New York — Late-night television has long served as an informal arena for political commentary, but few figures have tested its limits as persistently as Donald Trump. This week, that dynamic resurfaced forcefully after Stephen Colbert devoted an extended monologue to the former president, blending satire, archival clips and pointed critique in a segment that quickly drew public attention — and presidential ire.

Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly dismissed Mr. Colbert as “talentless” and accused him of low ratings, has a long history of responding publicly to late-night hosts who scrutinize him. But the latest exchange came with an added layer of tension: Mr. Colbert opened the show by addressing a recent settlement involving his parent company, Paramount Global, which agreed to pay Mr. Trump $16 million to resolve a defamation lawsuit stemming from a 60 Minutes interview.

Rather than avoiding the subject, Mr. Colbert confronted it directly. With a tone that mixed irony and unease, he acknowledged the settlement on air, framing it as emblematic of the uneasy relationship between powerful political figures and large media institutions. The moment set the stage for a monologue that was less about a single controversy than about a broader pattern of behavior.

From there, Mr. Colbert turned to Mr. Trump’s public statements, replaying clips in which the former president appeared to reverse positions or contradict earlier claims — including remarks about releasing video evidence related to a military strike. Mr. Colbert treated the shifting explanations not as isolated misstatements but as part of what he portrayed as a governing style defined by certainty untethered from consistency.

The humor was sharp, but carefully structured. Rather than relying solely on insult, Mr. Colbert dissected language itself — pauses, repetitions, and abrupt reversals — presenting them as clues to how Mr. Trump communicates power. At one point, he compared the former president’s confidence to a self-renewing resource, endlessly replenished regardless of factual grounding.

The monologue also ranged widely across topics. Mr. Colbert mocked Mr. Trump’s repeated claims of unparalleled success, including suggestions that he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize, juxtaposing those assertions with footage and headlines that suggested a more complicated reality. He revisited Mr. Trump’s approach to global warming, tariffs and agricultural bailouts, highlighting contradictions between rhetoric and policy outcomes.

Particularly pointed was Mr. Colbert’s discussion of cultural institutions. He referenced Mr. Trump’s role in reshaping the leadership of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, portraying the former president’s involvement as emblematic of his tendency to center himself within institutions traditionally insulated from partisan politics. Mr. Colbert’s exaggerated “transcript” of a hypothetical opening monologue at the Kennedy Center drew laughter, but also underscored concerns about the politicization of cultural spaces.

Throughout the segment, Mr. Colbert returned to a central theme: Mr. Trump’s insistence on mastery over every subject he addresses. Whether discussing trade, climate science or diplomacy, the former president presents himself, in Mr. Colbert’s telling, as uniquely informed — a posture that becomes comedic when juxtaposed with contradictory evidence.

The audience response was immediate and sustained. Applause frequently interrupted the monologue, and social media clips circulated within minutes. Mr. Trump, predictably, responded soon after, renewing his criticism of Mr. Colbert and framing the segment as evidence of media bias.

Such exchanges raise broader questions about the role of late-night comedy in American political life. Once viewed primarily as entertainment, shows like Mr. Colbert’s have become influential platforms for political framing, particularly among younger audiences. Media scholars note that satire can function as both critique and amplification, preserving statements that might otherwise fade while reshaping them through humor.

For Mr. Trump, the relationship with late-night television remains paradoxical. His rhetoric and behavior generate material that fuels comedy, yet the resulting mockery appears to provoke genuine resentment. The cycle — provocation, satire, backlash — has repeated itself for nearly a decade.

What distinguished this latest episode was its layering of institutional context atop familiar humor. By foregrounding the Paramount settlement and addressing corporate power alongside presidential behavior, Mr. Colbert placed his satire within a broader media ecosystem, one where legal pressure, ownership structures and political influence intersect.

Whether such moments change minds is difficult to measure. But they do shape narratives. As Mr. Colbert closed his monologue, the laughter in the studio suggested not merely amusement, but recognition — a sense that the contradictions on display were no longer surprising, but expected.

In that sense, the segment reflected a larger reality: in an era where politics often resembles performance, satire has become both commentary and record, documenting not just what leaders say, but how they say it — and how they react when the spotlight turns unflinchingly back on them.