The Real Reason Behind The Late Show’s Cancellation: Politics, Not Format?

When CBS announced in July 2025 that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert would end in May 2026, many were shocked. Though Colbert remained the top-rated host at 11:35 PM for nearly a decade, Paramount Global and CBS cited financial pressure, including annual losses estimated at $40 million, as the primary reason.

However, the conversation quickly turned: was the decision purely business‑based, or rooted in political concerns? Some critics—including Senator Elizabeth Warren—questioned whether the timing, shortly after Colbert publicly criticized Paramount’s $16 million settlement with Donald Trump, suggested political interference in CBS programming.

Greg Gutfeld’s Meteoric Rise: Proof That Format Isn’t the Problem

Enter Greg Gutfeld. Hosting Gutfeld! on Fox News since 2021, he has repeatedly outpaced Colbert in total viewership—3.1 million vs. Colbert’s 1.9 million—and in the coveted 25–54 demographic (398K vs. Colbert’s 288K) over 21 consecutive months .

Gutfeld’s team even runs on just five core staffers, in contrast to Colbert’s costly 200‑person production, demonstrating that leaner, sharper shows can thrive even in late-night format. This success undermines the idea that The Late Show’s cancellation was about format ageing or viewer fatigue.

When critics opined that late-night talk shows had “given in to the woke mob” or become overly politicized, Gutfeld used his monologues to mock what he called a morality‑laden comedy landscape, arguing audiences don’t want homework disguised as humor

Gutfeld’s Take: Colbert Isn’t Clever—He’s Losing His Edge

Following the cancellation news, Gutfeld questioned whether CBS truly cared about content—or whether they simply feared dissenting voices . In commentary, Gutfeld suggested that Colbert lacked the cleverness to adapt, accusing him of preaching rather than entertaining. He implied Colbert might be effectively ending his career by doubling down on progressive monologues instead of evolving with audience tastes.

While these remarks are controversial and come from a Fox News host with ideological motivations, they reflect a broader cultural critique: that late-night has shifted from entertainment to activism, with Colbert emblematic of the trend

SEO Keywords Driving This Discussion

To understand why The Late Show’s end has sparked such debate, key terms like “Colbert cancellation,” “Greg Gutfeld ratings,” “progressive bias in late night,” “late night ratings war,” “CBS financial loss,” and “Colbert future career” are frequently searched and shared in articles, tweets, petitions, and think‑piece headlines.

Analysts argue this isn’t about aging format or scheduling—because Gutfeld shows the format can thrive. Instead, the progressive slant and ideological rigidity of Colbert’s show are seen by many as the real liability.

The Two Camps: Format vs Ideology

Pro‑format advocates assert that The Late Show succeeded for years due to mix of celebrity guests, topical humor, and Colbert’s wit. Its cancellation, they say, is a casualty of cost‑cutting in an evolving media ecosystem—streaming raids, aging demographics, shrinking ad revenue

Ideology critics, on the other hand, believe The Late Show’s heavy emphasis on progressive politics alienated half the mainstream audience. Letters to editors in publications like The New York Post criticized Colbert for replacing laughs with lectures, contrasting his approach with Gutfeld’s lighter, non‑credentialed, more irreverent style

Piers Morgan and other conservative commentators echoed this, asserting Colbert’s political tilt cost him broader appeal—and that his cancellation was partly warranted by ideological fatigue among viewers

What This Means for Late Night—and for Colbert

Format still works: Gutfeld’s ratings success illustrates that traditional late-night format is viable—it’s entertainment and tone, not time slot, that counts.
Progressive monologues aren’t universally appealing: Colbert’s shift toward overt political messaging may have energized liberal viewers but cost engagement in broader demographics.
Colbert’s career crossroads: Critics argue he faces a choice—adapt or fade. Gutfeld’s suggestion that Colbert “is not clever” is harsh but rooted in frustration over perceived inflexibility.
Media merger politics loom large: Paramount’s merger with Skydance, and its settlement with Trump, frames the cancellation as corporate risk mitigation rather than purely art‑directed decisions .

Conclusion: The Future of Late‑Night Debate

The cancellation of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert could mark a turning point: not the death of late-night format—but the decline of political activism as the main draw. Greg Gutfeld’s ascent shows audiences still want late-night—but with irreverence over ideology, satire over sermon.

Is Colbert really ending his career, as Gutfeld implied? That remains uncertain. Colbert is set to appear in a cameo role on CBS’s Elsbeth in October 2025, suggesting he’s not done on-screen yet EW.com. But any return to late-night in traditional form would require a tonal shift.

Ultimately, the debate circles back to this: in today’s polarized media world, format is secondary. What matters is whether hosts give audiences comedy—or commentary. And in the digital-first, platform-diverse age, that distinction may determine who survives.

Downloadable insights:

CBS cited financial losses (~$40M/year) and expensive budgets in cancelling Colbert’s show.
Gutfeld shows that a lean operation with broad appeal can top ratings—even outdoing legacy network hosts.
Many analysts believe progressive bias, not format or timing, pushed Colbert’s viewership to decline.
Gutfeld’s claim that Colbert “is not clever and may be finishing his career” underscores ideological tensions in modern comedy.

Let me know if you’d like a narrower focus—like financial breakdowns, audience sentiment, or comparison of writing styles.