Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is facing renewed scrutiny after past remarks celebrating the downfall of conservative commentator Tucker Carlson resurfaced in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel’s dismissal from late-night television.

The development has exposed an uncomfortable political symmetry, as Democrats who once cheered Carlson’s ouster now condemn what they call censorship following Kimmel’s cancellation.

In April 2023, Fox News stunned the media world when it announced the departure of Tucker Carlson, its most-watched primetime host. The decision followed Fox’s record-setting $787 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, which had sued the network for defamation over claims about election fraud in 2020.

As part of the fallout, Carlson was abruptly taken off the air. While Carlson would go on to reinvent himself as an independent media figure, for a brief moment, his career appeared uncertain. His departure was celebrated across progressive circles, with one of the most memorable reactions coming from Ocasio-Cortez herself.

During an Instagram Live session shortly after Carlson’s firing, Ocasio-Cortez spoke to her followers with unrestrained glee.

“Tucker Carlson is out at Fox News. Couldn’t have happened to a better guy,” she proclaimed, smiling broadly.

“Deplatforming works. And it is important, and, uh… good things can happen!” she continued, her words quickly going viral.

At the time, Democrats argued that Carlson’s rhetoric stoked anger and violence on the right, making his removal a victory for public discourse. Ocasio-Cortez’s comments became emblematic of that sentiment, reflecting her belief that limiting harmful voices could reduce political tension.

Fast forward to the present, and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel has found himself at the center of a storm. During a recent monologue, Kimmel addressed the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, remarking that Trump and his allies were “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.”

The remarks sparked immediate backlash. Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr accused ABC of promoting violent rhetoric on national television.

Carr’s words carried particular weight because Nexstar, the syndicator distributing Kimmel’s program, is currently navigating merger negotiations that Carr could influence.

Within hours, Nexstar signaled its discomfort, announcing it would no longer carry Kimmel’s show on hundreds of stations nationwide. The move effectively canceled Kimmel’s long-running late-night program, triggering an outpouring of outrage from liberal politicians and commentators.

Kimmel’s dismissal brought instant comparisons to Carlson’s ouster. Democrats who once cheered the fall of a conservative voice now argued that Kimmel was being unfairly silenced. Among them were lawmakers who had mocked Carlson’s downfall only a year earlier.

Representative Seth Moulton, who once celebrated Carlson facing “consequences after blatantly lying,” blasted Kimmel’s cancellation as “state censorship.”

He tweeted, “Donald Trump and the Republican Party are hellbent on silencing any speech that hurts their feelings. This isn’t just cancel culture, it’s state censorship. And it has no place in our democracy.”

The resurfacing of Ocasio-Cortez’s celebratory Instagram video provided conservatives with ammunition. Her earlier assertion that “deplatforming works” now seemed to contradict the outrage over Kimmel’s removal.

Critics accused her and other Democrats of hypocrisy, pointing out that the same logic applied to Carlson was being ignored in Kimmel’s case.

Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson’s trajectory since leaving Fox underscores the irony of the moment. After departing the network, Carlson retreated to rural Maine, where he launched his own independent platform.

Free from corporate oversight, he quickly rebuilt his influence, becoming a GOP kingmaker and amassing millions of views through his online content.

What looked like a career setback in 2023 turned into an opportunity for Carlson to shape conservative discourse even more directly. His success has been cited by Republicans as proof that efforts to silence him backfired.

Critics of Kimmel argue that his downfall is not simply a matter of censorship but the consequence of his own rhetoric. Opponents have pointed to his past statements as evidence of a pattern.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Kimmel warned viewers that “Americans would die” without vaccination, comments his critics labeled as alarmist “fake news.”

For Republicans, Kimmel’s latest remarks about Kirk were a breaking point. They argue that suggesting Trump and his allies shared responsibility for Kirk’s murder was irresponsible and inflammatory. Coupled with Carr’s intervention, the backlash left ABC and Nexstar little room to maneuver.

