Trump’s Grip Weakens: Why Media and Corporations Are No Longer Bowing to Presidential Pressure in 2026

The Kimmel-ABC Standoff That Signals a Shift

Donald Trump continues to wait for the departure of his least-favorite late-night host, Jimmy Kimmel, from ABC. Following the chaos of an attempted shooting at the 2025 White House Correspondents' Dinner, the president issued two key demands: resume construction of his "big, beautiful" militarized ballroom and have ABC fire Kimmel for a morbid joke about Melania Trump. (Days before the event, Kimmel quipped that the first lady had "the glow of an expectant widow.") While the ballroom's fate remains tied to court decisions, the request to oust Kimmel appears increasingly unlikely to be met.

This marks a dramatic reversal from September 2024, when ABC and parent company Disney swiftly pulled Kimmel off the air after FCC Chair Brendan Carr objected to a monologue about Charlie Kirk's assassination. Now, Disney has merely indicated the incident is under discussion. The conditions that once forced Kimmel's suspension no longer exist. Many organizations—including Disney and ABC—appear to have internalized a key lesson from the past year: Trump's grievances are so erratic that ignoring them often proves the easier path.

A Changed Landscape: Why Disney Isn't Backing Down

When Trump returned to the White House in 2025 after an electoral victory that seemed improbable just a few years earlier, many executives acted as though his win proved an infinite power that could reshape American culture. Companies like Amazon and Meta raced into proactive appeasement—slashing DEI programs, donating to Trump's inaugural fund, and, in Amazon's case, spending $40 million on a documentary about the first lady. Others surrendered outright. In December 2024, ABC settled a Trump lawsuit for $15 million after This Week host George Stephanopoulos inaccurately claimed the president had been found liable for rape in a civil case (Trump was actually found liable for sexual abuse and defamation).

By early 2025, CBS and parent company Paramount settled a separate Trump lawsuit—over an "unfair" 60 Minutes edit—for $16 million. They also canceled Stephen Colbert’s talk show, which Trump had long criticized, conveniently while Paramount awaited FCC approval for an $8 billion merger. The president had clearly started flexing his authority.

But the landscape has evolved. Executives now see that yielding to Trump's demands often brings fleeting relief, while defiance carries less risk than previously assumed. The fickleness of presidential anger means that today's target may be tomorrow's forgotten quarrel. As a result, Disney's hesitation to fire Kimmel signals a broader recalibration: the cost of compliance now seems higher than the cost of resistance.

The Previous Wave of Capitulation

The pattern of deference extended well beyond entertainment. Trump used legal maneuvers and executive orders to pressure law firms and universities that had crossed him. Prominent legal practices like Paul, Weiss—which represented Democratic figures, prosecuted Trump, or worked on January 6 litigation—faced retaliation including suspended security clearances and restricted government access. Universities that had admitted to affirmative action policies or hosted controversial speakers saw funding threats and visa restrictions.

Yet even in these sectors, pushback has started. Some law firms have fought back in court, arguing that executive orders targeting them violate due process. Universities have quietly resisted by hiring outside counsel and publicizing Trump’s overreach. The lesson from the ABC-Kimmel episode reinforces this trend: when institutions stand firm, the president often moves on to other battles.

Broader Implications for Media and Corporate America

The diminished intimidation factor is not limited to ABC. Other news organizations have grown more willing to air critical coverage without fear of immediate retaliation. Trump’s threats to revoke broadcast licenses or launch antitrust investigations—once taken seriously—are now met with cautious skepticism. The FCC, under Carr, has not aggressively pursued such actions, partly because courts have blocked several attempts.

For corporate America, the calculus has also shifted. In 2025, many CEOs scrambled to align with Trump out of fear of losing government contracts or facing regulatory hurdles. By 2026, that anxiety has eased as companies realize that Trump’s attention span is short and his memory selective. The “pay to play” strategy—donating to his causes or hosting him at events—no longer guarantees immunity, and the public backlash from such moves can be severe.

Conclusion: Lessons Learned, Power Rebalanced

The standoff over Jimmy Kimmel’s job encapsulates a broader trend: Trump’s ability to intimidate media and corporate titans has waned significantly. The president’s demands, once treated as existential threats, now often receive a polite shoulder shrug. Disney’s refusal to immediately fire Kimmel—despite White House pressure—indicates that the era of blanket capitulation may be ending.

Of course, this shift is not absolute. Trump still wields considerable influence through executive orders, lawsuits, and his base. But the knee-jerk deference of 2024–2025 has given way to a more measured response. As the 2026 midterms approach, expect more institutions to test the limits of Trump’s power—and fewer to bow without a fight.

Key takeaways:

• Disney’s handling of the Kimmel incident contrasts sharply with its 2024 capitulation.
• Corporations and media now recognize that Trump’s grievances are often fleeting.
• Legal and educational institutions have begun resisting executive overreach.
• The cost of appeasement has risen relative to the cost of defiance.