Stephen Colbert used his Monday night broadcast to torch his own network, claiming CBS lawyers blocked him from airing a pre-recorded interview with James Talarico, a Democrat candidate running for the US Senate in Texas.
Colbert framed the decision as political censorship, directed his anger at FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, and instead posted the interview to his YouTube channel, the NY Post reported.
There's just one problem. CBS says that's not what happened.
Colbert told his audience he received firm orders from above:
"I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on."
He then did what late-night hosts do best: turned the grievance into a monologue. He mocked the FCC's equal time rule, took shots at Carr by name, and framed the entire episode as the Trump administration silencing dissent on television.
CBS's spokesperson offered a version of events that contradicts Colbert's narrative at nearly every point. In a statement to The Post, the network said the show "was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview." Instead, CBS said the show received legal guidance that airing the segment could trigger equal time obligations for other candidates in the Texas Democratic primary, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett.
"The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including … Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled."
According to CBS, Colbert's team chose to post the interview on YouTube rather than deal with the equal time requirements. That's a production decision, not a political silencing.
The FCC's equal time rule has existed for decades. It requires broadcast networks and radio stations to offer comparable airtime to all candidates in a given race when one candidate receives coverage. Talk shows have typically operated under a blanket exception, but in January, Chairman Brendan Carr issued new guidance dropping that exception, citing concerns that some programs are "motivated by purely partisan political purposes."
Colbert treated this as a punchline, calling it "the FCC's most time-honored rule, right after 'No nipples at the Super Bowl.'" But the rule exists for an obvious reason: to prevent broadcast networks, which operate on public airwaves under federal license, from functioning as campaign arms for one party's candidates. If a CBS late-night show gives a Democrat Senate candidate a friendly, uncontested interview weeks before a primary, the other candidates in that race have a legitimate claim to equal treatment.
That's not censorship. That's the cost of using public airwaves.
Colbert's complaint amounts to this: he wanted to spotlight one Democrat in a competitive primary without offering the same courtesy to the others. CBS's lawyers told him the rules applied. He chose YouTube instead of compliance, then told his audience the government was silencing him.
Colbert escalated quickly. He addressed Carr directly on air:
"Well sir, you're chairman of the FCC, so FCC you. Because I think you are motivated by partisan purposes yourself. Sir, you smelt it 'cause you dealt it."
This is a man with a nightly platform on a major broadcast network, a YouTube channel with millions of subscribers, and the full backing of a media conglomerate. He used all three to air his grievance to a national audience. The interview he claims was "silenced" is available to anyone with an internet connection.
If this is what political suppression looks like, the term has lost all meaning.
The left has spent years insisting that private companies can moderate content however they choose. "Build your own platform" was the refrain when conservatives were deplatformed from social media. Now, a broadcast network's own legal team advises compliance with a longstanding FCC regulation, and suddenly it's authoritarianism.
Colbert has been escalating his conflict with CBS for weeks. He previously accused the network of canceling "The Late Show" not for financial reasons but to smooth the regulatory path for Paramount Global's $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. That merger required federal government approval, and it was greenlit roughly two months after the show's cancellation was announced.
CBS called the cancellation "a purely financial decision." Colbert has publicly rejected that explanation.
So which is it? Colbert wants his audience to believe CBS is simultaneously:
What he doesn't want anyone to notice is the simpler explanation: a legal department did its job, told the show it needed to follow broadcast law, and the show chose a workaround that also happened to generate a much better grievance segment.
Colbert's show ends in May. He's heading for the exit, and every confrontation with CBS generates headlines, clips, and audience sympathy. The incentive structure here is not complicated.
Talarico is one of several Democrats running to unseat Republican Sen. John Cornyn. A generic progressive candidate in a crowded primary, and Colbert wanted to give him a national television boost without extending the same platform to his rivals.
The equal time rule exists precisely to prevent this. A late-night host choosing one primary candidate over others isn't journalism. It's a campaign contribution measured in airtime.
Colbert can post whatever he wants on YouTube. He can interview every Democrat running for every seat in every state. Nobody stopped him. What CBS's lawyers told him was that doing it on a federally licensed broadcast network comes with obligations. He chose to skip the obligations and play the martyr instead.
The interview aired. The candidate got his spotlight. The host got his monologue. And the audience got a lesson in how "censorship" now means "a lawyer told me to follow the rules."