Stephen Colbert's 'Late Show' canceled by CBS, ends May 2026
By ALICIA RANCILIO and ANDREW DALTON
CBS is canceling 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert' next May, shuttering a decades-old TV institution in a changing media landscape and removing from air one of President Donald Trump's most prominent and persistent late-night critics.
Thursday's announcement followed Colbert's criticism on Monday of a settlement between Trump and Paramount Global, parent company of CBS, over a '60 Minutes' story.
Colbert told his audience at New York's Ed Sullivan Theater that he had learned Wednesday night that after a decade on air, 'next year will be our last season. ... It's the end of 'The Late Show' on CBS. I'm not being replaced. This is all just going away.'
The audience responded with boos and groans.
'Yeah, I share your feelings," the 61-year-old comic said.
Three top Paramount and CBS executives praised Colbert's show as 'a staple of the nation's zeitgeist' in a statement that said the cancellation 'is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.'
In his Monday monologue, Colbert said he was "offended" by the $16 million settlement reached by Paramount, whose pending sale to Skydance Media needs the Trump administration's approval. He said the technical name in legal circles for the deal was 'big fat bribe.'
'I don't know if anything — anything — will repair my trust in this company," Colbert said. "But, just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help.'
Trump had sued Paramount Global over how '60 Minutes' edited its interview last fall with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. Critics say the company settled primarily to clear a hurdle to the Skydance sale.
Colbert took over 'The Late Show' in 2015 after becoming a big name in comedy and news satire working with Jon Stewart on 'The Daily Show" and hosting 'The Colbert Report," which riffed on right-wing talk shows.
The most recent ratings from Nielsen show Colbert gaining viewers so far this year and winning his time slot among broadcasters, with about 2.417 million viewers across 41 new episodes. On Tuesday, Colbert's 'Late Show' landed its sixth nomination for a Primetime Emmy Award for outstanding talk show. It won a Peabody Award in 2021.
David Letterman began hosting 'The Late Show" in 1993. When Colbert took over, he deepened its engagement with politics. Alongside musicians and movie stars, Colbert often welcomes politicians to his couch.
Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California was a guest on Thursday night. Schiff said on X that 'if Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better.'
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, released a similar statement, saying "America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons.'
Colbert's late-night host counterpart on ABC, Jimmy Kimmel, shared Colbert's announcement on Instagram along with the message: 'Love you Stephen." He then directed an expletive at CBS.
Colbert has targeted Trump for years. The guests on his very first show in September 2015 were actor George Clooney and Jeb Bush, who was then struggling in his Republican presidential primary campaign against Trump.
'Gov. Bush was the governor of Florida for eight years,' Colbert told his audience. 'And you would think that that much exposure to oranges and crazy people would have prepared him for Donald Trump. Evidently not.'
Late-night TV has been facing economic pressures for years; viewership is down and many young viewers prefer highlights online, which networks have trouble monetizing. CBS also recently canceled host Taylor Tomlinson's 'After Midnight,' which aired after 'The Late Show.'
While NBC has acknowledged economic pressures by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers' show and cutting one night of Jimmy Fallon's 'The Tonight Show," there had been no such visible efforts at 'The Late Show."
Colbert's relentless criticism of Trump, his denunciation of the settlement, and the parent company's pending sale can't be ignored, said Bill Carter, author of 'The Late Shift."
'If CBS thinks people are just going to swallow this, they're really deluded,' Carter said.
AP Media Writer David Bauder contributed from New York.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
They're Rich. They're Anti-Trump. And They Don't Want Their Big Tax Cut.
