Explained: The $6.2 billion mega merger deal that was really behind Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension

ABC’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! indefinitely has sent shockwaves through the television industry in the United States.

The suspension, announced on Wednesday, followed backlash over Kimmel’s remarks about the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, a close ally of US President Donald Trump.

But beneath the public outrage lies a high-stakes corporate deal that depends on approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

What did Kimmel say on his show?

The controversy began after Kimmel addressed Charlie Kirk’s killing during his Monday and Tuesday night monologues.

Kirk, a well-known conservative figure and founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed in Utah in a case that quickly became a political flashpoint in the US.

Kimmel opened by expressing sympathy, calling Kirk’s death a “senseless murder.” He condemned those who appeared to celebrate the tragedy, while also criticising Trump and his supporters for their reaction.

The late-night host accused them of exploiting the event for political gain.

“The Maga gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said during Monday’s broadcast.

“In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”

He also mocked Trump’s public statements, saying, “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a 4-year-old mourns a goldfish, OK?”

Kimmel did not stop there. He sharply criticised FBI director Kash Patel, alleging that Patel handled the investigation into Kirk’s death poorly.

“Like a kid who didn’t read the book, BSing his way through an oral report,” Kimmel said, drawing laughter from his studio audience.

On Tuesday, Kimmel targeted US Vice President JD Vance, who had recently appeared as a guest host on Kirk’s podcast.

These comments quickly drew intense reactions from conservative groups and viewers, particularly in regions where ABC affiliate stations serve predominantly right-leaning audiences.

The situation worsened as two major affiliate operators — Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group — publicly condemned Kimmel and announced plans to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! from their stations.

Sinclair’s vice chairman, Jason Smith, called Kimmel’s remarks “inappropriate and deeply insensitive.”

Nexstar’s broadcasting division president, Andrew Alford, issued a statement labelling them “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse.”

What role did the Brendan Carr-led FCC play?

Brendan Carr, chairman of the FCC and a Trump appointee, issued a sharp rebuke of Kimmel, describing his comments as “truly sick” and accusing the comedian of deliberately trying to mislead the public about the political leanings of Tyler Robinson, the alleged shooter.

Carr also hinted at possible regulatory consequences. In an interview earlier on Wednesday, he suggested that the FCC might review broadcast licenses to ensure stations were operating “in the public interest.”

Such a move posed a serious threat to local affiliate operators like Nexstar and Sinclair, who depend on FCC licenses to continue broadcasting.

The FCC has historically maintained a hands-off approach to content oversight, intervening only in cases involving obscenity. However, under Carr’s leadership, the commission has adopted a more expansive interpretation of its mandate.

This shift has given the FCC greater influence over what can be aired on local stations, creating a new regulatory environment where politically charged programming faces heightened scrutiny.

Carr’s involvement put significant pressure on ABC and its affiliates.

It also had direct implications for ongoing corporate mergers and deals that required FCC approval, raising the stakes considerably for Nexstar, Sinclair, and Disney — ABC’s parent company.

How role did Nexstar and Sinclair play?

Both Nexstar and Sinclair acted quickly, announcing that they would stop airing Kimmel’s show on their ABC-affiliated stations.

Nexstar operates 28 ABC affiliates, while Sinclair controls 38, giving the two companies significant influence over ABC’s national footprint.

Sinclair went further than Nexstar, demanding that Kimmel personally apologise to Kirk’s family and make a “meaningful personal donation” to Turning Point USA, the conservative political group founded by Kirk.

Sinclair also announced plans to air a tribute to Kirk during Kimmel’s usual time slot on Friday night.

While Nexstar and Sinclair stated that their decisions were motivated by viewer outrage and the need to maintain public trust, both companies had broader business concerns at play.

Nexstar’s chief communications officer, Gary Weitman, told Variety that the decision to pull the show was made “unilaterally by the senior executive team at Nexstar, and they had no communication with the FCC or any government agency prior to making that decision.”

Despite this statement, industry analysts pointed to the timing of the announcement and Nexstar’s ongoing merger negotiations as evidence that regulatory considerations were a major factor.

What is the $6.2 billion merger at the heart of the controversy?

In August, Nexstar revealed plans to acquire Tegna, another large local TV broadcaster, in a $6.2 billion deal.

Tegna owns 64 TV stations, and combining its portfolio with Nexstar’s would create one of the most dominant local TV networks in US history.

If approved, the merger would give the combined company control over 265 stations in 44 states, reaching an estimated 80 per cent of US households. In some markets, the merged entity would operate three or four stations, dramatically increasing its local market share.

However, this level of consolidation far exceeds the FCC’s current national ownership cap of 39 per cent, which limits how many households a single company can reach.

For the deal to proceed, Nexstar would need either an FCC waiver or a change to the national ownership rules.

Telecommunications and law experts, such as Rob Frieden of Penn State University, have noted that the FCC is currently reviewing these rules.

“The FCC has recently issued a notice of inquiry and they have solicited comments to refresh the record because they are certainly looking for ways to accommodate these mega mergers,” Frieden told Business Insider.

Nexstar’s path forward therefore depends heavily on securing Carr’s approval.

This gave the company a strong incentive to demonstrate its alignment with FCC priorities — including the chairman’s concerns about programming content.

Sinclair, like Nexstar, has been exploring opportunities for growth. The company announced in August that it was reviewing its business strategy, including potential acquisitions, partnerships, and mergers.

As the owner of the Tennis Channel and operator of 178 stations in 81 markets, Sinclair has a strong presence in both sports broadcasting and local news.

By aligning itself with Carr and conservative viewers, Sinclair appeared to be positioning itself favourably for any future regulatory reviews of its own business plans.

What is Disney’s role in the Kimmel controversy?

Disney, which owns ABC and produces Jimmy Kimmel Live!, was also under scrutiny. The company has its own dealings with the FCC, including negotiations for a major ESPN deal with the NFL.

Disney CEO Bob Iger announced ABC’s decision to suspend Kimmel indefinitely shortly after Nexstar and Sinclair made their announcements.

While the network did not provide a detailed explanation, the timing indicated that ABC was seeking to mitigate further fallout and protect its broader business interests.

This was not the first time ABC had taken steps to resolve disputes involving the FCC and the Trump administration.

In a separate case, ABC reportedly paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit with Trump over remarks made by anchor George Stephanopoulos, a move widely interpreted as an effort to maintain good relations with regulators.

How has FCC changed under Carr?

The FCC’s growing role in shaping broadcast content has been evident in several high-profile cases.

Earlier this year, Paramount cancelled a lawsuit involving a CBS interview with Kamala Harris during the 2024 campaign to avoid jeopardising its $8 billion sale to Skydance.

Similarly, the commission was believed to have influenced decisions at other networks, including the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s late-night show, which had been losing money and generating political controversy.

These examples illustrate how the FCC’s “public interest” standard has evolved under Carr’s leadership, giving the agency far-reaching authority to affect both programming and corporate mergers.

Unlike cable networks, which are not regulated by the FCC, broadcast television — including ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox affiliates — relies on licenses to use public airwaves.

This distinction makes broadcast networks more vulnerable to regulatory action.

Traditionally, late-night hosts have enjoyed considerable leeway to comment on political events, with the FCC rarely intervening unless explicit obscenity was involved.

However, the current environment suggests a new reality where political considerations can directly affect what content reaches the airwaves.

By leveraging the “public interest” mandate, regulators now have a powerful tool to influence programming decisions.

Kimmel, whose contract with ABC runs through May 2026, has not yet commented publicly on the suspension.

With inputs from agencies

Go to Source