Schumer: Gov’t Pushed ABC to Suspend Kimmel, Should Be Lawsuits Over That

On Wednesday night, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went on CNN’s OutFront to defend late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose show has been indefinitely suspended after inflammatory remarks about the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. But in doing so, Schumer painted a picture of America that many would find exaggerated, invoking comparisons to communist China and Vladimir Putin’s Russia while framing the move as a dangerous step toward dictatorship.

Schumer argued that Kimmel’s suspension was thanks to government pressure and warned that lawsuits are certain to follow. “Trump and his allies seem to want to shut down speech that they don’t like to hear. That is not what democracies do. That is what autocracies do. And it doesn’t matter whether you agree with Kimmel or not, he has the right to free speech. And so, it is just outrageous, it is indicative of autocracy. And I am just outraged by it. Again, this is what dictators do, this is what Xi would do, this is what Putin would do. We are not that country,” Schumer declared.

The senator doubled down, insisting, “They have a right to say it on ABC, they have a right to say it in newspapers, they have a right to say it to their friends and families. And this puts this country [on] a road that could go to autocracy if this keeps going.”

He then suggested that courts will be forced to weigh in. “The courts have always defended free speech. Let’s see if they step up to the plate, because I’m sure there will be lawsuits about this and there ought to be, right away,” Schumer said.

At the heart of Schumer’s argument is the claim that Kimmel’s suspension is proof of government suppression. But what gets lost in this narrative is the role of private companies in setting their own standards. ABC, Disney, and Nexstar did not act under martial law or an edict from Washington—they acted as broadcasters responsible to shareholders, advertisers, and viewers. In a free-market system, private entities reserve the right to distance themselves from content they view as harmful, offensive, or damaging to their reputation. That is not autocracy; that is accountability.

The irony here is hard to ignore. For years, many of these same cultural voices have pressured corporations to silence conservatives—whether on social media, in advertising, or on college campuses—under the banner of fighting “misinformation” or “hate speech.” Yet when a network decides that a late-night host crossed a line with remarks about a political assassination, suddenly the outcry is that democracy itself is at risk. It highlights a double standard where “free speech” is championed only when it protects one side of the cultural debate.

Schumer’s comparison to Xi and Putin underscores how far some will go rhetorically to defend a political ally. The reality is that in true autocracies, opposition leaders vanish, newspapers are shut down by force, and television networks are controlled by the state. In the United States, by contrast, networks make business decisions in a competitive marketplace. Kimmel’s indefinite suspension reflects a calculation that his words were not only insensitive but damaging to public trust. That is not the boot of dictatorship—it is a rare moment of responsibility from institutions that too often look the other way when their stars cross the line.

The broader question here is whether the courts should even be involved. The First Amendment protects citizens from government suppression of speech, not from private consequences in the workplace. Conservative Americans know this all too well, as countless employees, business owners, and commentators have faced termination, deplatforming, or boycotts for their beliefs. Yet rather than take to the airwaves and compare the United States to Russia, they have consistently argued for a common-sense principle: free speech is not freedom from accountability.

Schumer’s comments may resonate with his base, but they ignore the deeper issue—that public trust is eroded when media figures exploit tragedy for political gain. Kimmel’s case is not about silencing dissent; it is about recognizing that with a national platform comes responsibility. Networks made a decision that aligned with their values, their audiences, and their bottom line. To compare that decision to dictatorship is not just hyperbolic—it diminishes the real threats posed by genuine authoritarian regimes abroad.

At a time when the country faces serious challenges, from economic strain to global instability, Americans deserve honesty and accountability in public discourse. The louder the cries of “autocracy” ring out over corporate decisions, the more they reveal the selective outrage of those who were content with censorship when it targeted their political opponents. For conservatives, this moment is a reminder of why consistent principles matter: free speech, yes—but also the responsibility to wield it without tearing at the fabric of the nation.