JUST IN: Stephen Colbert Launches $750 Million Federal Lawsuit Against FCC and Donald Trump in Punitive and Compensatory Damages , Accusing Trump of Orchestrating Brazen Censorship and a Direct Assault on Press Freedom and Free Speech by Forcing CBS to Pull Interview with Texas Senate Hopeful James Talarico .

JUST IN: Stephen Colbert Launches $750 Million Federal Lawsuit Against FCC and Donald Trump, Accusing Them of Censorship and Assault on Press Freedom

Late‑night television star Stephen Colbert has filed a $750 million federal lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and former President Donald Trump, claiming a politically motivated crackdown on free speech that he says led to his network preventing him from airing a major interview. The suit, filed in federal court this week, alleges punitive and compensatory damages for what Colbert describes as an unprecedented effort to interfere with press freedom on broadcast television.

Colbert’s lawsuit stems from an incident earlier this month when CBS lawyers told him he could not air an interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico on The Late Show. According to Colbert, the network cited concerns that the segment would violate new FCC guidance tightening enforcement of the so‑called “equal time” rule, a decades‑old regulation requiring broadcast stations to offer equal airtime to all political candidates in the same race — even on entertainment shows. Colbert has publicly blamed the Trump‑appointed FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, for pushing what he calls a partisan policy that targets liberal voices in media.

In the lawsuit, Colbert asserts that CBS effectively silenced his planned Talarico interview in order to avoid drawing the ire of Trump’s allies in government, and that this act constitutes a direct assault on the First Amendment. His complaint alleges that the FCC’s actions, and the network’s decision to comply, were aimed at “chilling criticism of political leaders” and setting a dangerous precedent for newsroom independence and public discourse.

CBS responded to Colbert’s allegations at the time by saying the show was not explicitly barred from airing the Talarico interview, but was advised that broadcasting it might trigger the equal‑time rule because other candidates — including Talarico’s Democratic rivals — would then be entitled to comparable on‑air opportunities. The network said producers chose instead to release the interview on The Late Show’s YouTube channel, where FCC regulations do not apply. �

Colbert rejected that explanation, telling his audience that the network’s decision was tantamount to censorship. He argued that late‑night and daytime talk shows have long operated with an understanding that political interviews fall under exemptions to equal‑time requirements. Colbert called the shift in enforcement “an attack on political satire and commentary” and accused the Trump administration of seeking to muzzle critics on television. �

Democrats and free‑speech advocates have rallied around Colbert, expressing alarm at what they see as a troubling overlap between political power and media regulation. Talarico himself described the incident as the “interview Donald Trump didn’t want voters to see,” noting his campaign raised more than $2.5 million within 24 hours of the segment going public online — far more than would have been possible with a single Late Show broadcast. �

Meanwhile, the FCC and Trump’s supporters have pushed back. Chairman Carr has called the story a “hoax” and defended his agency’s position, saying the equal‑time rule ensures fairness in elections and that broadcasters must follow the law. The FCC is also investigating similar issues after another major daytime program, The View, aired an interview with Talarico and may face equal‑time obligations as a result.

Legal experts contacted by news outlets have noted that the equal‑time rule is rarely enforced in this manner, especially for talk shows, and that the current controversy highlights an unresolved tension between traditional broadcast regulation and evolving media platforms like streaming and online video. �

The lawsuit marks a dramatic escalation in the conflict between Colbert, his network, and federal regulators — coming just months before The Late Show is scheduled to air its final episode this spring. Colbert’s attorneys argue that the network’s compliance with what they describe as politically driven pressure violated not only constitutional protections but also the longstanding editorial independence that broadcasters and entertainers have historically enjoyed.

As the case moves through federal court, it is expected to draw intense legal scrutiny and could have significant implications for how broadcasters handle political content in an increasingly polarized media environment.