Stephen Colbert Celebrates Trump's SOTU Ratings Drop: 'If I Were CBS, I'd Cancel Him'

Stephen Colbertturned the tables onDonald Trumpon Thursday's (February 26) edition ofThe Late Showby poking fun at the president'sState of the Union ratings.

TV Insider Stephen Colbert

According to Nielsen figures, Trump's record-breaking 108-minute speech on Tuesday (February 24) averaged 32.6 million viewers, an 11 percent decrease from the 36.6 million who watched his address last year. Colbert was quick to point this out while celebrating his own show's ratings compared to last year's.

"The Nielsen ratings for his speech are in, and Trump's talk-a-thon saw an 11 percent decrease from last year," the late-night host said during Thursday's opening monologue. "Donald Trump is really dragging down broadcast television. I mean, if I were CBS, I'd cancel him."

Last July, CBS announced itwas cancelingThe Late Show, citing financial reasons. The show's final episode is set to air in May. At the time,Trump celebrated the cancelation,writing on Truth Social, "I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings."

Colbert returned fire on Thursday night, saying, "But you know, linear television is doomed, and everyone's ratings are going down, right? I'm sorry, what's that? Our ratings were up 7 percent?!"

"Over the same last year? So last year's and this year's? I'm up 7 percent? Holy cow!" he continued as the studio audience chanted his name.

He added, "You know what I think is going on? People may not like watching Trump, but they do like watching me not like watching Trump."

Advertisement

Colbert also compared Trump's SOTU ratings to the recentSuper Bowl, whichaveraged 125.6 million viewers. "I think Trump could have saved the whole thing with a blockbuster halftime show featuring Bad Bernie," he quipped while showing a mock-up photo ofBernie Sandersdressed as Bad Bunny.

Earlier in his monologue, Colbert said, "Allow me to take a moment here to just jam a Capri-Sun straw into your spinal fluid and suck out some of your life force, because I'm still dragging ass and spitting out teeth after Trump's record-breaking 108-minute-long State of the Union on Tuesday."

"I could barely get through it. How did he stay awake that long?" the comedian asked before cutting to a clip of Trump's address where the president said, "I took prescription drugs."

"Refreshing honesty," Colbert quipped.

You can watch Colbert's full opening monologue in the video above and let us know your thoughts below.

The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,Weeknights, 11:35/10:35c, CBS

Read the latest entertainment news onTV Insider.

Stephen Colbert Celebrates Trump’s SOTU Ratings Drop: ‘If I Were CBS, I’d Cancel Him’

Stephen Colbertturned the tables onDonald Trumpon Thursday's (February 26) edition ofThe Late Showby poking fun at th...
CNN Is Set for Trump-Friendly New Owners: How Jake Tapper & Tony Dokoupil Reacted

CNN'sJake Tapperand CBS News'Tony Dokoupilboth reported the news on Thursday night (February 26) that Warner Bros. Discovery had accepted Paramount Skydance's latest bid for the company's assets. The deal means that CNN is headed towards gettingTrump-friendly owners.

TV Insider Jake Tapper and Tony Dokoupil

Earlier that day,WBD said that Paramount's latest bid, up from $30 to $31 per share, was better than Netflix's previous offer. Netflix later announced it would not match the offer and would instead withdraw from the bidding, essentially giving the win to Paramount.

This is significant for several reasons, one of which is that, unlike Netflix's bid, Paramount's is forallWBD assets. Netflix was only looking to acquire the film studio and HBO streaming services, whereas Paramount's offer also includes the WBD linear networks, including TNT, TBS, and, perhaps most significantly, CNN.

"Moments ago, Netflix said it is declining to raise its offer for the purchase of Warner Bros studios and HBO," Tapper said on Thursday's edition ofThe Lead. He went on to explain how Paramount's offer includes "the whole enchilada, including us here at CNN."

"Paramount has submitted a superior offer, according to Warner Bros. Discovery's board. As I've noted, Warner Bros. Discovery is the parent company of CNN," he added.

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of Oracle's billionaire co-founder and close Trump ally, Larry Ellison. Last December,the Wall Street Journal reportedthat David "offered assurances to Trump administration officials that if he bought Warner, he'd make sweeping changes to CNN."

Trump himself has saidpublicly, "It's imperative that CNN be sold," and referred to the network's current leaders as a "disgrace."

Critics fear that Paramount's ties to Trump will lead to significant changes in CNN's reporting, transforming it into a more MAGA-friendly network.

