Debate: Is Trump's FCC seeking political retribution against Kimmel?

[0:00] The day after the president and the first lady called for Jimmy Kimmel to be fired by ABC for [0:04] joking that Melania Trump looks like an expectant widow in a skit, Donald Trump's FCC is targeting [0:10] the network's station licenses. The initial inquiries were sent in March. They were just [0:15] reported today. And it is the FCC's job to see what's happening on the airwaves. I just think [0:20] from ABC's vantage point, it's extremely inconsistent. They've had no issue firing [0:25] Roseanne Barr in two seconds. She tried to apologize. They said no way. They fired Chris [0:29] Harrison from The Bachelor because he said, should we fire somebody and get rid of her for [0:33] going to a party when she was a teen? And I'd like to remind people too. I mean, when Obama was [0:38] president, there was literally a clown at a rodeo in Missouri who made a joke about Obama getting [0:45] gored by a bullet. He got fired. So unless it's Trump, we have a very high standard for what we [0:50] expect of entertainment employees and what we expect in terms of being respectful to the president. And [0:56] I would remind people as well, you know, there was another assassination attempt at the Hilton, [1:01] obviously against Ronald Reagan the last time. And after that incident, the country was so shaken. [1:06] Johnny Carson, who was a Democrat, decided to postpone the Oscars because he thought it would [1:11] be inappropriate to be celebrating and cheering when there was such an act of political violence. [1:16] And you juxtapose that with Jimmy Kimmel, who continues to double down and ridicule and make fun [1:23] of Melania. It would have been so easy for him to say, I screwed up. I apologize and take some [1:30] responsibility. And instead, he just wants to continue to victim blame Donald Trump for getting [1:35] shot at. Seriously? Although in this particular case, Kimmel would have had to have some prior [1:39] knowledge of what was going to happen in this case to have something to apologize for. [1:43] Yeah, but the timing was unfortunate enough that he might as well have said, you know what? [1:46] I'm not sure. [1:47] That was unfortunate timing. I wish that hadn't been said. [1:50] I suppose one could say that, but he also made a joke on Thursday. The bad thing that we are all [1:56] alluding to here happened on Saturday. The two are not connected in any meaningful sense. And again, [2:01] what you said earlier is worth repeating. The several attacks that have happened directed at [2:07] Donald Trump are egregious. It's shaken me quite a bit, honestly, to think that in the United States, [2:13] in the year of our Lord, 2026, people are taking shots at the president. And this is disconcerting. [2:20] At the same time, it doesn't seem appropriate to me that the response from the administration is, [2:25] well, let's start cracking down on everyone who is saying anything directed at the president, [2:29] even if it has no connection whatsoever to an assassination plot. That, to me, again, [2:34] stracks of pettiness. It seems vindictive. And again, it runs afoul of our laws. If there is a [2:40] legitimate concern about systematic discrimination on the part of broadcasters here, the FCC would [2:46] pretty much have grounds to go after every broadcaster in America related to DEI policies. [2:51] Including, by the way, Fox, which has DEI policies, just like all the other networks. [2:57] But anyway, Ellie. [2:58] Private entities have the right to fire people if they want, if they don't like that person's speech. [3:03] But the real fundamental question here has to do with governmental power. Do we want the FCC [3:08] policing the content of speech? Because that's a totally different thing. The First Amendment [3:14] applies to governmental action. It doesn't apply directly to ABC. And so if the FCC is throwing [3:19] its governmental weight around to try to influence speech, to try to punish certain speech, that is [3:25] where the First Amendment is violated. [3:27] Punish, throw your weight around, going back to the first segment. When you talk about regulation, [3:32] the biggest thing that's changed since Ronald Reagan's horrible assassination attempt at that [3:36] same hotel, and we would talk about it in the break, is the internet. Things now on the internet [3:41] make us want to hate each other because we're team red or team blue because it makes people literally [3:47] rich. [3:47] For a while, it seemed that the free speech argument was the argument being made on the right [3:53] by people like Elon Musk, by people like J.D. Vance, who last year went to Europe and lectured [3:59] them about protecting free speech. Listen. [4:01] In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat. So I come here today not [4:09] just with an observation, but with an offer. And just as the Biden administration seemed desperate [4:14] to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely [4:21] the opposite. And I hope that we can work together on that. In Washington, there is a new sheriff [4:27] in town. And under Donald Trump's leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will [4:32] fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square. [4:37] Unless you are a late night comedian, Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, or frankly, anybody [4:43] who criticizes President Trump, they won't defend your right to say things they disagree [4:46] with then. [4:47] Well, the president is not prosecuting, you know, Jimmy Kimmel. He's saying he should [4:51] be fired. And that could be his opinion. If you, if you joked about someone's death, which [4:55] he believed he did, go ahead, you know, criticize them. [4:57] The government doesn't necessarily mean prosecution. [4:59] So he's using the government to bring something that they brought in March of 2025. They started [5:03] this in March of 2025. [5:04] You can use the government's regulatory power. [5:07] I'm not talking just about this, because don't forget, Brendan Carr made this threat first [5:12] last fall. So the threat of using the government's regulatory power to police speech and police [5:20] the actions of private corporations, that has been unequivocally put on the table. [5:24] And I'm not the, hold on, hold on a second. I am