Colbert Exposes CBS Censorship as Trump Admin Targets Critics

When Stephen Colbert opened The Late Show by savaging his own network, viewers knew something was seriously wrong. CBS had banned him from airing an interview with Texas state representative James Talarico, citing threats from FCC Chair Brendan Carr. Colbert's sarcastic response—"this decision is for purely financial reasons"—masked a darker reality about the state of free speech in America.

The FCC's New Interpretation of Old Rules

The immediate trigger was the Federal Communications Commission's recent reinterpretation of the century-old equal-time rule, which requires broadcasters to provide equal opportunities to competing candidates. For decades, talk show interviews fell under a "bona fide news" exemption—a recognition that government interference in editorial decisions would violate press freedom.

But last month, the FCC issued a notice stating it "has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption." This reverses 20 years of precedent dating back to The Tonight Show With Jay Leno.

Notably, this new standard doesn't apply to talk radio—a medium conservatives dominate. The FCC is also investigating ABC's The View for the same Talarico interview that CBS refused to air.

A Broader Pattern of Intimidation

The talk show controversy is just one piece of a larger censorship campaign. The Department of Homeland Security has been using administrative subpoenas—which require no judge or grand jury approval—to demand access to critics' online accounts.

In one case, federal agents showed up at a retiree's door after he used a publicly available email to ask a DHS attorney for mercy toward an asylum seeker. The New York Times reports that Google, Reddit, Discord, and Meta have received hundreds of such subpoenas in recent months, all targeting people who criticized the government.

The Free Speech Phonies Revealed

This represents stunning hypocrisy from an administration that campaigned on defending free expression. During the 2020 campaign, Trump accused the Biden administration of censorship for asking—not demanding—that social media companies remove COVID misinformation.

Trump's first-day executive order declared: "Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans' speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties." This perfectly describes what his own administration is now doing, except with actual government enforcement power behind the threats.

Resistance and Ripple Effects

Some pushback is working. Federal Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, temporarily blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from punishing Senator Mark Kelly over a video reminding service members they can refuse illegal orders. "This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms," Leon wrote.

But censorship's effects are already spreading beyond federal action. At Texas universities, a philosophy professor was forced to remove Plato passages from his syllabus due to new regent policies, while an art exhibition critical of ICE was abruptly canceled.

Why This Should Worry Everyone

These attacks clearly target critics of the president and his policies. But they should concern Americans across the political spectrum. When governments establish precedents for silencing prominent voices, they create tools that future administrations—of any party—can use more broadly.

The partisan nature of current enforcement doesn't guarantee it will stay that way. Power changes hands, and the censorship mechanisms being built today could easily be turned against different targets tomorrow.

During a recent Senate hearing, when Republican Ron Johnson accused Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison of encouraging deadly protests, Ellison shot back: "I freely admit being in favor of the First Amendment." Apparently, this position is no longer universal among elected officials.