Stars Speak Out as Jimmy Kimmel Live! Goes Dark

18 September 2025

Ben Stiller, Jimmy Kimmel, Wanda Sykes. Credit : Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty; Denise Truscello/Getty; Rodin Eckenroth/Getty

When ABC announced on September 17, 2025 that Jimmy Kimmel Live! would be placed on indefinite hiatus, the move ignited a firestorm of criticism from across Hollywood. The decision came in response to comments Jimmy Kimmel made following the fatal shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. He had questioned how certain political factions were responding and sparked backlash from Nexstar Media, which owns many ABC-affiliated stations. The resulting removal of his show spurred actors, comedians, unions and political leaders to publicly condemn what they saw as an erosion of free speech.

Among the first to react was Wanda Sykes. She had been scheduled to appear on the show the very night it was pulled from the air. In a video posted to Instagram she said she was ready for the interview but was caught off guard when the program was abruptly canceled. She lambasted the decision, saying: “[Trump] didn’t end the Ukraine war or solve Gaza within his first week. But he did end freedom of speech within his first year.” Her tone captured outrage, disbelief, and fear.

Ben Stiller, usually more reserved in his public commentary, took to X (formerly Twitter) with a short but powerful message: “This isn’t right.” The simplicity of his post underscored how many people feel this isn’t just about one show or one host but about broader principles.

Jean Smart, Sophia Bush, Kathy Griffin and many others also lent their voices. Smart shared a photo with Kimmel and a message decrying the suspension as censorship. Bush pointed to the fragile condition of free speech. Griffin urged the public to defend Kimmel, arguing that being an “ideological consumer” matters when art and media face political pressure.

Unions were quick to jump in. SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America, and the American Federation of Musicians condemned the decision. They called the removal of Jimmy Kimmel Live! a stifling of artistic freedom and an example of corporate compliance under political threat. Many saw ABC’s move as bowing to government influence rather than operating from a place of journalistic or comedic autonomy.

Critics of the suspension highlighted that Kimmel’s comments, though controversial, were part of late-night tradition: pushing at political edges, challenging public sentiment, and using satire to reflect on tragedy and responsibility. The argument in defense of Kimmel hinges on the idea that suppression of commentary even if it rubs someone the wrong way is more dangerous than allowing it. The fear is what this precedent might mean for other voices in entertainment, journalism, and public life.

Some political leaders also weighed in. Senator Cory Booker, Governor Gavin Newsom, among others, voiced concern about what the suspension means for democracy. They painted the move as symptomatic of a shrinking space for dissent and critique in media. Supporters of Kimmel argue that the show’s removal reflects growing pressure from regulators and entities tied to the Trump administration, especially after complaints to the Federal Communications Commission.

Meanwhile defenders of the suspension contend that there were legitimate grievances. Nexstar objected to his comments about Charlie Kirk and said that ABC-affiliated stations would refuse to air the show. The FCC, whose chair Brendan Carr is Trump-appointed, had reportedly threatened regulatory consequences. In this view the network was under pressure, legal, political, and financial and opted to pull the plug to avoid risk.

Through all this the public conversation has shifted from whether Kimmel was right or wrong in what he said to what free speech means in a changing political media landscape. Is it enough to say that someone was offended, or does offense now trigger silencing? Is political pressure effectively controlling what gets aired under the guise of business or regulation? The tension between speech, responsibility, and influence has never felt more raw.

For those watching this unfold it is clear that this controversy transcends one late night host. It helps fuel larger questions about how media networks will respond to political pressure in the future, what voices will be allowed to speak freely, and what role regulation really plays in shaping public discourse. The reactions from artists, unions, politicians, and audiences suggest this has become a moment of reckoning not just for Jimmy Kimmel Live!, but for the state of expressive freedom in the U.S. today.