Kimberly Hoover has been to most Michelin-star restaurants on the East and West coasts. She and her wife, multimillionaires from their real estate firms, own homes in or near New York City, Washington, Miami and Quebec. Their lives are filled with skiing, fine wine and long trips to Europe. Hoover's accountant estimates that the new tax law that President Donald Trump signed this month will save her several million dollars over the next few years. While many Americans might rejoice at that kind of windfall, Hoover worked hard to stop it from becoming a reality, arguing to lawmakers that she has more money than she needs. 'At some point, it starts to feel wrong. It starts to feel excessive. It starts to feel somehow inappropriate. And at some point, it just doesn't feel good,' said Hoover, who spoke while on break from a sapphic literature conference she helps sponsor in Albany. 'Imbalanced is really not good for anyone, even if you're on the positive end of that imbalance, because it's unsustainable.' Hoover's experience reflects an unusual irony of Trump's signature tax legislation: Many of its biggest beneficiaries fiercely oppose the president – and even oppose policies he is pushing that will make them richer. The mismatch is partly a result of a crucial, if ongoing, evolution of the role class plays in American politics. During the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, affluent Americans who benefited from tax cuts were more likely to be Republicans. The political party they supported delivered material benefits that boosted their pocketbooks. Democratic voters, by comparison, were more likely to be working or middle class. Now, more than half of upper-income families – defined as those earning more than $215,400 per year – vote Democratic, according to a 2024 Pew Research survey, as more highly educated voters shift to the left. The top fifth of earners went from supporting Barack Obama in 2008 by a 2.5-point margin to supporting Joe Biden in 2020 by close to 15 percentage points. 'Affluent Americans used to vote for Republican politicians. Now they vote for Democrats,' one 2023 paper found. That shift intensified during the 2024 presidential election, when large numbers of Black and Latino voters, who tend to be lower-income, defected to the Republican ticket for the first time in decades, according to several political scientists, exit polls and studies. 'There's been a lot of talk about how even though the Republican coalition has changed and gotten more working class, their policies have not,' said Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at Michigan State University. 'But there's been less attention to a similar but true fact on the other side – a lot of Democratic politicians were elected by very rich constituents who are more likely to benefit from Republican tax policy than Democratic policy.' As a result, many of the provisions of the GOP tax law will benefit a voting bloc that is increasingly Democratic. The $3.4 trillion legislation extends a lower tax rate for the top tax bracket, rejecting the president's suggestion of a new tax on million-dollar earners. It expands and makes permanent a smaller federal estate tax, allowing up to $15 million to be passed on tax-free ($30 million for couples). It also makes permanent a large deduction for businesses formed as pass-through entities, while raising the cap on what filers can deduct in state and local taxes. (The GOP's 2017 tax law also permanently lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent.) When all these provisions are combined, Trump's second tax bill devotes roughly $1 trillion in tax cuts for those earning more than $400,000 per year – roughly the size of the law's cuts to Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor. (Most of the bill's cost, though, comes from provisions that largely benefit middle-class households, such as a larger child tax credit and standard deduction.) Steve Lockshin, a financial adviser and co-founder of the estate advisory platform Vanilla, represents clients with at least $50 million and whose fortunes are sometimes in the billions of dollars. A tax cut of about 2 percent for a middle-class family translates into about $1,800 per year, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank. But for Lockshin's clients, saving several percentage points in taxes can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, per year. One provision that has become particularly beneficial to his clients is the law's expansion of 'Opportunity Zones,' which allow investors to defer capital gains taxes by reinvesting profits into designated economically distressed areas. The program allows wealthy individuals to delay or, in some cases, permanently avoid paying taxes on capital gains if they make investments in specified zones. 'The general mentality is the same across the board with my clients: 'I want to pay the least I can. I also want the best for my country, and I would invert the two if it had a meaningful impact,'' Lockshin said. 'And if you are wealthy – but aren't pro-Trump and just along for the ride – most of my network is thinking, 'While Rome is burning, at least I'll save a few dollars in taxes.'' Opposition to tax cuts has surfaced in many wealthy liberal enclaves. At the Harvard Club in New York City, 'everyone under 50 feels this way,' said Bob Elliott, chief executive of Unlimited, an investment firm. 'The classic question is how much do you worry about it benefiting yourself versus the societal consequences – that's the trade-off,' Elliott said. 