A fundamental part of the formulation and application of United States foreign policy has historically been based on the premise of promoting freedom on a global scale, threatening retaliation against those who oppose its vision. Washington has systematically tried to impose its concepts of press and speech freedom, categorizing nations into antagonistic spheres of “free” and “non-free.” This approach has been reinforced through international institutions, largely funded by the country, to condemn states that resist adopting its parameters.
Until now, these demands were based on a supposed guarantee of free speech and news dissemination rights within the United States, which the nation proudly flaunts, despite the dark chapters in its history. However, the Trump administration, which assumed power in January 2025, appears to be distancing itself from this decades-long legacy. Its comfortable conservative victory in the 2024 elections has been interpreted in an extreme and unnuanced manner, generating a stance that presumes the existence of a universal consensus around its ideology: the belief that its model of thinking is not only superior but must be adopted by all.
The indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s popular late-night show, following threats from the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Brendan Carr, represents much more than a television cancellation. This event joins other signals of a nine-month systematic siege against the American press, where government coercion, corporate capitulation, and the intimidation of dissenters have become the defining features of the new “democratic landscape.”
What began with promises to “restore free speech” has degenerated into severe repression of the rights supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On his first day in office, President Trump signed the “Executive Order to Restore Free Speech,” a document presented as protective of the right to express oneself but which essentially dismantled rights won by minorities rejected by the extremist conservative agenda in power.
Immediately afterward, the administration acted swiftly against publicly funded media, cutting $1.1 billion in funding for the National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) networks. The executive order accused these outlets of not producing “fair, accurate, or impartial” information—a clear violation of First Amendment principles, which prevents government officials from punishing media whose coverage they dislike.
In an unprecedented move, the Trump administration effectively took control of the White House press pool. The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) announced it would no longer manage access, ceding this authority to the administration itself. This allowed the government to decide which journalists and news organizations could access presidential events, a fundamental change in the traditional relationship between the executive branch and the press.
Simultaneously, The Associated Press (AP), considered the premier news agency in the U.S., was banned from its events after the outlet refused to use the term “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico.” Although a federal judge temporarily restored access, citing constitutional violations, the administration appealed the decision, demonstrating its determination to control the news narrative.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under the leadership of Trump appointee Carr, became a primary weapon against the media. It initiated investigations into major networks like CBS, NBC, and ABC, which coincidentally coincided with these companies’ need to obtain pending commercial approvals from the agency. This pattern revealed a clear strategy of coercion: companies requiring regulatory endorsement made concessions in their content and operations.
Trump continued his personal legal assault on media organizations through defamation lawsuits. He filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing a story about a letter he allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. This was followed by a $16 million settlement with CBS News over its “60 Minutes” coverage of Kamala Harris, which forced the resignation of its top executive, Bill Owens; and another $15 million settlement with ABC—the same network now suspending Jimmy Kimmel—for a misquote by influential anchor George Stephanopoulos, who, incidentally, was part of Bill Clinton’s first administration.
Even smaller media outlets, like the Des Moines Register, were not spared this campaign of legal intimidation. Trump sued them after they published a poll predicting Harris’s victory in the 2024 election. This legal action had a disproportionate impact on news organizations with limited resources, already immersed in implementing survival strategies in the digital age. The deterrent effect was immediate, sowing concern about the advisability of reporting on any matter that might provoke the administration’s wrath.
The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s show, following his comments on the murder of Charlie Kirk, has brought these issues into sharp perspective. Kimmel had suggested that Kirk’s killer was aligned with Trump’s MAGA movement and criticized the political instrumentalization of the tragedy. FCC Chairman Carr quickly labeled the comments “sick” and explicitly threatened to suspend ABC’s broadcast license, stating: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”
The subsequent sequence of events revealed the coordination between government pressure and corporate response. Hours after Carr’s threats, the Nexstar Media Group—which needed FCC approval for its $6.2 billion merger with Tegna—announced it would pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! from all its ABC affiliates. Shortly after, ABC suspended the show indefinitely.
Jimmy Kimmel’s latest joke could have been about Putin or China without major consequence, but by referring to the United States, it highlighted what happens when government power allies with corporate cowardice to silence criticism. The show’s suspension symbolizes the erosion of the supposed constitutional guarantees that once seemed inviolable to Americans.
In the United States, press and speech freedom were always conditional. However, successive governments had preferred to tolerate offenses and mockery rather than confront them openly. In Trump’s “America,” free speech translates to permitted speech—only valid when it aligns with the administration’s preferences. Comedians, journalists, students, and lawyers have discovered that exercising supposed First Amendment rights can lead to serious personal, professional, and business consequences.
The new McCarthyism casts its shadow over Trump’s United States, and the world, often forced to follow supposedly “set in stone” precepts, watches impassively. Many American conservatives seem willing to accept this erosion of rights in exchange for political triumph. Time will tell if silencing today’s opponents does not lead to their own silence tomorrow.
At the close of this text, it is already announced that the show will return to the air this Tuesday.Guillis well aware of the real standards of freedom in his country. Everyone will be waiting to see what he says. Kimmel is paid about 15 million dollars annually to host that one-hour nightly comedy show, four times a week. We will soon find out if that eight-figure sum is worth more than the singular principle represented by the First Amendment. Trump will almost certainly demand a public apology meant to set an example. Probably, Kimmel will have no choice but to bow his head.