Despite the controversy, Democrats have defended Kimmel as a voice of reason who should not be silenced for provocative remarks. Representative Moulton framed his dismissal as a threat to democracy.

Representative Robert Garcia, who once said Carlson “will not be missed,” expressed dismay that Kimmel had been taken off the air.

Representative Barbara Lee, who previously tweeted “good riddance” about Carlson, denounced Kimmel’s cancellation as censorship. Representative Bill Pascrell, who once called Carlson’s show “a sewer of countless lies,” described the move against Kimmel as proof of double standards.

For Democrats, the difference lies in intent. They argue that Carlson spread lies undermining democracy, while Kimmel’s commentary was sharp but rooted in political critique. Republicans reject that distinction, insisting that inflammatory rhetoric is dangerous no matter the source.

The twin episodes of Carlson’s firing and Kimmel’s dismissal highlight the precarious state of media in America. Both cases underscore the influence of political pressure, corporate interests, and regulatory scrutiny on public discourse.

For conservatives, Kimmel’s fate demonstrates that Democrats are not immune to the forces of cancellation they once celebrated. For liberals, his dismissal is proof that political pressure from Republicans can stifle dissent.

The clash reveals how both sides use the language of accountability and censorship depending on whose voice is being silenced.

Brendan Carr’s involvement adds another dimension. By criticizing ABC’s decision to air Kimmel’s remarks, Carr signaled that political commentary on mainstream platforms could be scrutinized under the lens of “public interest.”

Because Nexstar is in the middle of merger negotiations requiring FCC approval, Carr’s words carried weight that may have influenced the company’s decision to cut ties with Kimmel.

The situation raises questions about whether regulatory bodies should play a role in determining the boundaries of acceptable speech. Critics warn that such involvement blurs the line between accountability and censorship.

The resurfacing of AOC’s 2023 comments was accelerated by social media, where clips of her Instagram Live celebrating Carlson’s downfall circulated widely.

Conservative influencers juxtaposed her past statements with Democrats’ outrage over Kimmel’s dismissal, framing the contradiction as evidence of hypocrisy.

For Ocasio-Cortez, the viral clip was a reminder of how her blunt, unfiltered style can backfire. While her base sees her as refreshingly candid, opponents seize on her words to paint her as inconsistent or opportunistic.

The controversy ultimately raises larger questions about free speech and accountability in the media landscape. Should public figures be removed for inflammatory rhetoric? Does the standard change depending on political alignment?

For Democrats, Carlson’s removal was justified because of his role in spreading election denialism. For Republicans, Kimmel’s dismissal was overdue given his history of partisan attacks.

Both sides insist their position is about protecting democracy, but the parallel cases suggest a deeper entanglement of politics and media.

As one of the longest-serving late-night hosts, Jimmy Kimmel built a career mixing comedy with political commentary. In recent years, his monologues became increasingly partisan, earning him both praise and criticism. His departure marks a shift in the late-night landscape, leaving a void in liberal-leaning political humor.

For his fans, Kimmel’s willingness to tackle difficult issues with humor made him a trusted voice. For his detractors, he embodied Hollywood elitism and partisan bias. His cancellation ensures that his legacy will be debated long after his final broadcast.

The saga of Jimmy Kimmel’s dismissal and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s resurfaced comments about Tucker Carlson illustrates the cyclical nature of political outrage. What one side hails as accountability, the other decries as censorship. And when the roles reverse, the arguments often do too.

Ocasio-Cortez’s celebratory declaration that “deplatforming works” has come back to haunt her, as critics point to the apparent double standard in Democrats’ response to Kimmel’s fate.

The episode underscores the fragility of political consistency in an era where every comment, past or present, can resurface to challenge credibility.

In the end, the debate over who gets to speak—and who gets silenced—remains unresolved. What is clear is that political battles over speech, media platforms, and accountability will continue to shape the American cultural landscape.