On the eve of Stephen Colbert’s final Late Show, America is asking: Can late night survive the Trump administration? Like other checks and balances on presidential power, late-night talk shows — once ratings juggernauts, woven into the fabric of American culture — are being stress-tested. CBS’s Late Show franchise, first helmed by David Letterman, now faces a pivotal decision after its CEO, Paramount, announced axing the program. This move, though seen as a financial decision, comes amid growing scrutiny of the network’s role in shaping public discourse. Colby, who will step onto the stage of the Ed Sullivan Theatre in New York for the final time, claims his farewell will be “something simple,” while his allies, including critics and fellow hosts, question whether the decision was truly necessary. The timing of the announcement coincided with a year when Paramount sought approval for a merger with Skydance, a move that highlighted tensions between media giants and political influence. Meanwhile, the legal battle over the $16 million settlement with 60 Minutes, which spurred controversy, underscores how even entertainment formats can become battlegrounds for political agendas. As the FCC pressures ABC to suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s controversial schedule, the stakes have risen: does the White House want to silence dissenters, or is there a deeper narrative at play?**
Colbert’s allies, including media critics, fellow late-night hosts, and longtime industry observers, are sceptical. Letterman’s view that “they don’t share the books with me...” reflects a broader sentiment that the network’s role in curating political narratives is increasingly questionable. While Carter, a former journalist and host, acknowledges the irony of the situation, he argues that the damage done to norms in America makes the criticism more justified than ever. “We are supposed to embrace that in this country,” he insists, emphasizing that free speech is fundamental. However, the transition from entertainment to political critique has sparked debate: does it signify a cultural shift toward louder voices, or is it merely a continuation of a trend rooted in historical grievances?**
In addition to understanding the hosts’ struggles, Carter also recognizes the president’s impact, noting that late-night monologues have become a form of protest against unchecked political power. He notes the irony that Trump’s supporters now see the format as a tool to suppress free speech, rather than a means to engage the audience. Carter also highlights the hidden implications of the situation, suggesting that the network’s financial challenges may force a restructuring of its model to meet evolving demands. “If you take a step back and think about it,” he says, “it raises a deeper question: what happens when the art of communication becomes less about entertainment and more about accountability?”**
While the industry continues to adapt, the legacy of the Late Show remains uncertain. Carter sees the format as a symbol of America’s struggle to balance tradition with innovation, arguing that its future hinges on its ability to sustain relevance amid shifting priorities. “With almost three more years still to go in this presidential term,” he concludes, “the prospect of a pitched battle between an enraged president and his newly minted chief critic may yet breathe new life into a struggling genre.”