'Many of the people who don't like the bill are saying, 'Really, even if I get money, it's still at the expense of taking people off Medicaid.'' Nonpartisan estimates have found that the GOP tax law will lead to more than 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance. Some experts say rich people have self-interested reasons to oppose the tax cuts that go beyond the broader social consequences. Many of the law's short-term benefits come with long-term drawbacks, said Constance Hunter, chief economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research firm. That, she said, is because many people at least intuitively understand the concept of 'Ricardian equivalence' – the idea that deficits will need to be paid for eventually through higher taxes, so consumers adjust their behavior accordingly by saving more in preparation. 'I think there are a number of people, some of whom are affluent and that span the political spectrum, who realize we cannot keep expanding our deficits indefinitely, especially at a time when our economy is showing resilience and growing,' Hunter said. 'A lot of wealth is held by business owners, and while certain provisions may be providing tax cuts now, these are likely to be accompanied by greater financing costs for business owners,' as reflected in the higher interest rates needed to combat increases in inflation. Drew E. Pomerance, a Los Angeles lawyer in business and commercial litigation, said that his net worth is in the tens of millions of dollars and that he will probably save tens of thousands of dollars from the law every year. While he said 'it never ceases to amaze me that people vote against their own economic self-interest,' he also said he will benefit from the bill but thinks 'it's terrible for America.' 'Don't get me wrong: I like money. I like having money. I'm not opposed to having money,' he said. 'But at the expense of what it does to the rest of the country, it should not be a priority to give me and other rich people more money.' The willingness of some liberals to vote against their economic self-interest should give them pause before they accuse conservatives of doing the same, said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. He said Republican voters in lower-income states are often unfairly maligned this way, pointing to the 2004 book 'What's the Matter With Kansas?' 'Nothing is the matter with Kansas. The people of Kansas vote for a variety of reasons, one of which is economic self-interest,' Strain said. Some multimillionaires, such as Morris Pearl, who served as managing director at the investment firm BlackRock, say they are getting money from the tax cut they do not need. (Pearl, like Hoover and Pomerance, is part of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of rich Americans devoted to trying to raise taxes on the rich.) Pearl's mother-in-law died last year, and he and his wife benefited from the 2017 changes to the estate tax. He has taken advantage of the low-tax Opportunity Zone rules, though he does not remember where or how much he has invested. He will probably continue to do so now that they have been extended. 'It's great for me personally, financially,' Pearl said. 'But even looking at my own and my family's long-term self-interest, I would prefer less inequality and less of a country of very rich and very poor, and more of a country with lots of people doing all right.' In August, Pearl is traveling to a fundraiser for Democratic lawmakers in California. Every year, he donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians, which he described as the first thing he would cut back on if his fortune started to shrink. Thanks in part to the GOP tax law, Pearl added, that is not going to happen any time soon.
Yomiuri Shimbun
4 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Amid Starvation Scenes in Gaza, Trump Administration Hardens Tone on Hamas
Amid growing alarm about mass starvation in Gaza and images of Palestinians suffering from severe malnutrition, the Trump administration is hardening its tone toward Hamas, blaming it for the humanitarian crisis. Hamas 'didn't want to make' a deal in this week's round of ceasefire negotiations and now it would probably be 'hunted down,' President Donald Trump said Friday. Special presidential envoy Steve Witkoff said the day before that the United States was at least temporarily pulling out of talks in Doha, Qatar, and would seek 'alternative options' to end the conflict because Hamas was not 'acting in good faith.' Basem Naim, a Hamas official, said on Facebook that Witkoff had mischaracterized a Hamas response that was 'very close' to what Witkoff himself proposed. The U.S. envoy, in his Thursday remarks, was 'serving the Zionist position,' Naim said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the U.S. announcement and pledged to work with Washington on alternatives. Much of the rest of the world has escalated its criticism of Israel, whose military operations and evacuation orders have pushed most of Gaza's 2.2 million people into an ever-shrinking fraction of the enclave, even as food supplies and access to them have diminished. But while Trump has sometimes grown exasperated with Netanyahu, he has maintained strong backing for Israel, often chiding the Biden administration for its 'weak' support and attempts to use military and diplomatic leverage to increase humanitarian assistance. Roughly a third of the Gaza population is going multiple days without eating, according to the United Nations. Already overwhelmed hospitals have been reporting rising deaths from starvation and a lack of medical supplies and fuel, with increasingly shocking images of human suffering emerging daily. Aid groups say that the drastic decline in food reaching Gaza is the result of Israel blockading the enclave and, since mid-May, impeding the distribution of assistance by the U.N. and other international organizations throughout Gaza through approval delays and military no-go zones. Instead, Israel and the United States have authorized and supported a mechanism, through the recently created Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to hand out food at four limited sites located in military zones and guarded by U.S. security contractors. Despite U.S. and Israeli claims that the talks broke down because Hamas doesn't want a deal, many analysts say the impasse is due to fundamental differences over its terms. 