When Trump Sets Another Hollywood Trap - 9/22/25

Donald Trump has pulled this stunt many, many times. Before Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, there were Alec Baldwin and Rosie O’Donnell. Over the years, he has launched attacks on Meryl Streep and Madonna, on Arnold Schwarzenegger and Snoop Dogg, on Chrissy Teigen and Cher, and too many other celebrities to count. 

Part of this springs from the president’s natural, feral instinct to lash out at anyone who criticizes him for any reason. But Trump and his advisors also recognize the aversion that many of his working-class supporters harbor toward the coastal elites who populate New York and Hollywood and who provide an unsurpassed opportunity to deepen the cultural divisions that have twice propelled him to the Oval Office. Trump continuously looks for similar fights to pick with Ivy League universities or Democratic-run big cities because he intuitively understands that he can rally his base quickly and effectively by stoking their resentments toward those whose privilege they believe has given them an unfair advantage and causes them to look down at everyday Americans. 

So in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s tragic death earlier this month, it was inevitable that a left-leaning entertainer would say or do something to disrespect Kirk’s memory that would provide Trump with an opening to pounce. Kimmel, the late-night host who (like Colbert) is a frequent critic of the president but who (unlike Colbert) often does not bother to attempt to lace his criticism with humor, wandered into the presidential crosshairs with relatively innocuous, likely incorrect, and intentionally unamusing comments about the “MAGA gang” attempting to achieve political goals in the wake of Kirk’s murder. Kimmel was not telling a joke but was simply denouncing Trump allies for their efforts to censure Kirk’s critics.

All in all, it was pretty unremarkable stuff. There has been far more inflammatory and much more inexcusable language offered from both sides of the political spectrum during this argument. As I said last week, the tragic death of a young man should be a matter for mourning—regardless of his or your politics. But far too many zealots in both parties saw it as an opportunity to denounce their opponents and attempt to “score political points,” as Kimmel had accused Trump’s backers of doing.

Kimmel wasn’t wrong, just incomplete. Because the “MAGA gang” he ridiculed were being exactly as tasteless as their progressive counterparts. But Brendan Carr, Trump’s appointee as chair of the Federal Elections Commission, began issuing not-so-veiled threats, and soon the presidential outrage machine was operating on all cylinders. 

What separated this sideshow from the typical Hollywood-bashing in which Trump often indulges are the questions of free speech and potential censorship that the president and his advisors raised through their threats against Kimmel’s employers at ABC (and a wide array of others who had decried Kirk’s politics). Vice President J.D. Vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller, and many others warned of potential consequences for Kirk’s detractors, as did Trump himself.

The mainstream political news media and Democratic party leaders, who usually roll their eyes or offer perfunctory criticism of Trump’s tirades against actors, singers, and athletes, leaped at the bait. The legitimate First Amendment controversy that the president’s team had intentionally instigated was now dominating national news coverage and online digital debate. Trump, whose base has been growing increasingly restless over unsettling news on inflation, jobs, immigration, Gaza, and Ukraine, happily welcomed the controversy as a helpful distraction to remind his supporters why they line up with him against wealthy, liberal celebrities.

Democrats are already arguing amongst themselves to what extent they should emphasize issues relating to censorship and democracy in next year’s campaigns. The questions about whether a government can coerce certain behavior or forbid public speech are real and serious (as are questions about whether canceling a broadcast television program in a social media era is the same thing as forbidding free speech). But many Democrats believe that the more time they spend on these weighty but somewhat abstract matters risks shifting public attention away from the more tangible impact of Trump’s policy on the lives of working Americans.

While the Democrats continue to decide on which of many fronts should they fight the president, Trump himself continues to provide cultural red meat to the MAGA nation. This is a trend that will repeat itself continuously for the next fourteen months, and for the foreseeable future through the 2028 election and beyond.