What was the context of Jimmy Kimmel's criticism of Trump that led to the alleged call?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The context of Jimmy Kimmel's criticism of Trump that led to the alleged call centers around the murder of MAGA activist Charlie Kirk and Trump's reaction to it. According to multiple sources, Kimmel made pointed comments about how Trump and his allies responded to Kirk's death, with one source noting that Kimmel compared Trump's reaction to "how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish" [1].
Kimmel's specific criticism involved two key elements: First, he mocked Trump's reaction to Charlie Kirk's murder, and second, he made controversial comments about the connection between the suspect and the "MAGA gang" [1]. One source indicates that Kimmel stated Trump and his allies were "desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them" [2]. These comments were perceived as making light of the murder, though Kimmel later clarified "it was never his intention to make light of the murder" [3].
The immediate consequence was Kimmel's 6-day suspension by Disney, which owns ABC [4]. During this suspension period, Trump reportedly welcomed the action and made threatening statements about ABC. When Kimmel returned to air, Trump escalated his response through social media, criticizing ABC for bringing Kimmel back and suggesting he might pursue legal action [5]. Trump specifically stated, "I think we're going to test ABC out on this. Let's see how we do" [4], and threatened that Kimmel "puts the Network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE" [6].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Several important contextual elements emerge from the analyses that provide a broader understanding of this controversy. The incident occurred within a larger pattern of Trump's conflicts with media companies, as one source notes that "Trump has a history of suing media companies, including ABC, and has settled out of court for $16 million in the past" [5].
The controversy also intersects with broader concerns about press freedom and authoritarian measures. Expert analysis from NPR features interviews with Marty Baron and Adam Liptak, who "express concerns about the potential for authoritarian measures to control speech and the press" [7]. This analysis includes discussion of "the FCC's role in the story, including Chairman Brendan Carr's comments" [7], suggesting government regulatory involvement beyond just Trump's personal threats.
An alternative perspective on the longevity and significance of this conflict comes from business analysis, which suggests this "could last longer than most stories and that it pits a broadcast-network talk show host against a president who cares about what happens on broadcast-network talk shows" [8]. This framing positions the conflict as particularly significant given Trump's known sensitivity to television coverage.
The sources also reveal that Trump's administration allegedly attempted broader coercion, with reports that "Trump's administration tried to coerce ABC affiliates to take Kimmel's show off the air" [3], which Kimmel described as "un-American" and "dangerous" [3]. Additionally, there are mentions of "the Pentagon's new policy requiring reporters to pledge not to collect or distribute unauthorized information" [7], suggesting a broader crackdown on media freedom.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question itself appears neutral and factual, simply asking for context about Kimmel's criticism. However, the phrasing "alleged call" suggests some uncertainty about whether Trump actually made direct contact, when the sources indicate the threats were primarily made through public social media posts and statements rather than private calls [5] [6].
The most significant bias risk lies in the framing of the underlying incident. While sources consistently report that Kimmel made comments about Charlie Kirk's murder and Trump's reaction, there are varying interpretations of Kimmel's intent and the appropriateness of his remarks. Some sources emphasize Kimmel's later clarification that he didn't intend to make light of the murder [3], while others focus on the controversial nature of connecting the suspect to the "MAGA gang" [1].
The characterization of Trump's response also varies significantly across sources. Some frame it as legitimate criticism of inappropriate comedy (implied in p2_s1), while others characterize it as "a basic free speech violation" [8] and part of broader "authoritarian measures" [7]. This divergence suggests that both the original incident and the subsequent responses are being interpreted through different political lenses, making objective assessment challenging.