Senate Republicans Hate That They Have to Defend Jimmy Kimmel

Plus: The Epstein files discharge petition will get enough signatures.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

IN RESPONSE TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S recent heavy-handedness toward media institutions and its political opponents (up to and including Trump’s comments suggesting that unduly criticizing him should be illegal), some Republicans have come to the defense of free speech. But their statements follow the pattern of their past criticisms of President Donald Trump: Their condemnations are limited and restrained, ignore fundamental issues, and result in brief media clippings rather than meaningful action.

The avatar of Republicans’ impotent critical-feedback cycle is Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), from whom Trump’s chaotic and quackish HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., regularly elicits perplexed and confounded statements that stop short of calling for Kennedy to be removed or forced to testify before Congress or, well, calling for anyone to have to do anything, really. Over the last week we got to see this pattern play out after ABC decided to suspend late-night talk-show host Jimmy Kimmel, which the network ostensibly did in response to Kimmel’s crass remarks on the Charlie Kirk assassination; the real reason was almost certainly a barely veiled threat from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.

On his popular podcast, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) broke with Carr in very clear terms.

“‘We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,’” Cruz quoted Carr as saying. “That’s right out of Goodfellas. That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, ‘Nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.’”

“It might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel, but when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it,” Cruz added.¹

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), one of the only major elected Republicans to publicly state he would not vote for Trump in 2024, echoed Cruz in a tweet.

“Important comments by my colleague on the Commerce Committee, Chairman Ted Cruz,” Young wrote. “As Americans, we must cherish and protect free speech.”

Which Americans are failing to cherish and protect free speech right now? Young didn’t say.

“Agree with Senator Cruz. Good riddance to Jimmy Kimmel and his disgusting rhetoric,” Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) chimed in, highlighting the Wall Street Journal editorial board’s praise of Cruz. “Ted also raises important concerns about the comments of the FCC chairman.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has been unafraid to call out the administration’s frequent flouting of the law when it comes to his favored areas of government,² told NBC News that “Carr’s got no business weighing in on this.”

“This is television, for goodness’ sakes,” Paul added. “You have to sell sponsorships. You have to sell commercials, and if you’re losing money, you can be fired. But the government’s got no business in it, and the FCC was wrong to weigh in.”

While their comments are welcome, Cruz, Paul, and these other Republicans have not added any actions to their words. They have not called for an investigation or for an opportunity to question Carr in an official setting about his behavior. As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Cruz is well positioned to pull Carr through the ringer of a congressional hearing; the FCC chair could end up sitting next to anyone else Cruz believes may have curtailed speech rights on the government’s behalf. Paul is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, which also holds considerable government oversight powers.

Kimmel is set to return to the airwaves tonight (although not on either Sinclair’s or Nexstar’s affiliate stations), apparently the result of customer pressure rather than renewed lenience from Carr or anyone else in the Trump administration. (Carr, for his part, claimed his comments had been misconstrued after the public reaction to them.) Kimmel’s ratings are poor and his comedy is stale, but those aren’t reasons for the government to pressure the network to take down his show. It’s worth finding out if Kimmel’s brief suspension was precipitated by Carr’s comments. Congress would be well within its power to determine an answer to that question. But the current Senate is more easily satisfied. They’ll content themselves with a handful of brief statements, trusting this will all go away on its own.

All right, everyone, gird your loins

The bipartisan discharge petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files to Congress looks like it will go forward. All there is left to do is wait.

Today, voters in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District go to the polls in a special election to fill the seat left vacant after the death of Democrat Raúl Grijalva, the district’s longtime representative. It’s about as reliable a Democratic district as you’re likely to find: In 2024, Grijalva beat Republican Daniel Butierez by more than 25 points. Butierez is running again as the GOP nominee, and Grijalva’s daughter, Adelita, is expected to beat him handily this evening.

Grijalva the younger will likely sign the discharge petition almost immediately after being sworn into office. That will bring Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna’s resolution to the magic number of 218 signatories.

The next step will be a formal vote in the full House. The timing of Grijalva’s (very likely) win tees up a vote in mid-October at the earliest. Privileged business occurs on the second and fourth Mondays of the month, and Monday votes typically happen in the evening, around 6:30 p.m. Eastern, so mark your calendars and get ready to tune in to C-SPAN.

At a minimum, the Massie-Khanna resolution will induce another headache for the White House and for Republican leadership. Trump previously demanded that Republicans “not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.” While it may be true that nobody cares about Epstein, plenty of people still care about the Epstein files.

Don’t want to miss out on reporting from inside the chamber when the vote finally happens? (C-SPAN can only give you so much.) Sign up for Bulwark+ at the link below:

Fits for office

I’ve been claiming for years that, notwithstanding the prevalence of sneaker/dress shoe hybrids and ill-fitting jackets on the Hill today, American politicians care about their clothes, like, a lot. From the Founding Fathers’ wigs and kitten heels to Obama’s tan suit and Trump’s Old Glory Disney-bounding, political fashion trends never end, and keen eyes can always spot the new stylings of power.

The White House Historical Association is taking note, too. A new online exhibit, “Suited to Lead,” examines the wardrobes of six commanders-in-chief over the centuries. As the WHHA says in its exhibit notes:

Some presidents embraced fashion as a symbol of authority and national pride, such as George Washington, who used clothing to guide American dress and set the standard for how a president should appear. Others, such as Abraham Lincoln, took a more practical approach, allowing the function of his clothing to define his appearance. Whether following conventions or setting new standards, each president had a unique relationship with their clothing. Their choices in dress reflected their preferences, societal expectations, as well as their position. Beyond their years in office, these mens’ approach to dress left a lasting impression on American fashion and culture, and the garments they wore continue to tell their stories.

The exhibit is refreshing—not just because of which presidents have been chosen for its showcase, but also because of which ones are excluded. Remarkably, you won’t find Jack Kennedy or the Gipper here.

My favorite part of the exhibit is the section on Jimmy Carter, a president whose style is significantly underrated compared to that of his famously dapper successor, Ronald Reagan. (You can debate their actual accomplishments in the comment section.) Carter is notable for bringing cardigans and workwear to the Oval Office. Send the link to your Gen-Z coworkers to give them an insight into their barn jackets’ history.

Read the whole thing and check out the exhibit here.

1. This is also a common type of reaction among Republican lawmakers voicing criticisms of the Trump administration. “What if the left did this?” is simply more palatable to a conservative audience than plainly stating that something is wrong.

2. Paul has been clear from the outset of the second Trump presidency that he opposes the executive branch unilaterally imposing taxes through tariffs, among other things.