CBS News, which is also owned by Paramount, has faced similar criticism in recent months. After the merger with Skydance last year, David hired The Free Press co-founderBari Weissas the new editor-in-chief of CBS News. Weiss has been putting her stamp on the network, includingfiring,hiring,promoting,andkilling reports.

Advertisement

One of Weiss' most significant moves so far was promoting formerCBS Morningsco-host Dokoupil to leadCBS Evening News. Since Dokoupil took over the evening broadcast in January,viewers have criticizedhim for trying to appease the Trump administration.

On Thursday's episode ofCBS Evening News, Dokoupil announced the latest WBD drama, saying, "Netflix says it will not raise its bid for Warner Bros. Discovery to match a rival bid by Paramount Skydance, which, of course, is the parent company of CBS News."

"Netflix called the deal 'no longer financially attractive,' after the Warner Bros. board said the Paramount offer was better," he continued.

Fans reacted to the news, with one YouTube commenter writing, "Well CNN it was nice knowing you. Adios."

"Get ready for the bloodiest mass layoffs Hollywood has ever witnessed," said another.

"The next few episodes of Last Week Tonight are going to be interesting…," another added, referring to comedian John Oliver's late-night show, which airs on HBO.

Another added, "One step closer to state-owned media."

"I see the end of CNN after this, sadly. It will be turned into another Fox News," said one commenter.

"No good for CNN. Who needs two CBS News?" another added.

Read the latest entertainment news onTV Insider.

CNN Is Set for Trump-Friendly New Owners: How Jake Tapper & Tony Dokoupil Reacted

CNN'sJake Tapperand CBS News'Tony Dokoupilboth reported the news on Thursday night (February 26) that Warner Bros...
Everyone has something to say at the Supreme Court. Why the tariffs ruling had more than 160 pages

The extraordinary number of dueling opinions in the Supreme Court's tariff case,laying bare divisions among the justices, also became the basis for a punch line.

CNN Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett attend the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on February 24, 2026. - Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

At the courtroom lectern this week in a dispute between an energy-pipeline company and the state of Michigan, lawyer John Bursch contended his position could lead to an easy decision: "I mean, it could be an opinion that's 160 pages less than the tariffs opinion last week."

"Well," said Justice Samuel Alito as he and other justices began laughing, "That's certainly a goal to aim for."

Chief Justice John Roberts' face brightened, and he appeared especially amused as the exchange played out. Roberts hadwritten the court's main opinionstriking down the Trump administration tariffs, then waited weeks as colleagues finished their various additional opinions.

The seven separate opinions in theLearning Resources v. Trumptariffs case demonstrated how a case can become a forum for airing larger doctrinal differences.

Or, sometimes, the justices simply want to vent.

The result can be a lack of clarity in the law as the general public, along with lawyers and judges, navigate competing views.

The number of concurrences – writings by a justice who signs onto the majority's bottom-line but adds a separate angle – has been rising at the contemporary court. That's a reflection of increased polarization and shows that justices within the standard conservative and liberal blocs often splinter in their legal reasoning and approach.

Roberts' opinion for the majority in the tariffs dispute was an efficient 21 pages. The principal dissenting opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, stretched to 63 pages. But then four other justices, who'd sided with Roberts, wrote concurring opinions: Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The most expansive came from Gorsuch, at 46 pages. Clarence Thomas added a separate dissenting opinion.

The writings totaled 164 pages, with another six for the accompanying syllabus.

"I felt very left out in the tariffs case," Alito told Bursch drolly. "Justice Sotomayor didn't write and I didn't write."

Rejoined Sonia Sotomayor, as the others chuckled, "Maybe we'll have a chance here."

Quips aside, the competing views in the dispute over Trump's assertion of unilateral power for tariffs on foreign goods surprised the legal community.

"I was struck with just how many and how long the separate opinions were," said University of Pennsylvania law professor Jean Galbraith. "Justice Gorsuch's opinion was notable for pointedly throwing down the gauntlet, at his colleagues, which had the effect making all of them feel they had to write more in response."

Why justices are writing more

In prior decades, justices tended to write concurring opinions to make clear the limits of a majority ruling, said Galbraith, an international law scholar who earlier served as a law clerk to the late Justice John Paul Stevens.

"Concurrences these days are often being used for big brush strokes," she said, "for laying out and defending broad judicial philosophies. That's what was going on in the tariff opinions."

