'Gloves are off': cancelled Late Show host comes out swinging for Trump
Colbert, who addressed the cancellation of his show by a broadcaster that has been widely accused of seeking to curry favor with Trump for business reasons, came out swinging -- telling Trump to "go fuck yourself."
"The Late Show," a storied US TV franchise dating back to 1993 when it was hosted by David Letterman, will go off the air in May 2026 following a surprise announcement by broadcaster CBS last week.
The channel is part of Paramount, which is in the throes of an $8 billion takeover that requires approval by the Trump-controlled Federal Communications Commission. It pulled the plug three days after Colbert skewered CBS for settling a lawsuit with Trump.
He accused it of paying what he termed a "a big fat bribe" of $16 million to the president for what he called "deceptive" editing of an interview with his 2024 election opponent, former vice president Kamala Harris.
Trump reveled in the firing of one of his most prolific detractors, posting on his Truth Social platform that "I absolutely love that Colbert was fired."
Colbert joked Monday that it had always been his dream starting out as an improv comic in Chicago in the 1980s to have a sitting president celebrate the end of his career.
He also disputed the logic of CBS who insisted the cancellation was "purely a financial decision."
He said that in an anonymous leak over the weekend, CBS had appeared to suggest his show lost $40 million last year.
Colbert joked that he could account for losing $24 million annually -- but wasn't to blame for the other $16 million, a reference to CBS News's settlement with Trump.
Monday's cold open was an unsparing riff on Trump demanding that the Washington Commanders change its name back to its former name which was widely considered a slur against Native Americans.
The segment suggested Trump sought to rename the franchise the "Washington Epsteins", in reference to pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein whom it has been widely reported was close to Trump.
Colbert returned to this topic after addressing his show's cancellation, proclaiming that they had killed his show but not him, and doing a deep dive on reporting about just how close Trump and Epstein were.
It was a formula that would have been familiar to fans of the show: the deadly serious leavened with humor and quick wit.
Outside the taping at Midtown Manhattan's Ed Sullivan theater, protesters held placards that said "Colbert Stays! Trump Must Go!"
Audience member Elizabeth Kott, a 48-year-old high school teacher, called Colbert's firing "terrible."
"It's really awful that it's come to that in this country, where companies feel the need to obey in advance. It's really awful," she told AFP.
- 'A plague on CBS' -
Colbert's lead guest Monday, acclaimed actress Sandra Oh, did not hold back, proclaiming a "plague on CBS and Paramount" -- the network on which Colbert's channel is broadcast and its media giant proprietor.
Colbert's lip trembled as Oh paid tribute to his work speaking truth to power while staying funny.
His other guest, actor Dave Franco, said he had loved Colbert's work in everything from "The Daily Show" to "The Colbert Report" and then "The Late Show."
AFP | CHARLY TRIBALLEAU
It was on "The Daily Show," under the supervision of comic "anchor" Jon Stewart, that Colbert perfected his alter-ego -- a blowhard conservative reporter whose studied ignorance parodied actual right-wing broadcasters night after night.
He moved up to a show of his own on the same network, Comedy Central, which was then part of Viacom and today is part of Paramount.
Before long he took one of the most coveted chairs in US television -- host of the CBS late-night slot.
Colbert dropped his arrogant conservative persona and cultivated a reputation as one of the most trusted yet funniest figures on US television.
Through the coronavirus pandemic he became a reassuring presence for millions, broadcasting from a spare room in his house and narrating the challenges he faced alongside his wife Evelyn.
He also became an arch-critic of Trump, skewering the president for everything from his policies to his fondness for Hannibal Lecter.
Skipping a promised question and answer session following the taping of Monday's show, Colbert told his studio audience that "I was nervous coming out here."
"I will miss you."
By Gregory Walton, With George Clyde
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US and EU clinch deal with broad 15% tariffs on EU goods to avert trade war
Deal includes $600 billion EU investments in US, more EU energy, defence purchases 15% tariff better than threatened 30%, in deal mirroring Japan's US steel and aluminium tariffs remain at 50% By Andrew Gray and Andrea Shalal The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump at his golf course in western Scotland to push a hard-fought deal over the line. 'I think this is the biggest deal ever made,' Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15% tariff applied 'across the board'. 'We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability,' she said. The deal, that also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies. However, the baseline tariff of 15% will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30% rate. The deal mirrors parts of the framework agreement the United States clinched with Japan last week. 'We are agreeing that the tariff… for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15%,' Trump said. However, the 15% baseline rate would not apply to steel and aluminium, for which a 50% tariff would remain in place. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of '90 deals in 90 days.' He has periodically railed against the European Union saying it was 'formed to screw the United States' on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said that the EU wanted 'to make a deal very badly' and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been 'very unfair to the United States'. His main bugbear is the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The EU points to the U.S. surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump also talked on Sunday about the 'hundreds of billions of dollars' that tariffs were bringing in. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30% tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major U.S. trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods in the event there was no deal and Trump had pressed ahead with 30% tariffs. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target U.S. services in the event of a no-deal.
