WASHINGTON — A clash between late-night comedy and presidential authority escalated this month into a broader debate over free speech, media independence, and the limits of government pressure, after Jimmy Kimmel used his monologue to criticize Donald Trump, prompting an unusually forceful response from the White House and federal regulators.

The episode began with a series of on-air remarks in which Kimmel addressed recent political violence and efforts by some partisan actors to shape public narratives around it. Without naming the president directly, Kimmel criticized what he described as attempts to exploit tragedy for political gain — comments that quickly drew the attention of Mr. Trump, who responded on social media with a familiar mix of derision and threat.

Within hours, Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social accusing Kimmel of lacking talent and calling on networks to remove him from the air. Similar rhetoric soon followed from administration allies, transforming what might once have been dismissed as political sparring into a confrontation with institutional consequences.

The dispute intensified when Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, suggested publicly that broadcasters could face “additional scrutiny” if they failed to address what he characterized as partisan conduct by on-air personalities. While Carr stopped short of announcing formal action, media lawyers and press freedom advocates warned that the remarks risked crossing a constitutional line.

“It is one thing for a president to criticize a comedian,” said one First Amendment scholar. “It is another for regulatory agencies to imply consequences. That is precisely the scenario the First Amendment was designed to prevent.”

Days later, Nexstar Media Group, which owns dozens of local television stations that carry ABC programming, announced it would temporarily preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! in several markets. The company cited internal programming considerations, though the timing of the decision immediately fueled speculation about political pressure.

Mr. Trump celebrated the move online, calling it a “victory for America” and suggesting that networks critical of him should expect consequences. ABC executives declined to comment directly on the president’s statements but later emphasized that programming decisions were made independently.

The White House, through press secretary Karoline Leavitt, denied any role in influencing broadcasters, insisting that the administration remained committed to free expression. In televised appearances, Ms. Leavitt described Kimmel as “irrelevant” and dismissed accusations of government coercion as political theater.

Those assurances were challenged publicly by Barack Obama, who warned that threatening regulatory action against media organizations represented a dangerous escalation. “Government intimidation of journalists and entertainers is incompatible with democratic norms,” Mr. Obama said in a statement.

After several days off the air, Kimmel returned with a monologue that directly addressed the controversy. Framing the issue as larger than his own career, he argued that the dispute was about whether elected officials could use the power of government to silence critics. The episode drew more than six million viewers, according to preliminary Nielsen data, making it the most-watched broadcast of his show in years.

Mr. Trump responded once again on social media, claiming falsely that ABC executives had assured the White House the program was canceled permanently — an assertion the network publicly denied.

The confrontation unfolded against a backdrop of broader tensions between the Trump administration and the press. Mr. Trump has repeatedly accused major news organizations of spreading misinformation and has pursued lawsuits against outlets including the BBC and others, while frequently praising media figures who support him.

Legal experts note that while presidents are free to criticize journalists, the involvement of regulatory agencies raises profound constitutional concerns. “The danger is not censorship by decree,” said one former FCC official, “but censorship by pressure — where companies act out of fear rather than law.”

For now, Kimmel remains on the air, and no formal FCC action has been announced. But the episode has sharpened anxieties across the media landscape, where executives and entertainers alike are watching closely for signals about how far the administration may be willing to go.

What began as a late-night joke has evolved into a case study in the fragile boundaries between political power and expressive freedom — a reminder that in an era of polarized politics, even comedy can become a constitutional battleground.