'Hamas wants a deal,' said Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert who has advised both Republican and Democratic administrations. Its demands are a guaranteed path to a permanent end to the war and withdrawal of Israeli forces; the resumption of large-scale U.N.-coordinated aid delivery; and release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli hostages. Israel has vowed to eliminate Hamas – physically or by removal of its remaining senior officials and militants to another country – and has continued to seek an agreement that does not commit it to negotiating an end to the war if its conditions are not met. 'The fundamental incompatibility is Hamas's determination to survive and Netanyahu's notion of total victory,' Miller said. The decision by Netanyahu and Trump to pull negotiating teams out of the talks, which one Middle East diplomat described as a negotiating tactic rather than a final word, reinforces that the Americans and Israelis will not let the horrifying reality of starvation and malnourishment in Gaza affect their negotiating resolve with Hamas, Miller said. In a statement Friday, Qatar and Egypt, mediators along with the U.S., indicated that as far as they were concerned, 'some progress was achieved during the most recent intensive round of negotiations,' and the talks were only suspended. 'Consultations before resuming dialogue once again is a normal procedure within the context of these complex negotiations,' the joint statement said. Trump, who softened his policy on Ukraine in part because he said he was disturbed at civilian suffering caused by Russian attacks earlier this year, has not dwelled on the images of starvation in Gaza and has not spoken at length about them publicly in recent days. But officials say that he is aware of the humanitarian situation and it is influencing his decisions. Trump 'has seen the images and he does not like them,' one senior White House official wrote in a message, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president's private assessment of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. 'That's why he directed Witkoff to come up with a creative aid/food program solution. He believes it's a terrible situation and needs to end,' the senior official wrote. The creative solution referred to the GHF, the Israeli- and U.S.-backed effort to replace the U.N.-coordinated system for aid that had operated in Gaza for decades, the senior official said. Israel charges that the U.N. is corrupted by Hamas. Hamas, which has run the Gazan government for nearly two decades, attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 and taking 250 hostages. The group continues to hold about 50 hostages who were abducted that day. About 20 are still believed to be alive. Israel's retaliatory military campaign to eliminate Hamas and free the hostages has left most of Gaza in ruins and more than 60,000 dead, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians, but says the majority of the dead are women and children. U.S. officials have repeatedly spoken of the success of the GHF, pointing to figures that show it has delivered more than 80 million meals in boxes calibrated to feed 5.5 people for 3.5 days since late May. But its operations have also led to chaos and violence, with crowds of civilians desperately and dangerously rushing toward distribution points. Hundreds have been killed, shot at by Israeli troops who allege they pose a threat, or trampled in the surge toward food. The U.N., as well as many other aid groups, have refused to join the GHF on grounds that it violates their principles of neutrality, while endangering civilians. In virtual remarks to reporters Friday, GHF spokesman Chapin Fay repeated the foundation's invitation to collaborate, offering 'free' trucks, drivers and security escorts for U.N. convoys that are often attacked by hungry civilians and armed actors as they try to deliver food and medicine. Israel has said the U.N. and others are free to distribute food, but their own incompetence and Hamas sympathies are preventing it. Israel, and the GHF, say that hundreds of food-laden trucks have been inspected by the Israel Defense Forces and are waiting just inside the enclave for U.N. pickup. 'It's a moment for the United Nations and the entire humanitarian community to step up, not step back,' Fay said. 'Let's stop pretending there's only one way to deliver aid. … Let's stop letting organizational ego dictate operational decisions. The old model is broken, and ours is working.' In a letter Thursday to GHF Executive Chairman Johnnie Moore, U.N. Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Tom Fletcher 'reiterated that the U.N. stands ready to engage with any partner to ensure desperately needed humanitarian aid reaches the people in Gaza,' a U.N. spokeswoman, Stephanie Tremblay, told reporters Friday. But, she said Fletcher wrote, 'any such partnership must adhere to the globally accepted principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality, and independence. This means that aid must go where needs are greatest and without discrimination, and that we answer to civilians in need, not the warring parties.' He expressed a willingness to meet with Moore. In a letter of reply Friday, released by the foundation, Moore said that the 'GHF exists to be part of the solution, not to replace or rival any institution, but to help fill the gaps with transparency and effectiveness. We are willing to put our differences aside and to adapt to help people now.' Moore said he looked forward to a face-to-face meeting, although none is known to be scheduled. On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney became the latest world leader to call for the GHF program to end. 