A portion of the opening text in the US Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump is seen in this photo illustration made in Washington, DC, on Thursday, February 26, 2026. - Tristen Rouse/CNN

The extended debate in Learning Resources v. Trump concerned modes of statutory interpretation more than the nuts-and-bolts of tariff policy. Such seemingly abstract differences can often consume the members of the country's highest court more than which side wins or loses.

Similarly, in a 2024 dispute over the Second Amendment, the justices by an 8-1 vote (Thomas dissented)upheld a federal lawprohibiting individuals subject to a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing a gun. Then, in addition to Roberts' opinion for the majority,five other justices wrote concurring opinionsdetailing their views on the constitutional and historical inquiry when determining whether a gun-control measure breaches the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Adam Feldman, who researches Supreme Court patterns and is the author of theLegalyticssubstack, documented a 42% increase in written concurring opinions from 2000 to 2024. He said the court averaged roughly 64 concurrences per 100 majority opinions in 2000–2009, compared to about 80 per 100 opinions in 2019–2024, with a pronounced rise since the mid-2010s.

Advertisement

For years, Thomas led the court in such supplemental writings as he laid out his distinct conservative approach to the Constitution. The newest justice, Jackson, on the left wing, is now close to rivaling Thomas.

Since 2022 when she joined the bench, Jackson has authored 29 concurring opinions, Feldman found, topped only by Thomas at 35 concurrences for the same period.

For comparison, at the other end of the spectrum, the liberal Kagan penned just five concurrences over the past three-and-a-half years. Roberts, who controls many of the court's most important opinions, wrote only one concurring statement.

Justices increasingly spar in the footnotes

An otherwise little-noticed January dispute over federal court procedure illustrated Jackson's tendency. Barrett had the majority in the case,Berk v. Choy, and wrote an 11-page decision signed by all other justices but Jackson.

Jackson agreed with Barrett's conclusion that a Delaware affidavit requirement for medical malpractice cases does not apply in federal court. But she strongly disagreed with the Barrett majority over which rules of civil procedure applied.

Jackson laid out her reasoning, across 13 pages and six footnotes, some of which tussled with Barrett over how each was interpreting (or "contorting") the rules.

At one point, Jackson asserted that a Barrett assumption "jumps the gun." Barrett responded with a footnote asserting, "we do not 'jump the gun,' but rather cut to the chase."

All seven of the justices who wrote opinions in the tariff dispute last Friday dropped asides in the footnotes.

Roberts trained his fireon Kavanaugh's dissent, noting that Kavanaugh had suggested Trump could impose "most if not all" of the disputed tariffs under statutes other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Responded Roberts: "We do not speculate on hypothetical cases not before us."

Later, as he rejected Kavanaugh's reliance on a 1981 case, Roberts insisted that the court had stressed the narrowness of that ruling at least five times in its opinion. "That is not quite 'no, no, a thousand times no,' but should have sufficed to dissuade" Kavanaugh from using it.

Major questions for one another

Much of the separate writing in the tariffs case addressed how a legal approach known as "the major questions doctrine" should be applied. The theory holds that if Congress wants to delegate significant economic or political power to the president, it must do so clearly in a statute.

Roberts concluded that Congress had not granted such tariff power under IEEPA, as Trump had claimed.

"(T)he President must 'point to clear congressional authorization' to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs," Roberts wrote.

Gorsuch agreed with Roberts' take but then used the occasion tocriticize other justices' approachesto interpreting statutes under the major questions doctrine, largely based on their past writings.

Barrett fired back that Gorsuch was mischaracterizing her position, saying, "he takes down a straw man. I have never espoused that view."

Kagan, a critic of the constraints imposed by the "major questions" approach, noted in her separate writing that Gorsuch was "insisting that I now must be applying the major-questions doctrine, and his own version of it to boot. Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one."

The desire for converts can indeed motivate a lengthy concurrence. As much as the justices were, by turns, relitigating past cases and defending their positions in the dispute at hand, they were laying out the groundwork for future cases.

As Gorsuch remarked as he closed out his 46 pages, "if history is any guide, the tables will turn…."

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

Everyone has something to say at the Supreme Court. Why the tariffs ruling had more than 160 pages

The extraordinary number of dueling opinions in the Supreme Court's tariff case,laying bare divisions among the justi...
Key questions surround the death of a nearly blind refugee after he was dropped off at a coffee shop alone

The death of aRohingya refugeein Buffalo, New York, has raised pressing questions about how federal immigration agents handled his release from their custody – and what happened in the five days he was missing before his body was found.

