What was the nature of the feud between President Trump and Jimmy Kimmel?
Executive summary
The feud is an ongoing public spat in which President Trump has repeatedly demanded that ABC pull Jimmy Kimmel’s show, calling Kimmel “no talent” and urging networks to fire him after Kimmel’s on‑air attacks; Kimmel has fired back on his show and social platforms, mocking Trump and framing the attempts at removal as censorship [1] [2] [3]. The fight has included a brief September suspension of Kimmel’s program under pressure from big affiliates and an FCC chair’s comments, a rapid reversal by ABC, and renewed rounds of insults tied to Kimmel’s jokes about Jeffrey Epstein and other Trump‑related scandals [4] [5] [6].
1. A collision of comedy and presidency: how it started
The animus traces to Kimmel’s vocal criticism of Trump and his family on late‑night television; Trump has long targeted late‑night hosts and specifically singled out Kimmel in social posts and public comments, escalating in 2025 as Trump celebrated the cancellation of other hosts and suggested Kimmel should be next [7] [8] [9]. Kimmel’s monologues routinely lampoon the president; Trump’s responses have been personal and public, focused on urging networks to remove him from the air [6] [3].
2. A network showdown: suspension, affiliates and the FCC
In September, ABC briefly suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! after pressure from major affiliates Nexstar and Sinclair following Kimmel’s remarks about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk; the suspension was reversed days later amid public backlash [4] [5]. The episode involved Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr publicly criticizing Kimmel and hinting at regulatory consequences, raising concerns — reported in the press — about political pressure affecting broadcast decisions [5] [4].
3. The latest flare‑up: Epstein jokes and a presidential demand
In November, Kimmel used his monologue to mock Trump over the Jeffrey Epstein files and related developments; within hours the president posted on Truth Social denouncing Kimmel, repeating attacks about ratings and talent and demanding ABC “get the bum off the air” [1] [6] [10]. Kimmel returned fire on his show, calling the president a “snowflake,” borrowing the “Quiet, piggy” line and treating Trump’s calls for firing as proof he’s being watched — and as material for more jokes [11] [3].
4. Competing frames: free speech vs. accountability
Supporters of Kimmel frame his monologues as standard late‑night political satire and a protected exercise of free speech; when ABC reinstated him after the September suspension, critics of the suspension called the affiliate and FCC pressure an overreach that risked censorship [5] [4]. Conversely, Trump and his allies argue broadcasters have editorial responsibility and should not promote what they call biased coverage — a position used to justify repeated calls to remove certain hosts [1] [6].
5. Political theater with institutional consequences
The feud is not purely personal; it has produced real institutional effects — affiliate refusals to air programming, a network suspension, public FCC commentary, and a national debate over whether regulatory or corporate pressure can, or should, be used to discipline on‑air speech [5] [4]. News outlets document that these episodes have fed each other: Kimmel’s jokes provoke presidential posts, which in turn become fodder for new monologues [2] [3].
6. What the reporting shows — and what it doesn’t
Reporting consistently documents the back‑and‑forth: Trump’s Truth Social posts calling for Kimmel’s firing and Kimmel’s televised rebuttals [1] [6] [3]. Available sources do not mention internal ABC board deliberations, any private communications between the White House and Disney/ABC executives beyond public pressure from affiliates and FCC comments, nor do they provide independent verification of some of Trump’s subjective claims about ratings and talent — those remain assertions in presidential posts and media reports [1] [5].
7. Why this matters to audiences and media governance
The dispute illustrates a broader tension: entertainers performing political commentary, a president seeking to use public regulatory leverage or public pressure against critics, and broadcast companies navigating commercial, legal and reputational risk [5] [4]. Journalistic accounts cited here show the feud fuels ratings and headlines while also prompting debate about free speech, regulatory impartiality and the role of media owners and affiliates when political pressure mounts [2] [5].
Sources cited: reporting from Deadline, The Guardian, The New York Times, CNN, Variety, Wikipedia and related outlets as summarized above [1] [4] [11] [2] [6] [8] [9] [5] [3].