'Israel's control of aid distribution must be replaced by comprehensive provision of humanitarian assistance led by international organizations,' who said blocking such aid 'is a violation of international law.' U.S. officials have strongly rejected the idea that Israel was responsible for the lack of food, charging Hamas with 'weaponizing' and stealing aid provided by the U.N. and others, and calling for additional international support for the foundation's efforts. 'Of course we want to see as much aid getting into Gaza as possible in a way that is not being looted by Hamas, and this mechanism, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, has been a way to do that,' Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesperson, said at a briefing Thursday. Josh Paul, a former State Department official who resigned in protest of the Biden administration's support for Israel during the start of the Gaza war, said that for the U.S. government there was now a 'sunk costs' problem with Israel. 'Contemplating the fact that our partner is now engaged in the forcible starvation of a people it has spent the last two years bombing means a lot of politicians have to either do what politicians are worst at and admit they have been wrong, or ignore the evidence of their eyes and find some way to avoid facing the truth,' Paul said. Some former officials said that Trump's viewpoint on the conflict on Gaza has been clear and consistent, even as the suffering becomes more apparent. 'As tragic as the suffering is of the Palestinians in Gaza, President Trump is not fooled by Hamas' vicious strategy of weaponizing civilian suffering to manipulate the world,' said Jason Greenblatt, who served as White House envoy to the Middle East during Trump's first term and had also been a longtime attorney to the president.
Yomiuri Shimbun
5 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Paramount Global Says Skydance Merger Should Close in Two Weeks
LOS ANGELES, July 25 (Reuters) – Paramount Global PARA.O said on Friday it expects to complete its merger with Skydance Media by August 7, following government approval for the $8.4 billion deal. After the deal closes, the company will be renamed Paramount Skydance Corp and its Class B shares will trade under the ticker symbol PSKY. Skydance CEO David Ellison is prepared to assume the helm at Paramount Skydance, home to the venerable Paramount Pictures, the CBS broadcast network, and a collection of cable television channels. The new chief executive already is confronted with questions from investors about the future of the Paramount+ streaming service, plans for Paramount's declining television assets, and forecasts for spending on content — including professional sports. 'Now that the long, drawn-out sale process is finally nearing its end, Skydance leadership is poised to take control,' wrote MoffettNathanson media analyst Robert Fishman. 'With that, the real work begins — rebuilding Paramount, addressing the critical strategic questions ahead, and charting a path toward a more sustainable and competitive future.' Announced more than a year ago, the merger will unite Paramount's prized film and TV library including classics such as 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' and 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' with films it produced with Skydance, including 'Top Gun: Maverick' and 'Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning.' Ellison was not available for comment. He has previously said he plans to expand Paramount's technological capabilities, rebuild the Paramount+ platform and grow the streaming business, and reorganize the business to prioritize cash flow. A year ago, he said the team had identified $2 billion in cost savings. The Federal Communications Commission cleared the deal on Thursday, just weeks after Paramount settled a lawsuit filed by U.S. President Donald Trump over CBS' editing of a '60 Minutes' interview with his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris. The $16-million settlement drew criticism that Paramount had effectively bought regulatory approval, with the Democratic dissenter in the FCC's 2-1 vote calling it a 'cowardly capitulation' to the Trump administration. The agency has repeatedly said its review was independent of the lawsuit. The deal marks the end of media mogul Shari Redstone's control over Paramount parent National Amusements. Redstone, long hesitant to part with the studio her late father, Sumner Redstone, acquired in 1994, relinquishes the reins of a media empire her family built over decades. As part of FCC negotiations, Skydance agreed to appoint an ombudsman to address complaints about editorial bias or other concerns at CBS. The company also pledged to end diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that Trump claimed were discriminatory. CBS News named Tanya Simon its top producer for '60 Minutes' on Thursday, replacing Bill Owens, who stepped down citing a lack of editorial independence amid Trump's lawsuit. Since announcing the deal, Paramount has undergone several changes that include internal restructuring, significant cost-cutting and management changes. CFO Naveen Chopra exited the company in June to take on a similar role at video game company Roblox RBLX.N.
