Megyn Kelly didn’t hold back in her criticism of Jimmy Kimmel’s recent return to ABC, framing it as a glaring example of double standards in the entertainment industry. Kimmel, the notoriously progressive late-night host, was reinstated after an indefinite suspension sparked by backlash over a monologue on Charlie Kirk and the political implications surrounding his assassination. Some conservatives had celebrated the move as a defense of free speech, insisting that Kimmel’s right to comment on current events should remain inviolate. Kelly, however, saw the situation differently.
In a social media post Wednesday, Megyn Kelly blasted Jimmy Kimmel’s return to ABC.YouTube / Megyn Kelly
In a sarcastic post on X, Kelly reminded followers of Kimmel’s past controversies, specifically his history with blackface. “Remember when I was cancelled & held back tears on the air & Kimmel stood up for me saying, ‘All she did was ask a Q about blackface Halloween costumes, whereas I, Jimmy, have actually worn blackface many times & still have a show! This is wrong!’” she wrote. Her point was clear: Kimmel, she argued, never extended the same support to her when NBC canceled Megyn Kelly Today in 2018 following her own blackface controversy. “Me neither,” Kelly added bluntly. “F him & his self pity.”
Representatives for both Kelly and Kimmel did not immediately respond to requests for comment. But the context is significant. During his early career on Comedy Central’s The Man Show from 1999 to 2003, Kimmel donned blackface to impersonate figures like Oprah Winfrey and NBA player Karl Malone, complete with exaggerated dialects. Clips of the Malone impersonation resurfaced in 2020, drawing renewed scrutiny and criticism. Kimmel apologized, stating: “There is nothing more important to me than your respect, and I apologize to those who were genuinely hurt or offended by the makeup I wore or the words I spoke.” He called the past behavior “embarrassing” and explained that he initially avoided addressing it because he feared apologies would be weaponized by those who equate contrition with weakness.
In 2020, a video clip of Kimmel in full-body black makeup to impersonate Malone resurfaced.Comedy Central
“I believe that I have evolved and matured over the last 20-plus years, and I hope that is evident to anyone who watches my show,” Kimmel added. “I know that this will not be the last I hear of this and that it will be used again to try to quiet me.” His words highlight a tension familiar in the modern entertainment landscape: the past can be endlessly resurrected to challenge or undermine a public figure, regardless of current behavior.
Kelly’s own blackface controversy shares parallels. In 2018, while hosting Megyn Kelly Today on NBC, she defended the use of blackface in Halloween costumes on-air. “But what is racist?” she asked at the time. “Truly, you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface at Halloween or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Back when I was a kid, that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character.” Her comments drew immediate backlash, prompting a tearful apology both on-air and to NBC staffers the following day. Despite the apology, the show was canceled, and Kelly’s career at the network ended.
The timing of Kimmel’s suspension adds another layer of complexity. In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, Kimmel addressed what he viewed as attempts by right-wing media to politicize the tragedy. During his opening monologue, he said, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” The comments prompted ABC to suspend the program indefinitely, while court documents later revealed that Tyler Robinson, the accused shooter, had reportedly become more politically engaged and had begun leaning left prior to the incident.
Kimmel returned to Jimmy Kimmel Live! on Tuesday without issuing an apology for his remarks. His failure to directly address the suspension or controversy was notable, and critics, including Kelly, interpreted it as an example of selective accountability. While Kimmel has faced pushback for both his political commentary and his historical use of blackface, he retains the backing of ABC and a loyal late-night audience, highlighting the differing consequences for comparable controversies in the entertainment industry.
Social media and conservative commentators have seized upon Kelly’s criticism to frame a narrative of unequal treatment. Many have noted that Kimmel’s blackface incidents occurred decades ago, while Kelly’s were more recent, yet Kimmel is reinstated and actively celebrated, whereas Kelly’s career suffered immediate consequences. The debate underscores broader tensions in media: how networks navigate past controversies, how public figures are held accountable for offensive actions, and how political alignment can affect the trajectory of a career.
Jimmy Kimmel returned to ABC Tuesday after the network suspended him “indefinitely” last week.ABC/AFP via Getty Images
For ABC, the situation has required careful navigation. Balancing Kimmel’s popularity and contractual obligations with the ongoing criticism from both the public and former peers is delicate. The reinstatement serves as a reminder that networks must weigh audience engagement, advertiser interests, and reputational risk in every programming decision. Meanwhile, Kelly’s commentary emphasizes the personal and professional impact that inconsistent responses to controversy can have on industry insiders.
The comparison between Kelly and Kimmel highlights systemic issues within media accountability. Both incidents involved the sensitive and historically charged issue of blackface, yet the outcomes diverged dramatically. Kelly’s show was canceled, leading to widespread professional and public consequences. Kimmel, however, has been reinstated and remains a prominent figure in late-night television. The perceived disparity has reignited discussions about fairness, political bias, and the ways networks enforce moral and cultural standards.
Ultimately, Kelly’s criticism serves not only as a personal statement but also as a lens through which to examine broader cultural and industry dynamics. It raises questions about the intersection of race, comedy, politics, and media accountability, and how history, timing, and public sentiment influence outcomes for public figures. Her pointed remarks about Kimmel’s reinstatement resonate in a climate where audiences, networks, and commentators constantly reassess what is permissible, who is forgiven, and who is penalized.
As the debate continues, the contrast between Kimmel and Kelly exemplifies the complex interplay of celebrity, accountability, and cultural memory. Kimmel’s ability to return to the airwaves, despite past controversies, reflects his enduring influence and network support, while Kelly’s experience illustrates how consequences can vary dramatically based on timing, network discretion, and public perception. For media observers, the situation is a case study in unequal treatment, the persistence of double standards, and the ways in which past behavior is evaluated differently depending on context.
