The Brief

As First Amendment scholar Evelyn Douek watched the news unfold of ABC yanking Jimmy Kimmel from air, she was aghast: "The hypocrisy is enough to give one vertigo," she said.
It's shocking to Douek because she is a close-watcher of what's known as "jawboning," when regulators or government officials pressure private actors, like a social media company or broadcast network, to stifle speech. The libertarian Cato Institute calls the practice "censorship by proxy."

For years, Republicans excoriated social media platforms over their belief that the Biden administration overly pressured Twitter and Facebook to remove COVID misinformation. It spurred a constant drumbeat of online attacks, Congressional subpoenas and hearings in Washington.

Now, President Donald Trump's administration's Federal Communications Commission appears to have bullied ABC into dropping Kimmel, said Douek, a professor at Stanford Law School. She said it makes social media companies' removal of COVID-related posts at the request of government officials "gentle by comparison."

Jimmy Kimmel

(

Kevin Winter

/

Getty Images

)

Stephen Colbert

(

Scott Kowalchyk

/

CBS

)

The Kimmel episode follows CBS' cancellation of Stephen Colbert's The Late Show, which often pilloried President Trump. Together, the incidents have intensified concerns among free speech experts that the Trump administration is using the extraordinary powers of the federal government to muzzle political speech.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who in 2020 called political satire one of "the oldest and most important forms of free speech," wrote on X on Thursday that broadcast stations have "long retained the right to not air national programs that they believe are inconsistent with the public interest, including their local communities' values."
Gigi Sohn, a former senior advisor to the FCC under President Obama, wrote on X that Kimmel's suspension is the result of decades of media consolidation, where financial determinations can override concerns about free speech.
"When control of media and tech are in the hands of a handful of companies, it becomes easier for authoritarian leaders to control them," Sohn wrote.

What happened exactly?

On Monday night, Kimmel's opening monologue included remarks about the suspect in the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Outside his studio on Hollywood Boulevard on Wednesday.

(

Chris Pizzello

/

Invision

)

He said: "We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it," he said. (It should be noted that authorities say the suspect in the shooting, Tyler Robinson targeted Kirk over his conservative political views, but the full extent of Robinson's political ideology has not yet surfaced in his legal case.)
On Wednesday, Carr appeared on the podcast of MAGA influencer Benny Johnson. In the interview, Carr said, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."
He went on to say: "These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."
Hours later, Nexstar and Sinclair, which own more than 60 local ABC stations, announced that they would not carry Kimmel's program "for the foreseeable future," over his Monday night comments about the Kirk slaying.

Soon after, ABC, which has aired Kimmel's late-night show since 2003, said it was suspending him indefinitely.
The decision is not happening in a vacuum. Nexstar announced recently that it is in the process of trying to acquire its rival, Tegna, in a deal estimated to be worth $6.2 billion that is subject to the review of Carr's FCC.

A May 2025 file photo of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.

(

John McDonnell

/

Getty Images

)

Nexstar also needs Carr's support to loosen regulations to complete the deal. Under current rules, no one company can own stations that reach more than 39% of U.S. households. The Nexstar-Tegna tie-up is estimated to extend the company's combined reach into 80% of American homes.
Carr celebrated the series of events kicked off by Nexstar, thanking the company on X for "doing the right thing."
Carr wrote: "I hope that other broadcasters follow Nexstar's lead."

First Amendment expert: Kimmel is 'prime example' of government censorship

Legal observers say the Kimmel saga could be setting up a high-profile First Amendment case.
Government officials are legally permitted to try to persuade a private actor, like ABC, to change speech, yet they cannot coerce a broadcaster to do so, according to Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
The delicate line between persuasion and coercion was at the heart of a Supreme Court case last year that examined whether the Biden administration broke the law in its communication with social media companies about COVID misinformation.

By a 6-3 vote, the court found that states did not have standing to sue the Biden administration because there wasn't enough evidence showing a direct line between government outreach and social media companies restricting content.
The court declared that in order for government influence to violate the First Amendment, there needs to be a "concrete link" between officials' actions and the suppression of speech.
In the Kimmel case, according to Abdo: "It's as direct a line as you could dream up."
He added: "An FCC regulator threatening legal liability against a media company for Constitutionally protected political speech. If the First Amendment was meant to prevent censorship, this is the prime example of it."

Jennifer Huddleston, of the Cato Institute, said if the Kimmel decision sticks, there could be a chilling effect, with network television dialing down the tone of their political jokes and confrontational news coverage, lest they wind up in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.
"That is one of the greatest risks," Huddleston said. "It's not only the impact on a specific situation, but what signal does that send to the broader discourse and to other networks watching?"
President Trump cheered Kimmel being pulled from the airwaves on Truth Social. He called on NBC to cancel The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Seth Meyers.
"Do it NBC!!!" the president wrote.
For Kimmel, experts say even if he has a strong legal case, it does not guarantee that he will fight his departure in court, especially if he believes ABC reinstating him is unlikely.
"In some sense, it almost doesn't matter if they're right in the law, because, on the ground, they're achieving the censorship of protected speech, which is their goal," Abdo said. "The truth is Kimmel's voice is silenced and the voice of others will likely be silenced."
Copyright 2025 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.