We exist in one of the most dangerous times for free speech and press in America. Mounting government overreach into media and broadcasting has plunged the country down the slippery slope of censorship, leaving democracy precariously exposed. While a healthy tension between the presidential administration and a critical press is to be expected, the gravity of the current terrain became strikingly clear after one of President Donald Trump’s critics was publicly muzzled.

On-air comments during the Sept. 15 episode of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” sparked a firestorm less than a week after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative talking head. In typical late-night fashion, Kimmel took aim at “the MAGA gang” during his opening monologue, criticizing the GOP’s opportunistic politicization of the tragedy and portrayal of the suspect as “anything other than one of them.”

Two days later, the Trump-appointed chair of the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, Brendan Carr, appeared on a right-wing podcast to denounce Kimmel’s statement and issue a stark warning to the larger media landscape: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Leveraging his power to unleash federal cavalry on anyone who dared to cross the administration, he cautioned that broadcast companies must change their conduct or else “there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Carr’s thinly veiled threat proved resonant, as within hours, ABC announced that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” would be suspended indefinitely due to the “ill-timed and insensitive” nature of his comments. Though Kimmel returned to air Sept. 23 following intense public criticism of his removal, the program remained unavailable to roughly 20% of the country as a result of preemption from two major broadcast station owners, Sinclair and Nexstar Media Group. 

To be clear, Kimmel’s suspension was less about his words than about making him an example. His short-lived suspension is only the most recent offensive in the administration’s relentless onslaught on press freedom. In the past year, President Donald Trump has launched a torrent of legal attacks on news outlets and prominent figures, masking an assault on vocal dissent under the flimsy guise of defamation claims. The resulting settlements signal both his success and a worrisome trend of corporate capitulation, abandoning the media’s fundamental demand for government accountability. The implications of these lawsuits are clear — opposition will not go unpunished, and the slightest flex of the federal muscle is enough to render the First Amendment little more than words on a page.

ABC executives’ recent knee-jerk compliance reflects a troubling erosion of the guardrails designed to uphold free speech. A surrender of the press’s independence to scrutinize those in power narrows the avenues of expression for all citizens. Even more alarming is the government’s increasingly brazen contortion of its power to silence critics. Emboldened by a lack of resistance, Trump wields his weaponized authority openly, even recently suggesting that networks critical of him be stripped of their broadcast licenses.

The Trump administration overtly tightens the noose around outspoken voices through threats of regulatory action. This triggers media companies’ self-censorship, undermining the watchdog function of the press, an institution essential to the health of a democratic society. The press does not exist to cater to the powerful; it exists to hold them to account. If media leaders won’t defend that role, the public must continue to demand it.

The notion that Kimmel’s remarks were insensitive and careless is not without merit. Still, freedom of expression is not contingent on delicacy. Our First Amendment rights exist precisely because speech carries the risk of offense. The question is not whether Kimmel’s words were worthy of condemnation, but whether the subsequent retaliation was justified or the product of an overreach of federal power. If protections extend only to what is agreeable, we risk the abandonment of our fundamental rights for a hollowed-out distortion of free speech.

When the guardians of news and culture wither in the face of danger, the buffer between the government and the people fractures. Rather than resisting selective censorship, corporate media has proved itself quick to yield to pressure in exchange for the semblance of freedom. This poses a harrowing threat to future speech, particularly for smaller stations left vulnerable to government influence with little to leverage in defense. Until entertainment executives push back in the name of democratic ideals, we are at the mercy of an administration intolerant of criticism, where unfavorable coverage is met with intimidation. 

The start of America’s descent into fascism will not occur in silence. It will be accompanied by glaring signs: the suppression of dissent, the manipulation of mainstream media and the pressure to bend to political will. Today, these threats are no longer distant or abstract. They are visible in the fragility of independent media and the ease with which outlets for expression can be interrupted. 

Democracy and a free press are inseparable — one cannot survive without the other. Belief in the sanctity of constitutional principles is not selective; its coverage extends beyond simply those we agree with. Upholding free speech means defending the uncomfortable, the controversial and even the offensive. When one voice is stifled, the expression of all is jeopardized.

Taylor Zinnie is a third-year criminal justice and psychology combined major. She can be reached at [email protected].

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor in response to this piece, email [email protected] with your idea.