When a major daytime talk show suddenly goes quiet, people notice. That’s exactly what happened with The View, which held off speaking out for two episodes following the controversial suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!. On the September 22, 2025 broadcast, the hosts finally addressed the storm surrounding Kimmel’s suspension, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) threats, and the growing debate over what free speech means in today’s media environment.

Here’s how The View handled the controversy, the deeper implications, and why millions of Americans are now paying close attention.

What Sparked the Controversy

It all began with a monologue by Jimmy Kimmel on September 15. He made remarks about Charlie Kirk—founder of Turning Point USA who was tragically killed at a speaking event—that many found inflammatory.

Affiliates of ABC, namely Nexstar and Sinclair, reacted strongly. They removed Jimmy Kimmel Live! from their networks, citing concern over Kimmel’s wording and timing.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr threw in another twist: he suggested the FCC might review whether The View itself still qualifies as a “bona fide news program,” which would affect whether the show is exempt from certain rules—especially the equal opportunity rule for political coverage.

It was in this atmosphere of tension—where media, politics, and regulation collide—that The View hosts finally decided they couldn’t stay silent any longer.

The View Silent on Jimmy Kimmel After FCC Chair Threats

The View Finally Speaks Up

When The View’s panel broke its silence, the tone was resolute. Whoopi Goldberg opened the segment saying, “No one silences us.” She explained why the show waited two episodes before addressing the pull: they wanted to see what Kimmel would say first.

Ana Navarro compared the situation to authoritarian behavior she’s witnessed in her life: “This is what they do. At first they come for voices on major platforms. They silence, they intimidate.”

Sunny Hostin, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and the rest of the panel reinforced the message: free speech is not optional—even when speech clashes with politics or makes powerful people uncomfortable. Goldberg pointed out that the First Amendment’s purpose is tested in moments like these.

They also expressed deep concern about precedent: that government pressure, when it touches shows and hosts, can quickly slide into censorship. That what’s at stake isn’t just one show, but everyone’s ability to speak, produce content, question, criticize, or satirize.

The View' Finally Addresses Jimmy Kimmel Controversy amid FCC Threats

What Comes Next?

The View’s pronouncement doesn’t end the story—it might just be the beginning. Here are the possible next chapters:

FCC may formally examine The View’s classification. If found not to be a bona fide news show, regulatory obligations may change, including equal-time rules.
ABC and Disney may face more pressure from both sides—supporters of Kimmel & free speech, and critics who believe his remarks were irresponsible.
Other talk shows and political commentators will likely watch closely. Which content gets called “too much”? What will creators change about monologues, sketches, or discussions to avoid backlash?
The legal side: whether FCC’s power regarding this kind of speech is challenged or defended, perhaps in court or legislative settings.

Final Thoughts: The Stakes for Every Viewer

In a country built on the idea that no one should be silenced, this moment reminds us that freedom of speech isn’t just theoretical—it’s lived through decisions made in studios, by networks, by regulators, and sometimes by one person’s courage to speak up.

For viewers, this isn’t just about The View or Jimmy Kimmel. It’s about what we believe public discourse should look like. Do we believe speech that offends is still valid? Is there room in our media for voices that challenge, upset, or provoke? Or does fear—of backlash, of being labeled, of losing reach—start to quiet the messiest but most necessary conversations?

When Whoopi Goldberg said “No one silences us,” she was making more than a statement. She was drawing a line. The question now: do we want to stand behind it—or watch that line get redrawn, quietly, show by show?