The Unraveling of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert: Money or Politics?

The curtain is closing on an era of late-night television, and the reasons behind it are sparking intense debate. Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show, a fixture of CBS for nearly a decade and the highest-rated program in its time slot, is set to conclude in May 2026. While CBS insists the decision is purely financial, citing declining viewership and significant annual losses, many observers, including Colbert himself, suspect deeper, politically charged currents at play. This cancellation comes at a peculiar moment, just as CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, navigates high-stakes mergers and a recent, controversial settlement with a prominent political figure, raising questions about the true cost of speaking truth to power in the current media landscape.

For years, Stephen Colbert has been a formidable voice in late-night, known for his incisive political commentary and willingness to challenge those in authority, particularly the former US President, Donald Trump. After taking over from David Letterman in 2015, Colbert successfully transitioned from his satirical persona on The Colbert Report to hosting a mainstream talk show, injecting it with sharp political humor that resonated with a large, engaged audience. His nightly monologues skewering the president, filled with sardonic wit and moral force, became a valuable cultural touchstone, often cited by supporters as an essential counter-narrative in a deeply polarized nation.

However, this outspoken stance has also drawn criticism, particularly from conservative commentators who viewed his show as overtly biased. Reports from right-leaning media watchdogs, such as MRC NewsBusters, indicate a striking imbalance in guest appearances, with a vast majority of liberal guests and only a handful of Republicans featured between 2022 and 2025. This perceived partisanship, while bolstering his liberal viewership, might have alienated a segment of the potential audience, contributing to the financial struggles cited by the network.

The timing of the cancellation has fueled the most significant speculation. Just weeks before the announcement, Paramount Global settled a $16 million lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against CBS over a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, which Trump claimed was deceptively edited. This settlement, which many legal experts deemed meritless, occurred precisely as Paramount was seeking federal approval for an $8 billion merger with Skydance Media—a deal that required the green light from the Trump administration. Colbert himself wasted no time in publicly labeling the settlement a “big fat bribe,” expressing his offense and questioning his trust in the company that had been his long-time employer.

The proximity of these events—the controversial settlement, the pending merger needing federal approval, and the cancellation of a show hosted by one of Trump’s most vocal critics—has led many to believe that the decision was far from purely financial. Jon Stewart, co-creator of The Daily Show and a long-time friend of Colbert, scathingly denounced Paramount, suggesting that the cancellation was a move to “censor and control” its hosts and to make the network “so innocuous” that it would never again draw the ire of powerful figures. A planned rally in New York City to support Colbert, albeit small, echoed these sentiments, with protesters decrying the move as an “attack on the First Amendment” and a capitulation to political pressure.

CBS, on its part, has maintained that the decision was based solely on financial performance. They state that The Late Show, despite its ratings success, was losing approximately $40 million annually, with production costs exceeding $100 million per year, including Colbert’s substantial salary and a staff of around 200 people. While these figures point to legitimate financial challenges within the evolving late-night television landscape, critics argue that the network made little effort to adapt or trim the show’s budget before resorting to outright cancellation. The argument is that if the problem was purely financial, other options, such as reducing broadcast nights, cutting staff, or even replacing Colbert with a less expensive host, might have been explored before abandoning the entire Late Show franchise, which has been a CBS staple for over three decades.

Indeed, the late-night format itself has been struggling for years, grappling with a shift in audience consumption habits. As viewers increasingly cut traditional cable cords and migrate to streaming platforms, younger demographics find their entertainment on platforms like YouTube or TikTok, leaving late-night shows with smaller, aging linear TV audiences and declining advertising revenues. This broader industry trend undoubtedly plays a role in the financial viability of such programs. However, the unique circumstances surrounding Colbert’s cancellation, particularly its direct link to politically charged events and corporate maneuvers, add a layer of complexity beyond simple economics.

The implications of The Late Show‘s departure extend beyond the world of television. The cancellation has sparked concerns about the future of political satire and free speech in media. Many worry that it sends a chilling message to comedians and content creators: that sharp, critical commentary, especially when directed at powerful political figures, could lead to professional repercussions. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) has voiced its concern, with some members viewing the cancellation not only as political appeasement but also as potentially anti-union, given the hundreds of jobs that will be lost. They have called for an investigation into the matter, highlighting the broader labor implications for the Hollywood industry.

On the other hand, some, including Donald Trump himself, have publicly celebrated the cancellation, attributing it to Colbert’s “pure lack of talent” and the show’s financial losses. Trump, who once explicitly called for CBS to “terminate” Colbert’s contract, has continued to gloat, even predicting similar fates for other late-night hosts like Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon, whom he also deems “less talented.” This narrative, while convenient for the former president, overlooks the show’s consistent ratings success and the widespread support Colbert has received from fans and fellow celebrities alike.

Even within the comedy world, there’s a range of reactions. While some, like Jay Leno, have opined that late-night talk shows have become too political and should aim for a broader audience, many contemporary comedians believe that making fun of those in power is an inherent part of the job. They argue that the cancellation, far from silencing political humor, might simply embolden comedians to be even more direct in their critiques, as Colbert himself has demonstrated in his recent monologues, declaring that the “gloves are off.”

Ultimately, the cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert appears to be a confluence of financial realities within a shifting media landscape and potentially significant political maneuvering. While CBS points to declining profits and the challenging environment for linear television, the timing of the decision, intertwined with a massive corporate merger and a contentious legal settlement involving a powerful political figure, makes it difficult to dismiss the political undertones. This move not only marks the end of an influential show but also serves as a stark reminder of the intricate dance between media, money, and power in the modern era, leaving many to wonder what truly happens behind the scenes when a network decides to pull the plug on a critical voice. The full impact of this decision on the future of late-night comedy and the broader media ecosystem will undoubtedly unfold in the months and years to come.

Stephen Colbert’s The Late Show is ending, and the reasons are sparking outrage. Was it purely financial, or did a massive corporate deal and a controversial settlement with a powerful political figure seal its fate? The truth behind the curtain is more unsettling than you imagine.