Chicago comedians deny Stephen Colbert cancellation will lead to fewer Trump jokes
After CBS announced the left-leaning comedian's show being canceled weeks earlier, several people ranging from commentators to lawmakers called out the move as authoritarian, suggesting CBS bent the knee to Trump after recently settling a lawsuit.
Though some believed that this could lead to either more censorship or political capitulation, comedians from the windy city, where Colbert had trained in comedy, largely believed the opposite.
'That would go for whoever is the president,' late night host Mark Bazer told the Chicago Sun-Times. 'That's the gig. My guess is there's very few comedians or late-night talk show hosts who are going to bend the knee.'
Bazer added that Colbert can now 'take the gloves off' regarding his jokes against Trump without the pressure of maintaining his show.
'We've all seen late-night talk shows over the years. It's a tradition to make fun of whoever's in power, like, that's what the job entails,' Bazer said.
Local comic James Dugan, who frequently performs for the Chicago improv show Whirled News Tonight, told the Chicago Sun-Times that his team largely pulls jokes from the headlines, which have heavily featured Trump recently.
3 CBS cancelled 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.'
CBS via Getty Images
3 Colbert has not shied away from making jokes about President Trump after CBS announced the end of his show.
AP
In fact, he described concerns about an oversaturation of Trump jokes.
'A lot of times with our show in particular, we get four or five newspapers and spread them out,' Dugan said. 'And there is a little bit of a sense of like, should we take out the Trump stuff? Because people are kind of sick of hearing about it.'
However, some comedians are still worried about what Colbert's cancellation could mean for comedy on a larger scale.
'The fact that a sitting public official is doing so much private litigation, and that it results in this type of thing — it's dangerous,' stand-up comic Eunji Kim told the Chicago Sun-Times.
3 The show's cancellation was due to financial reasons, according to CBS and Paramount.
Luiz C. Ribeiro for New York Post
Despite the timing of the announcement, CBS and its parent company, Paramount, have said that the cancellation was a financial decision, not a political one.
Insider sources have also said that the decision was made days before Paramount's settlement with Trump.
Colbert himself has not shied away from attacking Trump in the weeks after his show's cancellation.
Last week, he told Trump to 'go f–k yourself' after the latter celebrated the end of 'The Late Show.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's lawyers encounter some courtroom skepticism as they defend tariffs that start Friday
Small business importers and the US Justice Department clashed Thursday over whether President Trump has the authority to impose his "Liberation Day" tariffs just hours before those duties were scheduled to take effect for countries around the world. The confrontation took place in Washington, D.C. before a panel of 12 judges at the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and it did not produce an immediate ruling. But it did reveal that some judges have some skepticism of the Justice Department's arguments that the president can unilaterally impose wide-ranging, global tariffs by invoking a law enacted in 1977 to protect the US from international threats, while others found support for the claim. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances That law, known as 'IEEPA' — the International Economic Emergency Powers Act — authorizes the president to 'regulate' international commerce after declaring a national emergency. The panel — composed of eight judges appointed by former Democratic presidents and four appointed by Republican presidents — spent considerable time asking the lawyers what Congress meant when it wrote in IEEPA that presidents have authority to 'regulate importation.' 'IEEPA doesn't even say 'tariffs.' It doesn't even mention it,' one judge said. 'What does 'regulation of importation' mean?' another judge asked. And 'If 'regulate' doesn't cover tariffs, what does it cover?' A lawyer for one of 12 states joining the small businesses in their challenge of Trump's tariffs, Brian Simmonds Marshall, said he thought the phrase was meant to permit the president to order quotas that limit the number of imported goods, and potentially for the president to order import licensing requirements and fees. But 'the one thing that I think it excludes for sure is tariffs,' Simmonds Marshall added. But Trump's Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said that IEEPA doesn't have such limits and that Congress would have understood that when it wrote the law. And while IEEPA offers the president broad power, Shumate said that power is not unlimited because it is available only during a national emergency, and Congress can step in and overrule the president. 'The primary rule is for Congress to check the president if there is an abuse of the IEEPA tariff authority,' Shumate said. Trump and Nixon The judges also questioned if a Nixon-era case that addressed IEEPA's predecessor law, known as the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), put limits on what a president can do under IEEPA. Trump's team has been citing that 1970s case as proof that the president's global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the former President Nixon as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. A Japanese zipper-making business called Yoshida International sued, saying Nixon lacked the power to set the 10% tariff on foreign goods under three different laws that the government gave as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA). The most controversial justification was the TWEA, a predecessor law to the 1977 act that Trump cited this year as a basis for his multiple tariffs. A US Customs Court initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws was adequate authority for the duty. Yet on appeal, Nixon's tariffs were upheld. The court that upheld the tariffs reasoned that "neither need nor national emergency" justified Nixon's tariff because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was "not inherent" in his office, but that TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency. One of the judges hearing the Trump case on Thursday cited that 1970s case and said, 'It seems pretty clear to me that Yoshida is telling us that 'No, the president doesn't have the authority to rewrite the Tariff Schedule.' In this case, that's what the president is trying to do.' Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs A lawyer for the challengers to Trump's duties argued that by adopting IEEPA in 1977, Congress ratified the high court's holding in Yoshida, which he said allowed the president to impose 'modest, bounded, temporary tariffs' but did not sanction unbounded, permanent duties. 'Good luck in America's big case' The lawyers and judges also sparred over whether the president's declared national emergency met IEEPA's requirements of unusual and extraordinary, and Trump found some support during this discussion. One judge agreed the president did meet these requirements by identifying underlying causes contributing to the threat, including trade deficits, tariff barriers, and a lack of reciprocity in US trading relationships. That, this judge said, contributed to a spike in the US's trade deficit and atrophied domestic production capacity, including in defense industrial bases. 'How does that not constitute what the president is expressly saying is an extraordinary threat?' the judge asked the challengers. But another judge countered, 'How can a trade deficit be an extraordinary and unusual threat when we've had trade deficits for decades?' Lawyers for the administration argued that the deficit becomes extraordinary and unusual once it reaches a point where it threatens the resources that are foundational to US national security. Trump was clearly paying attention to the courtroom developments. 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today,' Trump wrote Thursday morning on Truth Social. 'If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
Donald Trump's new Scotland golf course is ready. How can you play it?
