Is free speech being threatened in the United States? This post examines two recent cases that raise serious concerns about preemptive compliance and censorship.

“With an autocrat you cannot give an inch,” said Stephen Colbert, speaking about convicted felon President Donald Trump.

Two recent media events in the United States have provoked serious concerns about censorship and threats to free speech, a foundational constitutional right. Let’s unpack what’s happening and ask whether free speech is truly under threat in America.

Free speech in question: Stephen Colbert is fired

On July 17, 2025, Stephen Colbert and CBS announced that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert would conclude in May 2026. Colbert had hosted the program for over a decade, famously succeeding David Letterman. Although the network cited financial pressures as the cause, many observers questioned the timing and optics.

Here’s the context: CBS is owned by Paramount Global. During the regulatory review period of the Paramount–Skydance merger, Donald Trump sued the network over a 60 Minutes broadcast. Though many analysts deemed the lawsuit lacking in merit, Paramount agreed to settle for $16 million—a move Colbert publicly deemed “a big fat bribe.”

Because the merger required FCC approval, the federal government had meaningful leverage over Paramount and its subsidiary CBS. Furthermore, Skydance head David Ellison is the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, who has known ties to Trump circles.

Thus, Colbert’s cancellation so soon after his criticism of the settlement was widely viewed by commentators as a form of pre-compliance—anticipatory deference to regulatory pressure, made to safeguard corporate interests.

Pre-compliance is when an institution proactively aligns with what it perceives an authoritarian government wants, suppressing critics or adjusting behavior without a direct order to avoid confrontation or regulatory sanction.

Free speech in question: Jimmy Kimmel pulled from the air

The second example of censorship complaints involves Jimmy Kimmel. After he criticized the political response to the death of Charlie Kirk on September 17, Kimmel’s show was temporarily suspended by ABC. Trump-appointed FCC Chair Brendan Carr publicly criticized Kimmel’s remarks and warned broadcasters that their licenses could be at risk if they didn’t take action against him.

Two major ABC affiliates, Nexstar and Sinclair, announced they were pulling Jimmy Kimmel Live! from their lineups. Notably, Nexstar was seeking major FCC merger approval at the time, and Sinclair was pushing to relax broadcast ownership rules. 

Some Democratic leaders tied the suspension directly to the regulatory leverage of the FCC. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the pressure “outrageous.” Although the suspension was short-lived—the show returned on September 23—not all stations reinstated it immediately, and affiliates like Nexstar and Sinclair initially refused to air it.

Both cases serve as compelling illustrations of how implicit state pressure can coerce powerful media entities without overt orders. They also raise troubling parallels to autocratic strategies of control over speech and public discourse, and merit serious reflection on whether stronger democratic norms and protections are needed to resist such pressures.

Why are these cases concerning for free speech?

Whether you love, loathe, or feel indifferent toward Colbert and Kimmel, these cases should alarm anyone who values free speech. When government authority appears to be misused to silence dissenting voices, freedom itself is at risk. History teaches us two enduring truths about the rise of autocracy:

1. The power of fear. Autocracy thrives when people and institutions pre-comply out of fear—gradually normalizing intimidation as an acceptable tool of governance.

2. The escalation of targets. The first victims are often satirists, immigrants, and marginalized groups—but the authoritarian appetite always grows, consuming those who once felt protected.

Today, as the United States fractures along partisan lines, even the privileged are discovering that power offers no true shield. Authoritarianism eventually consumes everyone, including those who believed themselves insulated from its reach. It’s worth noting that both Colbert and Kimmel are rich, white men.

Seeing corporations preemptively silence criticism and government regulators seemingly wielding their influence to chill free speech is alarming. Yet these incidents represent only one symptom of a far larger and more dangerous pattern emerging in American public life.

Continued reading: Examining Fascism in the United States: Chilling Signs the USA Is Following the Authoritarian Playbook

*Title image by Lara Jameson.