Bill Simmons, Jimmy Kimmel’s longtime friend, says the late-night host’s career isn’t over, even after ABC pulled his show following remarks about Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Simmons spoke on his own podcast, arguing that Kimmel will land somewhere else and continue to reach audiences with his content. He stressed that his support is for Kimmel, not the network that pulled the show, and framed the decision as a pivotal test of how ABC will respond to a high-profile talent.
Simmons, who has known Kimmel for about 24 years, said he believes his friend will not be prevented from continuing to do the work he loves. “I hope Jimmy’s show sticks around and I hope ABC sticks by him, and I think if they don’t it would be pretty cowardly. I don’t think it’s a crazy thing to say. If they don’t stick by him and this is the end, I think he’s going to be fine,” Simmons said on the self-titled podcast. “He’ll find another platform somewhere and he’ll figure out how to get all his content out in the right ways and I would not bet against that dude.” Simmons described the moment as unfortunate, noting the online and on-air reaction around free speech but emphasizing that the situation could also catalyze opportunities for Kimmel to reestablish his reach.
Image: Bill Simmons on Kimmel podcast
Simmons framed the dynamics as a clash of leverage within the industry, arguing that Kimmel’s stature within ABC translates to a different kind of pressure than the Colbert situation at CBS. He pointed to Kimmel’s central role at the network—hosting “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” shaping the Oscars, and dealing with the network’s upfront presentations—and suggested that the balance of power in this moment hinges on who is closer to the network’s identity. “I just think he means more to ABC in a bunch of different ways,” Simmons said, adding that the “face” of ABC carries weight in negotiations and strategy, perhaps more so than Colbert represents for CBS. He compared the two late-night ecosystems and underscored how the power pendulum can shift when a network has greater leverage than its rivals but also more to lose if it mismanages a marquee figure.
Simmons also touched on the broader industry context, noting the pending Nexstar merger with Tegna that would require FCC approval and the public stance of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr on Kimmel’s removal. He described the decision as censorship, arguing that the network’s action was not just a personnel issue but a press-freedom argument that resonates with audiences and talent alike. “Jimmy’s show isn’t quite powerful enough for Disney to defend it the same way NBC would have defended ‘Saturday Night Live’ in a similar circumstance,” Simmons said, referencing the corporate calculus that often guides how far a network will go to protect content. He acknowledged the corporate constraints and the political realities that complicate corporate defense of a show that has become a lightning rod for free-speech debates.
Image: Jimmy Kimmel show on ABC
Simmons offered a nuanced view of Disney’s potential response. He suggested that Disney may ultimately decide to stand by Kimmel as a matter of principle, especially given the host’s long tenure and track record of elevating the company’s brand in moments of high visibility. “Maybe what Disney is realizing is that at some point you have to stand for something,” Simmons said. He added that a refusal to back a familiar face could erode the network’s identity and long-term relationship with audiences, even as practical concerns about affiliates and regulatory pressures loom.
If the parties eventually part ways, Simmons did not suggest a doomsday scenario for Kimmel. He described him as one of the most competitive people he knows, who consistently produces high-quality content. The broader question, he said, is whether Kimmel even needs ABC anymore given his independence and the ways audiences access his work. “The bigger question for me: Why does Jimmy need ABC anymore?” Simmons said, signaling that a future outside the traditional late-night framework might be both plausible and potentially beneficial for Kimmel’s creative and distribution goals.
Simmons acknowledged that the absence of a definitive return timeline leaves room for speculation, but he stressed that the last 24 hours—during which supporters rallied around the show and the concept of free speech—underscore a public appetite for accountability and transparency in how networks handle controversial statements. He cautioned against underestimating Kimmel’s ability to adapt, noting that the presenter has previously navigated shifts in the media landscape and remained a fixture in ABC’s portfolio. On his podcast, Simmons reiterated his confidence in his friend’s resilience and highlighted that the next steps are not simply about a return to late-night but about redefining how content is distributed in a changing media ecosystem.
Image: Jimmy Kimmel in Los Angeles
In closing, Simmons emphasized that the episode reflects a broader moment for television, streaming, and entertainment where the lines between platform loyalties and audience expectations are continually renegotiated. He suggested viewers should watch how ABC and Disney respond to the challenge, not as a verdict on Kimmel alone but as a bellwether for how media companies balance creative leadership with corporate responsibility under growing scrutiny. The conversation, he said, may herald a new phase in late-night where talent mobility, platform diversification, and the imperative to uphold open dialogue converge to redefine what it means to be a public-facing host in the 21st century.