Canceled: What CBS Isn’t Saying

CBS canceled Stephen Colbert’s late-night talk show, and far-Left politicians are demanding answers. Senators Adam Schiff (CA) and Elizabeth Warren (MA) want to know if CBS executives canned the show for “political reasons.” Colbert was number one in ratings for late-night television, so what’s the real reason his show will end in 2026?

Admittedly, the timing is curious that CBS made the move so swiftly after Colbert called out Paramount (the parent company of CBS) for settling a $16 million lawsuit with President Trump. Senator Schiff posted:

Just finished taping with Stephen Colbert who announced his show was cancelled.

If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better.

First of all, the irony can’t be lost that Adam Schiff is complaining that something was done for “political reasons.”

However, CBS executives claim the cancellation “was purely a financial decision” amid a changing television landscape. Colbert’s show is getting canceled as well as are the other two late-night shows that air on CBS. So the network is getting rid of late-night television altogether.

And here’s the harsh reality about late-night television: It is losing revenue at an alarming rate. For example, James Corden’s show ended in April 2023. It cost CBS $65 million to produce the show – and it only brought in $45 million.

The networks cannot keep taking such big losses when most people would rather watch Netflix or other streaming services instead of prerecorded interviews with guests. It’s a different world now.

We also have some ACLJ-related news to share about the ongoing efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As you know, the “Big Beautiful Bill” delivered a massive blow to the abortion giant – stripping $500 million in Medicaid payments. However, a judge has withdrawn and reissued a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a legal shell game to continue giving Planned Parenthood $2 million a day in taxpayer funding.

Today is the hearing on the preliminary injunction case in Massachusetts. ACLJ Executive Director Jordan Sekulow elaborated further:

Mostly what we’ve seen at the U.S. Supreme Court has been on these preliminary injunctions. And so, I imagine this one ends up there. The TRO is temporary, and they have briefs on issuing this preliminary injunction. The injunction has to have an order attached and a rationale. TROs don’t. They can just put them in place. So [we’ll] see what comes out of this hearing, whether or not the judge puts a preliminary injunction [in place], which would last a lot longer. That’s what is being argued in a hearing today. But that’s what we filed a brief on, trying to say, No, this does not need a preliminary injunction – this case does not need to go forward.

The ACLJ filed a vital amicus brief in federal district court in this case. We will keep you updated on the results.

We need your help in our fight against the abortion giant. Sign our petition to defeat Planned Parenthood, and donate during our 35 Years of Justice Drive – gifts are doubled.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included a full analysis of

Watch the full broadcast below: