Late-night television programs are increasingly hosting interviews with political candidates exclusively online, citing pressure from the Trump administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Most recently, Jimmy Kimmel announced that his planned interview with James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for Texas Senate, would not air on ABC. Instead, the interview was posted to YouTube due to "circumstances beyond our comprehension."
Kimmel stated that the FCC had "threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network, ABC, our affiliates, our local stations, based on simple, traditional editorial decisions — guest bookings it would seem they don’t like." The decision to move the interview online was made out of consideration for local stations, Kimmel said, which would have had to contend with the FCC's actions.
Historically, late-night shows have been exempt from the equal-time rule, which mandates that broadcasters offer equal airtime to candidates vying for the same office. However, the Trump administration declared in January that these shows must comply with the rule. This directive led CBS to decline airing an interview with Talarico on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert the following month. That interview was also relegated to YouTube, where it has accumulated approximately 9.5 million views.
This is not the first instance of conflict between late-night hosts and the FCC under the Trump administration. Kimmel himself experienced a brief suspension the previous year following threats from the FCC chair, and an attempt to have him fired earlier this year was less successful. In a separate action last month, ABC and its parent company, Disney, filed a lawsuit against the FCC over its efforts to compel a review of ABC's broadcast licenses.
The broader context suggests a pattern of challenging media practices. Similar tactics have been observed in competitive authoritarian systems, such as Hungary, as previously noted by Vox columnist Zack Beauchamp. While previous attempts by the administration to influence media content in the U.S. have often been described as clumsy or unsuccessful, these recent actions appear to be having a tangible effect on broadcast decisions.