Did Sinclair air Charlie Kirk special in Jimmy Kimmel's slot? Explained

The controversy surrounding conservative activist Charlie Kirk and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel has ignited intense debate in both media and political circles. Kirk was tragically killed during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. Days later, Kimmel’s remarks about President Trump’s reaction to Kirk’s assassination during his monologue sparked outrage, leading to pressure from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and affiliates like Sinclair Broadcast Group.

In the wake of the backlash, Sinclair — the country’s largest ABC affiliate operator — initially announced that it would replace Jimmy Kimmel Live! with a special tribute honoring Kirk. The move was presented as both a show of respect for Kirk’s family and a statement about the company’s broadcasting standards. However, Sinclair ultimately reversed course, releasing the tribute online while sticking with ABC’s standard programming. The decision highlights the balancing act networks face when politics and entertainment collide.

Sinclair’s reversal on the Charlie Kirk tribute

Sinclair Broadcast Group first revealed bold plans to preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! and air a special remembrance for Charlie Kirk in its place. The announcement came shortly after Disney stated that Kimmel’s show would be “preempted indefinitely” following the FCC’s criticism of his remarks. Sinclair doubled down with its own demands, calling on Kimmel to issue a public apology, make amends to Kirk’s family, and even contribute financially to Turning Point USA.

But by late Friday, Sinclair issued a new statement. Rather than replacing Kimmel with the Kirk special, the company said it would continue broadcasting regular ABC programming in its late-night slot. The tribute was instead uploaded to The National News Desk’s YouTube channel, ensuring viewers could still access it without disrupting the network lineup.

This shift revealed Sinclair’s attempt to strike a careful balance: appeasing conservative audiences while avoiding a direct programming conflict with Disney and ABC.

Jimmy Kimmel's controversy and suspension explored

The chain of events began when Jimmy Kimmel addressed Charlie Kirk’s death during his September 15 show. In his monologue, Kimmel accused certain people of using the tragedy for political gain. He also mocked President Donald Trump’s reaction, who, while expressing his condolences, quickly jumped onto the topic of the ballroom construction at the White House. Kimmel compared Trump’s reaction to that of a child mourning the death of their goldfish.

These remarks drew backlash from FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who appeared on The Benny Show to express his discontent. He suggested that strict action should be taken against Jimmy Kimmel and also that strict action can be taken against companies if these kinds of occurrences become common.

"We can do this the easy way or the hard way. 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,” said Carr on the podcast.

Within hours, Nexstar Media pulled Jimmy Kimmel Live! from its ABC affiliates, calling his words “offensive and insensitive.” Many believe that the ongoing merger deal worth $6.2 billion between Nexstar Media and Tegna, where the FCC could make things difficult for all parties involved, was a prominent reason for the swift action and apology from the network. Sinclair soon joined in, announcing that it would also suspend the program until Kimmel apologized and steps were taken to address what it saw as unprofessional conduct.

The fallout surrounding Charlie Kirk, Sinclair Broadcast Group, and Jimmy Kimmel illustrates the deep intersection of politics, entertainment, and broadcast regulation. While Sinclair initially announced a bold move to honor Kirk on-air, the eventual decision to keep regular programming and release the tribute online highlights the complexities facing modern networks. At the same time, Kimmel’s suspension underscores the ongoing battle over what constitutes accountability versus censorship in an era of heightened political polarization.

The saga reflects a broader struggle over control of national narratives and how the tragic death of an activist like Kirk can become a flashpoint in America’s culture wars.