The way President Donald Trump told it, the new Scotland golf course the Trump Organization named in his honor and dedicated to his mother wouldn't have happened without Sean Connery. He even broke out his best Bond impression to praise the late Scottish actor at the grand opening of Trump International Golf Links on Tuesday, July 29 near Aberdeen, Scotland. "The land, they said it couldn't get zoned. It was an impossibility," Trump said at the ribbon cutting ceremony before playing the course's ceremonial opening round with his son, Eric Trump, 2002 PGA champion Rich Beem and Irish golfer Paul McGinley. "Sean Connery said, 'Let the bloody bloke build his golf course.' Once he said that, everything came into line." Connery did offer support in 2008 for what Eric Trump described Tuesday as his father's "passion project," which Trump acknowledged got off to a rocky start with its neighbors. There were environmental concerns due to the resort's intrusion on the region's sand dunes and Trump's alleged tactics trying to acquire land. But Connery cited the potential benefits to the economy when Trump's initial $1.5 billion plan, which also included hundreds of houses that have not been built yet, received approval from the Scottish government. "During tough economic times, this is a major vote of confidence in Scotland's tourist industry and our ability to rise to the challenge," Connery said, according to the Daily Express. "I look forward to seeing a new gem in the north-east that is good for Aberdeenshire and good for Scotland." The resulting 36-hole golf resort, featuring a highly-acclaimed "Old Course" built in 2012 and the new course Trump formally debuted before returning to the United States after a five-day visit to Scotland, will officially open to the public on August 13. Before that, the property is set to host PGA Legends Tour and DP World Tour events the next two weeks. It will join Trump Turnberry, which Trump bought in 2014, as Scottish golf destinations. Tee times and hotel rooms are available starting next month for what the Trump Organization has dubbed "the greatest 36 holes in golf." But it won't necessarily come cheap. Here's a breakdown of how to stay and play at Trump's newest golf course, Trump International Golf Links. How to stay at Trump's new golf course Those wanting to play golf at Trump's golf property outside Aberdeen, Scotland, can stay on property. Trump MacLeod House & Lodge Hotel is billed as a five-star Scottish baronial mansion nestled within the 1,400-acre grounds of Trump International Golf Links, which is located on the former Menie Estate of Balmedie on the Scottish North-East coast. There are 19 "lavish" guest rooms (with personal butler service available), Italian marble staircases, intimate dining and bar facilities, a separate whisky bar, a full spa, outdoor hot tub, traditional log fires and secret stairways. It's available for exclusive use, corporate events and weddings and "minutes" from the property's golf courses. A house or lodge room for the week beginning on Sunday, August 18 ‒ the earliest day rooms are available as of July 29 ‒ costs 683 Euros (about $787) or more, depending on availability and number of nights. "We had an unlimited budget and we exceeded it," Eric Trump said. "This was his (father's) Mona Lisa." There are also golf packages that include hotel stays, with options built around playing one round or two rounds on the two courses at Trump International Golf Links. The two-night version featuring two rounds of golf on the property's old and new course, which includes a two-night stay at the hotel, a welcome dinner and a dram of whisky and breakfast, costs 2,500 Euros per person (about $2,884) or 4000 Euros (about $4,615) for two people sharing a room. The package is available from August 25 until October 31, 2025, according to the property website. The one-night version, which includes one round of golf on the property's old course, a one-night stay at the hotel and a three-course dinner at The Dunes Restaurant & Bar at the golf clubhouse, costs 1,070 Euros (about $1,234) for a single occupancy room and 782.50 Euros (about $903) per person for a double occupancy room. A one-night package with just golf and hotel accommodations costs 985 Euros ($1,136) for a single occupancy room and 697.50 Euros (about $804) per person for a double occupancy room. In November and December, the costs drop to 460 Euros (about $530) per person per night. The property website also advertises a "Winter Getaway for two" package at 495 Euros (about $571). It includes a one-night stay, three-course dinner at "Trump's Restaurant & Cellar," breakfast in the morning and beauty and wellness treatments at the hotel spa. How to play at Trump International Golf Links Golfers looking to play Trump International Golf Links can get tee times on the old course, the new course or "play the greatest 36 holes in golf." Tee times are available on the new course and old course beginning on Aug. 13, with greens fees costing 495 Euros (about $571) per person. There is a combined "Greatest 36" rate as well until October 31. Tee times will be allocated on a first-come-first-serve basis during the first few months of play, according to the property website. There are also various levels of club membership available for an undisclosed cost. "It's going to be something special and the big question is which is going to be better if there is such a thing," Donald Trump said about the two 18-hole courses, "because we've had such great ratings on the first, I don't know if you can match them on the second, but the second should be every bit as good. The land is of equal quality right on the North Sea and it's going to be good." Golfweek ranked the property's old course No. 31 in the international courses in its 2024 rankings.
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
WASHINGTON — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Trump's legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs. Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration's insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so. 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere,' Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said in a sign of the panel's incredulity at a government attorney's arguments. Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection. In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with [it].' Schumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible' power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'' In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers. The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump's first term and continued by President Biden. The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. Wiseman and Sedensky write for the Associated Press. Sedensky reported from New York.
