In a surprising turn of events, two of television’s most outspoken critics of Donald Trump, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, found themselves praising the former president—a moment so rare it’s almost unheard of. But here’s where it gets controversial: their commendations came after Trump played a pivotal role in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, leading to the release of Israeli hostages and thousands of Palestinian prisoners. Could this be the start of a new chapter in Trump’s legacy, or just a fleeting moment of bipartisanship? Let’s dive in.
On their respective late-night shows, both hosts addressed the Middle East ceasefire during their Monday night monologues, blending their signature humor with a dose of unexpected acknowledgment. Kimmel, never one to hold back, quipped, ‘What a day for Donald Trump. He finally did something positive, and I want to give him credit for it—because I know he’s not the type to take credit for himself.’ But he didn’t stop there. Kimmel acknowledged the fragility of the situation, noting that while this is just the first phase of a long and complex process, the immediate outcome—a halt to the bombing and the release of hostages—deserves recognition. ‘Good work on that one, President Trump,’ he added, before slyly suggesting, ‘Now maybe you can not invade Portland. Just an idea.’
Colbert, meanwhile, took a similarly nuanced approach on The Late Show. ‘Credit where credit is due—Donald Trump did something good,’ he admitted, highlighting the release of hostages and prisoners as a significant achievement. But, in classic Colbert fashion, he couldn’t resist a comedic jab, pausing mid-monologue to ask, ‘Are we still canceled? You sure? I tried.’
And this is the part most people miss: while both hosts praised Trump’s role in the ceasefire, they didn’t shy away from critiquing his other actions. Colbert, in particular, took a sharp turn from humor to seriousness, condemning Trump’s domestic policies. ‘While Trump tries to bring peace to the Middle East, he’s trying just as hard to bring war to the Midwest,’ Colbert said, pointing to ICE’s aggressive tactics in Chicago, where he once lived. ‘I’m horrified to see how he’s stomping on my old stomping grounds,’ he added, detailing raids, arrests, and the tear-gassing of journalists.
But here’s the real question: Can we separate Trump’s actions in the Middle East from his divisive policies at home? Is it possible to praise one without excusing the other? Kimmel and Colbert seem to think so, but their nuanced approach has already sparked debate. After all, both hosts have had their own run-ins with the Trump administration. Kimmel’s show was briefly pulled off the air after he criticized Trump’s response to the murder of conservative pundit Charlie Kirk, while Colbert’s show faced cancellation earlier this year—a move some analysts linked to Paramount’s efforts to appease Trump during a merger.
Trump, never one to let a slight go unanswered, took to social media to dismiss Colbert’s cancellation as a result of ‘a pure lack of TALENT’ rather than political pressure. Yet, the timing raises eyebrows. Is this just a coincidence, or is there more to the story?
As we reflect on this rare moment of praise from two of Trump’s fiercest critics, it’s worth asking: What does it take for a polarizing figure like Trump to earn acknowledgment, even from his detractors? And more importantly, can we have a conversation about his actions without it devolving into all-or-nothing rhetoric? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—we’re eager to hear your take on this complex and controversial topic.
