Donald Trump calls for Jimmy Kimmel's firing again, claiming he lacks talent. Kimmel dismissed Trump's comments on his show, addressing the president's history of targeting him and linking it to past network pressures.
Trump demands Kimmel's firing on social media
Kimmel mocks Trump's attempts on his show
Recent FCC review relates to Kimmel’s situation
Kimmel offers to resign if Trump does
Kimmel calls Trump a "snowflake"
Meyers also responds to Trump’s comments
Since 2015 the feud between Donald Trump and Jimmy Kimmel has intensified, leading to repeated clashes and the recent jimmy kimmel suspension. This kimmel suspension feud shows how the trump feud shapes media now shapes media coverage and shapes media freedom, with Trump pressuring networks and influencing decisions behind the kimmel suspension. [1][3][5][6][7]
Key Events Leading to Suspension and Reinstatement of Jimmy Kimmel’s Show
In September 2025, following Kimmel’s critical remarks about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, ABC affiliates Nexstar and Sinclair pressured the network to suspend Kimmel’s show.[2][11]
The Trump-appointed FCC chair Brendan Carr publicly criticized Kimmel and supported actions that led to the show’s temporary suspension.[11][2]
ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely, a move met with substantial backlash from entertainment figures and free speech advocates.[12][2]
The suspension was lifted within days, reinstating the show amid public outcry.[8][13]
Jimmy Kimmel’s Strong On-Air Response and Continued Defiance
Kimmel acknowledged Trump’s repeated attempts to get him fired and responded on his show with sarcasm and sharp retorts. On one occasion, Kimmel told Trump, “Quiet, piggy,” echoing Trump’s own insult to a Bloomberg reporter, and said he would leave the show only “when Trump goes”. Kimmel described Trump’s behavior as “snowflake” reactions to critical commentary and framed the feud as reflecting efforts to stifle critical voices in the media.[4][6][9][13][8]
Role of the FCC and Regulatory Dynamics Affecting the Media Landscape
Brendan Carr’s role as FCC chair signaled a shift toward greater federal intervention in broadcast content, aligned with Trump’s political priorities. The FCC threatened to revoke ABC affiliates’ licenses over dissatisfaction with Kimmel’s segments, a rare and controversial regulatory stance. The FCC announced a public review of the power balance between national broadcasters and local affiliates, pointing to possible future regulatory changes affecting content control.[2][11]
Critical Issues Surrounding Media Freedom and Political Influence
The tension between political criticism and perceived censorship.
The interplay between national networks and local broadcast affiliates under FCC oversight.
The broader impact of government influence on media freedom in the United States.
Sophia Clarke is a senior international journalist with nine years of experience covering global politics, human rights, and international diplomacy.
She earned her M.A. in International Relations and Journalism from the University of Oxford (2016), where she specialized in global governance, conflict reporting, and cross-cultural communication.
Sophia began her career as a foreign correspondent for BBC World Service and later joined The Guardian, where her insightful analyses and on-the-ground reporting from Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America earned her recognition for accuracy and integrity.
Now based in Paris, France, Sophia contributes to Faharas NET, providing comprehensive coverage of diplomatic affairs, humanitarian issues, and policy developments shaping the international landscape. Her storytelling combines investigative depth, journalistic ethics, and a strong commitment to amplifying underrepresented voices in global dialogue.
Theguardian.com is the digital heartbeat of a 204-year-old newspaper that refuses to erect a paywall. Since migrating online in 1999, the site has grown into a 24-hour global newsroom serving 25 million unique browsers each day, with two-thirds of that traffic originating outside the United Kingdom. From a converted cotton mill in Kings Cross, 600 journalists file in English, Arabic and Hindi, while satellite bureaus in Sydney, Hong Kong, Washington, Lagos and Mexico City ensure the sun never sets on Guardian coverage.
Investigative rigour remains the calling card. The 2013 Edward Snowden revelations, published in partnership with the Washington Post, exposed the NSA’s bulk-data dragnet and earned the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. More recently, the “Pegasus Project” consortium led by Guardian editors uncovered how military-grade spyware sold to 40 governments targeted journalists, human-rights lawyers and even heads of state; the series triggered parliamentary inquiries on four continents and export-license suspensions in Israel and Spain. Every leak undergoes a three-layer verification process: technical forensic analysis, legal consultation under UK defamation law, and an internal “sensitivity board” that weighs public interest against personal harm.
The newsroom’s centre-left stance is declared in an editorial code posted on every page, yet opinion and reportage are physically separated. Columnists such as Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee argue for progressive taxation and climate action on dedicated “Comment is Free” pages, while breaking-news live-blogs use neutral phrasing and link to primary documents court filings, scientific papers, leaked spreadsheets so readers can audit sourcing in real time.
This transparency ethos extends to corrections: errors are struck through in red at the top of articles, accompanied by a timestamp and editor’s note explaining what changed and why.
Funding comes from readers, not advertisers. After watching digital ad rates plummet 40 % between 2016 and 2018, Guardian Media Group pivoted to a voluntary membership model. Supporters can contribute £5 a month or make one-time gifts; in return they receive fewer on-site appeals and access to the “Guardian Extra” newsletter that discloses upcoming investigations. By 2023 reader revenue exceeded £50 million annually, covering 55 % of editorial costs and insulating coverage from corporate pressure. No shareholder dividends are paid; profits are reinvested into climate, inequality and human-rights reporting.
Sport, culture and lifestyle verticals attract younger audiences who may arrive for a Champions League match tracker and stay for long-reads on refugee policy. The “Football Weekly” podcast averages 1.2 million downloads per episode, while interactive guides such as “How to read the IPCC report in five charts” distill complex science into shareable visuals. Whether chronicling COP negotiations, live-blogging royal funerals or explaining why lettuce prices tripled overnight, theguardian.com delivers open-access journalism Platform financed by citizens who believe factual, fearless reporting is a public good worth paying for.
Elena Voren is a senior journalist and Tech Section Editor with 8 years of experience focusing on AI ethics, social media impact, and consumer software. She is recognized for interviewing industry leaders and academic experts while clearly distinguishing opinion from evidence-based reporting.
She earned her B.A. in Cognitive Science from the University of California, Berkeley (2016), where she studied human-computer interaction, AI, and digital behavior.
Elena’s work emphasizes the societal implications of technology, ensuring readers understand both the practical and ethical dimensions of emerging tools. She leads the Tech Section at Faharas NET, supervising coverage on AI, consumer software, digital society, and privacy technologies, while maintaining rigorous editorial standards.
Based in Berlin, Germany, Elena provides insightful analyses on technology trends, ethical AI deployment, and the influence of social platforms on modern life.
