Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" was told by CBS lawyers it could not air an interview with Texas state representative James Talarico, a Democrat running for Senate, on its Feb. 16 broadcast. Colbert, who was also instructed not to discuss the situation on air, did exactly that.

The interview ended up on YouTube, according to USA Today. The comedian used his broadcast to torch his own network and the FCC, turning the segment into a monologue about censorship and the Trump administration. CBS, for its part, says the whole thing was a misunderstanding.

What CBS says happened

In a statement shared with USA TODAY on Feb. 17, CBS insisted "The Late Show" was never prohibited from airing the interview. The network said it merely provided "legal guidance" about the FCC equal-time rule, which requires broadcast networks and radio stations to give equal airtime to all candidates in an election. Talarico is running in a competitive Texas Senate primary against Rep. Jasmine Crockett, among others.

CBS framed the outcome as Colbert's own choice:

"'The Late Show' decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options."

In other words, CBS offered an air path for the interview on broadcast, but Colbert's team chose YouTube instead. That's the network's version. Colbert's version sounded rather different.

What Colbert says happened

Colbert told his audience he was shut down, then told not to talk about being shut down:

"Then I was told, in some uncertain terms, that not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on."

He leaned into the defiance:

"And because my network clearly doesn't want us to talk about this, let's talk about this."

Colbert then spent part of his monologue addressing FCC Chairman Brendan Carr directly, calling him partisan and mocking the equal-time rule as "the FCC's most time-honored rule, right after 'no nipples at the Super Bowl.'" The comedian also alleged that the cancellation of "The Late Show," which ends in May, was motivated by Paramount Global's desire to finalize its $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media, a deal that required federal regulatory approval. That merger was approved two months after the show was canceled.

The FCC rule that started all of this

The equal-time rule is real and longstanding. Talk shows, however, have historically been given a blanket exception from it. That changed in January, when Carr, a Trump-appointed FCC chairman, issued new guidance dropping the blanket exception. His stated rationale was that some talk shows are "motivated by purely partisan political purposes."

The practical effect is immediate: any broadcast network airing a political candidate on a talk show now risks triggering equal-time obligations for that candidate's opponents. The FCC had already signaled it would probe Talarico's recent appearance on "The View," making CBS lawyers understandably cautious about a second broadcast appearance.

This is where the story gets interesting for conservatives, because the left wants to frame it as straightforward censorship. It isn't.

The rule applies to everyone

The FCC equal-time rule is content-neutral. It doesn't say networks can't interview candidates. It says that if you interview one, the others get the same opportunity. That's not suppression. That's fairness.

For decades, late-night television has functioned as a de facto arm of the Democratic Party's messaging operation. Hosts book sympathetic Democrats for softball interviews. Republican candidates get mentioned only as punchlines. The old blanket exception for talk shows meant networks could run unlimited free campaign advertising for favored candidates with zero obligation to offer the same platform to their opponents.

Carr's new guidance doesn't silence anyone. It says the rules apply equally. That networks are now scrambling to adjust tells you how comfortable they had become with the old arrangement.

Colbert proves the point

Consider what Colbert actually did on Feb. 16. He used his CBS broadcast to:

• Promote the Talarico interview on YouTube
• Attack the FCC chairman by name
• Characterize the Trump administration as authoritarian
• Call the sitting president a "toddler with too much screentime."

None of that was censored. It aired on network television. The only thing that didn't air on the broadcast was the interview itself, which was still published on YouTube for anyone to watch.

This is the censorship crisis the left is rallying around: a comedian's interview moved from one platform to another, while the comedian himself used his national broadcast to savage the president and his FCC chairman without interruption.

Talarico's convenient martyrdom

Talarico, for his part, seized the moment exactly the way you'd expect a Democrat candidate in a competitive primary to seize it:

"I think Donald Trump is worried that we're about to flip Texas. This is the party that ran against cancel culture. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture, the kind that comes from the top."

A Texas state representative running for Senate just got a Colbert interview, a national media firestorm, and a "cancel culture" narrative all in one news cycle. His interview is on YouTube, where it will almost certainly reach more of his target audience than a late-night CBS broadcast would have. Every political operative in the country knows this was the best possible outcome for Talarico's campaign.

The "cancel culture" line is particularly rich. Democrats spent years insisting that cancel culture either didn't exist or was a necessary tool of social accountability. Now, an FCC rule requiring equal airtime for all candidates is "the most dangerous kind of cancel culture." The definition shifts depending on who benefits.

The bigger picture

CBS has a complicated relationship with the current political environment. The network settled a Trump administration lawsuit, and Colbert has previously called out CBS for what he described as an effort to "obey" the administration. The Paramount-Skydance merger required federal approval. These are real pressures, and they create real incentives for corporate caution.

But corporate caution in the face of regulatory reality is not the same thing as political censorship. Networks making legal calculations about FCC compliance is how broadcast television has always worked. The only thing that changed is that talk shows no longer get a free pass to function as campaign platforms without triggering equal-time obligations.

Colbert wants this to be a story about a fearless comedian standing up to authoritarian power. The facts tell a simpler story: a broadcast network followed legal guidance, a comedian found another platform for his interview, and everyone involved got exactly the attention they wanted.

The interview aired. The monologue aired. The outrage aired. The only thing that didn't happen is a Democratic Senate candidate getting free, unmatched airtime on a broadcast network while his primary opponents got nothing.

That's not censorship. That's the rule working as intended.