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA practising damaging politics of the zero-sum game
While there are many prisms through which you can attempt to understand our politics, one may be to examine whether people see the entire process as a zero-sum game. There may now be mounting evidence that more politicians and voters believe every single issue must be reduced to winners and losers. Anyone with much experience of life will be aware that, as a general rule, when life improves for one person, it often improves for another. This happens in an economy all the time. It is well known that one restaurant in one city block might be popular enough to bring in a certain number of customers. But a group of competing restaurants in the same place are much more likely to bring in a much bigger number. In other words, you are more likely to be successful through sharing space with other restaurants. Growing an economy might well rest on this. One cannot just make a product and sell it on your own. You need to be part of a chain that enables your market and ensures you have both suppliers to help you make your product, and customers to buy it. People who are thinking over the longer term will often make decisions that will cost them in the short run, because they expect to gain in the longer run. Last week, Moneyweb reported that some suppliers to Pick n Pay were actually giving it goods at lower than usual prices. While this costs them in the short run, they don't want a situation where Checkers becomes so dominant they only have one person to sell to. This means that they are helping someone to regain market share. In the case of South Africa, with its incredibly diverse constituencies, and defined by its inequality, the idea of people helping one another might well be more important than in many other places. Winners and losers The nature of our economy requires everyone to be working in the same direction. Instead, what we have is people simply fighting really hard not to be the losers, and others not the winners. Currently, 50 proposals to change the Labour Relations Act are going through Nedlac. While labour analyst Andrew Levy says it's not clear if they really change the balance between workers and managers, several groups and unions have already held a protest against the proposals. They believe that their members might soon lose out, and managers might win. This kind of situation happens all the time in our society. In our politics, the coalition sometimes appears to be reduced to fights between the ANC and the DA that are literally about ensuring one wins and the other loses. Because this is all happening in public, and they are representing constituencies, it can give the impression that those constituencies are really fighting to ensure they are not seen to lose. This transactional approach, and the damage it can cause, is wonderfully, and horrifically, illustrated by the Trump administration's approach to trade. One of the most important dynamics of the past 30 years has been the rise of China as a manufacturer of trade goods. It has made these goods at a cheaper price than many other places, and sold them. This has exported deflation around the world – the price of a cheap bicycle has declined dramatically in real terms since the 1980s. This is largely because companies in different countries have traded with each other. And both parties have become very rich doing so. Trump appears to believe that if one country is getting rich, the other must be losing out. The overwhelming evidence is that this is not the case. Instead, both parties win through these transactions. In some ways, such is the impact of the US, that this example might well be having an impact on our politics. At the same time, another important aspect of how life really works is being lost. In many cases, there is no clear 'winner' and clear 'loser'. Often it is entirely grey, with very little difference in shade. The NHI stand-off In our politics now, it seems that everything must become a life and death situation, that there will be armageddon if someone does not get what they want. Given our inequality, this can sometimes appear as if it is a life-and-death struggle between classes. The NHI might be a useful example: those who support it say the rich are trying to condemn the poor to death, those who oppose it say the rich will lose everything they have. Instead, this is something that should really be negotiated between representatives of constituencies. And there should be a solution that everyone can live with. There are many reasons why we are in this situation. Our racialised inequality must be an important reason. Those who are poor have everything to gain and nothing to lose, while those who are rich have everything to lose and nothing to gain. But this may also be the result of deliberate political strategy. Just as politicians have created abortion as a political issue in the US, by forcing people to take a position, so our leaders often do the same. Both the ANC and the DA benefit from continuing the fight around the NHI. They both get to demonstrate to their constituencies that they are fighting for them. And because the struggle for voters is now so difficult and so intense, the stakes rise each time, and so it is more likely that politicians will behave in this way. All of this feeds an artificial intensity in our politics.
TimesLIVE
8 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
US and EU clinch deal with broad 15% tariffs on EU goods to avert trade war
The United States struck a framework trade deal with the European Union on Sunday, imposing a 15% US import tariff on most EU goods, but averting a spiralling battle between two allies which account for almost a third of global trade. The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled for talks with US President Donald Trump at his golf course in western Scotland to push a hard-fought deal over the line. "I think this is the biggest deal ever made," Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15% tariff applied "across the board". "We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability," she said. The deal, that also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies. However, the baseline tariff of 15% will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30% rate. The deal mirrors parts of the framework agreement the United States clinched with Japan last week. "We are agreeing that the tariff... for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15%," Trump said. However, the 15% baseline rate would not apply to steel and aluminium, for which a 50% tariff would remain in place. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of "90 deals in 90 days." He has periodically railed against the European Union saying it was "formed to screw the United States" on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said that the EU wanted "to make a deal very badly" and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been "very unfair to the United States". His main bugbear is the US merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to US Census Bureau data. The EU points to the US surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump also talked on Sunday about the "hundreds of billions of dollars" that tariffs were bringing in. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30% tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major US trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of US goods in the event there was no deal and Trump had pressed ahead with 30% tariffs. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target US services in the event of a no-deal.
