel talks about Jimmy Kimmel on Monday, Sept. 22. ABC

After days of silence, the hosts of The View finally confronted the controversy surrounding the removal of Jimmy Kimmel Live! from ABC affiliate stations and the pressure from FCC Chair Brendan Carr to examine their show. During the September 22 episode, panelists including Whoopi Goldberg, Ana Navarro, Sara Haines, Sunny Hostin, and Alyssa Farah Griffin addressed the suspension of Kimmel’s late-night program following his remarks about Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting at Utah Valley University. They lifted the veil on what had been a tense and charged moment in the industry.


Whoopi Goldberg opened the conversation admitting that the panel had waited to see whether Kimmel would respond first. She said viewers knew The View would eventually speak up given nearly three decades of tackling divisive issues. She made clear that ABC’s pulling of Kimmel’s show raised concerns not just about cancel culture but about what government influence on media might mean for free speech. Goldberg emphasized that while shows may be pulled for what hosts say there must be a clear boundary: the government cannot silence voices by force or threat.


Ana Navarro criticized the irony she saw in the whole situation. She pointed out that those who disagree with someone’s views should not then use tragedy as a justification to silence them. She referenced her own experience growing up under dictatorships and reminded viewers that when a government begins to pressure media it often starts with people who have platforms but ends with everyone being frightened into silence. She stressed that defending free speech should not be political grandstanding but a consistent principle.


Sunny Hostin agreed that the president should understand how constitutional rights such as freedom of speech work, regardless of one’s feelings about the person involved or the statements made. Alyssa Farah Griffin asked audiences to consider the precedent being set and what this moment may lead to in terms of chilling effects on talk shows, commentary, or opinion-driven television. Viewers were reminded that the First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech and that the design of laws and regulations must not allow those in power to decide which voices can speak.


Before this, The View had not mentioned the matter during two recent episodes, a silence that many viewers noticed and questioned. The decision not to speak earlier, they said, stemmed from waiting to see whether Kimmel would address the situation himself and how big the reaction might become. The hosts acknowledged that the lack of immediate response drew criticism but insisted that their eventual discussion was sincere and necessary.


The controversy was triggered by Kimmel’s monologue from September 15 in which he spoke of the political aftermath of the killing of Charlie Kirk and criticized what he saw as attempts to spin the narrative around the shooter. His comments led Nexstar, a large local broadcast group, to drop Jimmy Kimmel Live! from its ABC-affiliated stations. Shortly after, Chair Brendan Carr of the FCC suggested that The View and other programs might need to be evaluated to see whether they still count as bona fide news programs exempt from certain FCC rules. Those rules include the equal opportunity provisions which, among other things, relate to how broadcasters deal with opposing political views.


In closing their segment The View asked viewers to not give up, to stay engaged, and to remember that public speech is something worth protecting. They expressed that in moments of outrage grief or disagreement people must guard what freedom of expression means. The panel ended with a message of unity acknowledging the weight of the debate and the importance of continuing to question when public authorities begin to use regulatory power in ways that may undercut civil liberties.

Comments


bottom of page