This Is Not Funny

Susan Estrich on Sep 20, 2025

"We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, told a right-wing podcaster, "this" being the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel. They did it the easy way. All Carr had to do was speak the words, and within hours, literally, Kimmel was gone from ABC, along with Disney, Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcasting.

"You can't go around firing somebody because you're fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian -- a criminal -- administration in the Oval Office. That's just not how this works," David Letterman said, referring to Kimmel's firing as a sign of "dictatorship."

That's the point; it may not have been how this worked in the past, when you had powerful institutions like The Washington Post and the U.S. courts that stood up to a would-be authoritarian administration, and individuals of conscience who had the courage to resign rather than go along.

But we just saw it happen. It took nothing more than a comment to a podcaster to topple Kimmel. Trump was thrilled. On Air Force One, returning home from the U.K., he praised Carr as "outstanding" and demeaned Kimmel for having "no talent" and being a "whack job."

This is how political speech gets squashed. The president has what he angrily missed in his first term: a team that defined loyalty as a singular Trumpian mission. That's what he has this time around: the team of "toadies" of his very own. He says, "Jump," and they say, "How high?" Does Pete Hegseth ever say no? Does Pam Bondi? Kristi Noem? Kash Patel? Jeanine Pirro? A reporter was giving a hard time to the president about a particular question, and he responded that maybe he should put Pam Bondi, the attorney general, on him. Using the Department of Justice to target those you disagree with is not a joke, either. Ask John Bolton.

How many instances of authoritarian behavior do we have to see before we what? What exactly will we do when we see enough? Why haven't we seen enough already?

There are those who wring their hands about corporate cowardice. But these are businesspeople with large companies with complex risk portfolios that leave them vitally exposed to government malfeasance -- meaning, in English, that President Donald Trump is an enormous bully with a tremendous amount of power who has shown he is willing to use it to reward his friends and punish his enemies. When he says jump, there is no wise inner circle to tell him to stop, and his opponents have far too many reasons to say yes to a powerful man who will stop at nothing to get his way. So why are we surprised that they are not willing to sacrifice the future of their institutions to his capricious will? What would their boards say if they did? Harvard is fighting -- and winning -- but it is also negotiating, and I understand why. Such is Trump's power, and his willingness to use it. How do you match that power, at least until the next election?

I think the answer you're seeing, painful but true, is that you don't. We pick up the paper and scroll down the screen to the latest gloom and doom; it's hard to take in every day and harder still to figure out what to do about it. Oh, we'll find Jimmy Kimmel, and he'll find his way, and comics will not stop doing stand-up because Trump doesn't like it; they'll do more and better.

But cowardice remains an infectious and communicable disease. How many CEOs do you really know who would have done differently?

========

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.