CNN Activists gather Thursday in the Elmwood Village neighborhood of Buffalo, New York, following the death of Nurul Amin Shah Alam, a nearly blind refugee from Myanmar. - Craig Ruttle/Reuters

Nurul Amin Shah Alam, 56, who spoke little English and was nearly blind, was released from the Erie County Holding Center on February 19. Border Patrol agents briefly took custody of him on an immigration detainer before determining he shouldn't be deported and, later that night, dropped him at a closed coffee house alone in near freezing temperatures. His body was found on February 24, about four miles away.

US Customs and Border Protection has defended the agents' actions, but local and state leaders are calling for investigations.

Meanwhile, Shah Alam's friends and family gathered at a mosque Thursday for his funeral, offering prayers before accompanying him to a cemetery for burial.

"We do not want his death to just go to waste," Khaleda Shah, a spokesperson for the family, told theAssociated Press. "We want his death to bring awareness to his community, his family, his community at large. We want his name, his story to be a voice for those who are still suffering."

The case comes amid growing concerns about the constitutional protections andtreatmentof people who come into contact with federal immigration authorities, regardless of their immigration status, under the Trump administration'smass deportationefforts.

Here's what we know – and don't know – about his death:

Who was Nurul Amin Shah Alam?

Nurul Amin Shah Alam. - Buffalo Police Department

Shah Alam entered the US as a refugee on December 24, 2024, according to US Customs and Border Protection. He and his family areArakan Rohingya, a persecuted Muslim minority from Myanmar that the US government has said was subjected to genocide.

Shah Alam previously worked in construction in Malaysia and came to the US with his wife and two children, searching for opportunity, Imran Fazal, who knows the family, toldCNN affiliate Spectrum News Buffalo.

Shah Alam's son, Mohamad Faisal, told CNN he last saw his father on February 19, before he was released from jail.

Faisal toldReutersthat Shah Alam did not read, write or use electronic devices.

What we don't know:

  • What was the extent of Shah Alam's visual impairment?

  • What was his health condition before he was released?

  • Did he have diagnosed medical conditions requiring treatment?

Why was he in jail?

Shah Alam was arrested in February 2025 after what his son described as a misunderstanding.

He had gone for a walk using a curtain rod as a walking stick, became lost and wandered onto private property, Faisal told Reuters. When officers arrived and ordered Shah Alam to drop the rod, he did not comply because he did not understand.

Body camera video obtained byCNN affiliate WGRZshows Shah Alam holding what appears to be two long black poles. He is seen waving the poles in the direction of the officers before they fired stun guns and tackled him. Two officers suffered minor injuries, police said.

He was later indicted on felony assault, burglary and criminal mischief charges, the Erie County District Attorney's Office said.

Earlier this month, he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges: criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and criminal trespass in the third degree. Sentencing was scheduled for March 24.

Erie County District Attorney Michael Keane said his office reduced the charges after considering Shah Alam's medical condition, time served and the "significant collateral consequences that would result from a felony conviction – including mandatory deportation."

What we don't know:

  • Did Shah Alam consistently have access to a translator during his year in custody?

  • Was his visual impairment or other health issues documented in internal jail records?

Why was he released from jail?

Activists gather Thursday in the Elmwood Village neighborhood of Buffalo, New York, following the death of Nurul Amin Shah Alam, a nearly blind refugee from Myanmar. - Craig Ruttle/Reuters

Shah Alam's bond had been set at $5,000. His family initially declined to post bail, fearing a federal immigration detainer would result in his transfer to immigration custody, according to theLegal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, which represented Shah Alam.

Following the plea deal, an immigration lawyer was consulted and the family posted bond after being advised it would not place Shah Alam at risk of deportation, the legal aid statement said.

As Shah Alam's release was being processed on February 19, Erie County deputies notified Border Patrol because of the detainer, the Erie County Sheriff's Office said.

Border Patrol agents arrived as Shah Alam's release was being processed and took him into their custody.

What we don't know:

  • Who posted the bond?

  • Was Shah Alam offered a translator during his release or when Border Patrol agents picked him up?

  • How much communication was there between local and federal authorities before the transfer?

What happened when he was released from jail?

Later that day, immigration authorities determined Shah Alam, as a legal refugee, "was not amenable to removal," Customs and Border Protection said in a statement.