not the only, I am not the only person [5:31] saying that. Here's Ted Cruz today. He says, it is not the government's job to censor. I do [5:38] not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police. Ted Cruz, he is no, he is no hater. He's [5:47] no rhino. He believes that this action, and he was consistent. The last action, the last comment [5:54] by Brendan Carr, he was very clear that he believed that that was a clear evidence of [5:59] jawboning, which is using the threat to coerce speech. So it doesn't require that you throw [6:04] somebody in jail. Just the threat of using regulatory power to coerce their actions is [6:10] what is happening. [6:10] Nobody's getting threatened. The FCC is not threatening to throw anybody in jail. [6:12] So are you denying that Brendan Carr did not issue a threat in the fall to ABC or to Disney [6:18] that they would view? [6:19] Chairman Carr's letter in March 2025 was about to mention it. [6:21] Joe, simple question. Did Brendan Carr in the fall say that he would, that he would take [6:28] a look at Disney's FCC licenses because of the comments that Jimmy Kimmel made? [6:34] I don't remember, but I can tell you what he put in writing. [6:35] Well, I can tell you, I can tell you. I can tell you what he put in writing. [6:37] Hold on a second. I can tell you. He did say that. So given that he said that, do you acknowledge [6:43] that's him using his power as a government entity to try to coerce the actions of a private [6:49] company? [6:50] You are trying to stretch something that is on paper that you can read with your own [6:54] eyes and see. The chairman's letter involves Disney's DEI policies, which the FCC has been [7:00] regulating equal employment practices since something like 1968 or 1969. Every time a license [7:06] gets renewed, they have to apply the same standards to everybody. And one of those standards is employment [7:10] practices. If Disney has, I mean, it's a good question. Why aren't they applying this standard [7:16] across the board? Why are they reviewing? Well, hold on. But if Disney has nothing to hide about [7:21] their government practices, why don't they go to you? [7:23] Joe, Disney's licenses are not up for renewal. They're not. [7:26] They're up in 2028. They've expedited the process. [7:28] They are not up for renewal right now. [7:30] The way we are talking about this at this table, all of us, exposes that this is a pretext [7:34] piled atop another pretext. We all know this is not about DEI policies. We're not even [7:40] really talking about it this way. We know it's about the content of speech. We know it's about [7:45] the jokes Jimmy Kimmel made. We know it's about the kind of things that he says. That's what's [7:50] prompting all of this. I would have made it about DEI got interrupted 20 times. [7:53] Which broadcaster hasn't made commitments to do this kind of DEI hiring? [7:57] Disney has a policy that 50% of their characters [7:59] Do you know of any broadcaster that hasn't done this? [8:01] Underrepresented groups. [8:02] Do you know of any broadcaster that hasn't made similar commitments since 2020? [8:06] No. And when their licenses get renewed, I imagine the FCC isn't up for renewal. [8:10] What we know is that the process was actually expedited here. In fact, it seems as though [8:14] they've expedited the process in the last couple of days. Why do you suspect that happened? [8:20] The process began in March of 2025. [8:23] I'm inviting you to speculate. [8:24] It was done over the last year. You pointed out something that happened in the fall. [8:27] So this has been ongoing for over a year. [8:29] I'm asking you why they're expediting now. [8:30] I'm just telling you that there is an ongoing inquiry by the FCC and that Disney has nothing [8:36] to hide about their DEI policies. [8:38] The answer is not convenient. [8:39] I don't think it's in good faith to suggest that things that happened in recent history that [8:46] were big stories at the time didn't happen. They happened, right? We know that Brendan Carr's threats [8:54] to Disney, that was the big story. And he was crystal clear about it. Even Republicans had to [9:00] rebuke him. And that's why they ultimately backed down and they put Jimmy Kimmel back on the air. [9:06] So we can't pretend like that didn't happen. We can't pretend that that's not the context. [9:11] We also can't pretend that the context isn't that Trump has specifically [9:16] asked and told ABC that they should take Kimmel off the air. So all of that, [9:23] Joe, I mean, if you're being honest, I think my final question to you, it's just sort of like [9:37] in the last segment when we were talking about this. Do you really believe that this is the proper use [9:44] of the federal government? You are a conservative, okay? JD Vance said, we will protect your right to [9:50] say things we don't like. Is it the right use of the government for the FCC chairman to threaten [9:56] a private company over speech that the president doesn't like? The FCC chairman put in writing a [10:01] question about the DEI policies, which they have jurisdiction to oversee. If Disney does not have [10:06] anything to hide about the DEI policies, go through the review and comply. Disney, by the way, [10:11] Disney has said, we're going to comply. Disney has said, we're going to comply. You're right, [10:14] chairman. We're going to comply. What about cars threats in the fall? Good use of... [10:17] I don't remember. I honestly don't remember. Okay, well, I'm telling you that it happened. [10:20] Good use of his time or bad use of his time. Maybe a bad use. [10:23] Good use of the government. It doesn't preclude the fact... [10:24] I'm just asking, listen, Joe, all I'm getting at is honesty. That's all I'm getting at. [10:30] I'm quoting from a letter. Hold on a second. [10:32] All I'm getting at is can we be honest brokers at this table? Can we call a spade a spade? [10:40] If you're a conservative and you have fundamental beliefs about the role of government, [10:43] about free speech, can you apply those even when you like the president? Can you? [10:49] Conservatives are in favor of applying equal employment laws to companies. [10:53] And this looks like selective enforcement because every single broadcaster has the DEI policies. [10:57] I think we know what the answer to that question is.