Former Disney CEO Bob Iger has publicly defended the company’s choice to suspend Jimmy Kimmel following controversial comments the late-night host made after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, as reported by Fox News.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Iger said the decision to remove “Jimmy Kimmel Live” from the air was prompted by remarks Disney believed were “in bad taste,” not political pressure from the Trump administration.

“​​That was not the case,” Iger explained. “We thought it was in bad taste.”

Kimmel was suspended from September 17 through September 22, 2025, after comments referencing Kirk’s assassin, Tyler Robinson.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

MORE NEWS: Supreme Court Upholds President Trump’s Immigration Authority Despite Liberal Meltdown [WATCH]

During one of his September broadcasts, Kimmel implied that Robinson was part of what he called the “MAGA gang,” remarking that conservatives were “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”

Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was killed while speaking at his “American Comeback Tour” event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

He was shot in the neck during the appearance, which drew widespread reaction from political figures and media outlets alike.

Iger said Disney asked Kimmel to apologize for his language, stating, “We just wanted him to acknowledge that it was an ill-timed and probably inappropriate comment.”

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

Following recent reports that Congress is considering a nationwide voter ID requirement for federal elections, do you support requiring voters to show identification before casting a ballot?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Objectivist.co, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Kimmel later discussed the incident with Bloomberg’s Lucas Shaw, saying he initially did not believe his comments presented a significant issue. “I didn’t think there was a big problem,” he said.

“I just saw it as distortion on the part of some of the right-wing media networks, and I aimed to correct it.”

According to Kimmel, he only realized the situation’s severity “when they pulled the show off the air.”

He conceded that the suspension gave him time for self-reflection, describing himself as “sometimes reactionary,” “aggressive,” and “unpleasant.”

Close

MORE NEWS: Christian Pulisic Returns as U.S. Falls to Türkiye on Final Kick

He added that stepping away helped him assess the situation more clearly. “I think that it helped me, really, having those days to think about it was helpful,” Kimmel said.

Despite expressing some regret, Kimmel also argued that his remarks were distorted by critics. “I didn’t ‘feel’ like it. It was,” he insisted. “It was intentionally, and I think maliciously, mischaracterized.”

Kimmel voiced concern that the backlash and suspension were unfair to Disney executives.

“I think what has happened over the last, like, three weeks, I think was very unfair to my bosses at Disney. I don’t think anyone should ever be put in a position like this. It is insane,” he said.

He continued by framing the controversy as a moment of broader cultural reckoning. “I hope that we drew a really, really bold red line as Americans about what we will and will not accept,” he concluded.

White House officials, meanwhile, have condemned inflammatory public commentary on both sides of the political spectrum following what they identified as a “crazed” normalization of rhetoric.

Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt criticized Kimmel’s “widow” joke and what she described as “despicable” remarks from Democratic figures as contributing to violent outcomes by inspiring “mentally disturbed individuals.”

Fox News Digital reported efforts to reach Kimmel for additional comment were unsuccessful at the time of publication.

MORE NEWS: Whoopi Mocked for Claiming ‘No One Wants Voter ID Laws’ Despite Broad Public Support [WATCH]

The controversy continues to spark debate over free expression, media responsibility, and the fine line between satire and offensiveness in politically charged moments.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Objectivist produces news satire and parody for global publication from time to time. Some of the content contained within this website and on accompanying social media accounts, however similar to real events, is fictitious and will also include this disclaimer. Any real, semi-real or similar names, places, people, products, services and locales are used purely for satirical purposes, and the corresponding story details are purely fictional. The articles contained herein are to be considered satire, parody, surrealism, and humor. Any resemblance to actual persons, businesses, or events is entirely coincidental. Images on Objectivist site may consist of original photos, stock photography, and creative commons photos. We have done our best to attribute the creators of such photos based on the information available to us. Use of these works does not suggest that the respective authors endorse us or our use of the images.