Advertisement

Using a translation program, agents attempted to communicate with Shah Alam, according to a federal law enforcement official. Shah Alam was offered the opportunity to make a phone call, but declined, and asked to be taken to the location where he was eventually dropped off, the official said.

"Border Patrol agents offered him a courtesy ride, which he chose to accept to a coffee shop, determined to be a warm, safe location near his last known address, rather than be released directly from the Border Patrol station. He showed no signs of distress, mobility issues, or disabilities requiring special assistance," the CBP statement said.

According to legal aid, Shah Alam was dropped off at a Tim Hortons near his last known address sometime after 8 p.m., though that location had already closed at 7 p.m. His family no longer lived at the prior address, and neither relatives nor his attorney were told he had been released by CBP or where was taken, the organization said.

"Mr. Alam was extremely vulnerable. He spoke almost no English and could not communicate without the aid of an interpreter. He suffered from severely impaired vision and had other health issues," the legal aid statement said.

"He had only been in the US for a few months prior to his arrest. He would not have known where he was or had the wherewithal to contact his family or avail himself of other resources or services that could have assisted him," the statement continued.

Buffalo Mayor Sean Ryan criticized Shah Alam's release by Border Patrol, saying agents could have contacted family members or returned him to the county holding center. There, they could have obtained phone numbers for his son or lawyer, who had both been active visitors while he was in custody, according to Ryan.

What we don't know:

  • Is there protocol for releases involving people with disabilities or limited English proficiency?

  • Did the agents speak to anyone in the coffee shop after it had closed and before leaving him there?

How was he found?

Community members and loved ones toss soil on the burial site of Nurul Amin Shah Alam in Buffalo, New York, on Thursday. - Craig Ruttle/Reuters

Shah Alam's attorney reported him missing to police three days after he was released, on February 22, telling officers he couldn't "confirm his client's location despite contacting federal authorities," police said.

Police briefly closed the case after determining Shah Alam had been transferred to federal custody, then reopened it when they learned he had been released.

His missing person case remained open when someone called 911 around 8:30 p.m. on February 24 to report a man on a downtown street who appeared not to be breathing.

The man, later identified as Shah Alam, was wearing a dark parka and khaki pants, a police statement said. A woman told responding officers she'd seen the man about three hours earlier at the same location and he was moving.

First responders attempted life-saving measures, but he was pronounced dead at the scene.

His cause of death is unknown.

Community members and loved ones toss soil on the burial site of Nurul Amin Shah Alam in Buffalo, New York, on Thursday. - Craig Ruttle/Reuters

A city spokesperson said Wednesday the death appeared health-related and exposure and homicide had been ruled out. But on Thursday, Ryan, the mayor, said the medical examiner had not yet released its full findings.

The Erie County Health Department told CNN that medical examiner records are treated as confidential medical records and would only be shared with law enforcement and others legally entitled to them.

According to preliminary information, Shah Alam did not have shoes on, just orange booties from the detention center, when he was dropped off by agents, Ryan said.

The day Shah Alam was dropped off at the coffee shop, the area saw light freezing rain with temperatures in the low 30s. There was snow and fog over the next two days, with temperatures hovering around freezing for at least 24 consecutive hours.

What we don't know:

  • What is Shah Alam's cause of death?

  • Did any underlying health conditions contribute to his death?

  • What happened in the days between his release and when he was found dead?

What are local and state officials saying?

Ryan has sharply criticized Border Patrol's actions in the case, calling it "an inhumane thing to do," and insisted that CBP must "answer for how and why this happened."

The Buffalo Police Department said its homicide detectives are looking into the timeline and circumstances leading to Shah Alam's death.

"The death of Nurul Amin Shah Alam is a horrific and heartbreaking tragedy," US Rep. Tim Kennedy, whose district includes Buffalo, said Thursday, calling for a "full and transparent investigation at the local, state, and federal levels."

New York Attorney General Letitia James said her office "is reviewing our legal options," according to a statement.

CNN has reached out to CBP for more information.

What we don't know:

  • Have any agencies aside from the Buffalo Police Department started an investigation?

CNN's Omar Jimenez, Priscilla Alvarez and Nicole Chavez contributed to this report.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

Key questions surround the death of a nearly blind refugee after he was dropped off at a coffee shop alone

The death of aRohingya refugeein Buffalo, New York, has raised pressing questions about how federal immigration agents ha...

 

NEO MAG © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com