A tense exchange in the Oval Office this week quickly migrated from the White House briefing room to late-night television, where it became the centerpiece of a sharply worded monologue by Stephen Colbert.

The episode began when former President Donald J. Trump, responding to questions about newly released documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, signaled impatience with the continued scrutiny.

“I think it’s really time for the country to get on to something else,” Mr. Trump said, adding that “nothing came out about me.” He suggested that the matter had been sufficiently aired and that attention should shift elsewhere.

When CNN’s Caitlin Collins pressed him on the issue, Mr. Trump’s frustration turned personal. Pointing toward the reporter, he criticized her demeanor, telling her she never smiles and calling her “fake news.” The remark, delivered during a discussion of Epstein — the financier and convicted sex offender whose associations with prominent figures have long drawn public interest — left the press pool momentarily silent.

By evening, the exchange had become fodder for commentary across cable news and social media. But it was Mr. Colbert’s response on “The Late Show,” broadcast from the Ed Sullivan Theater, that drew particular attention.

Mr. Colbert opened his monologue without his customary levity. Instead of a quick punchline, he addressed the camera directly, replaying the essence of Mr. Trump’s comment and framing it as emblematic of a broader pattern.

“She is asking you about Jeffrey Epstein,” Mr. Colbert said, paraphrasing the exchange. “And your response is to tell her to smile?”

The studio audience reacted with a mix of surprise and applause. Mr. Colbert’s tone oscillated between incredulity and indignation as he argued that telling a female reporter to smile while fielding questions about serious allegations reflected a dismissive attitude toward both women and accountability.

The segment underscored how late-night television has become an extension of the day’s political discourse, often serving as a venue for moral judgment as much as humor. Hosts increasingly respond not just to policy decisions but to tone and temperament — the optics of a moment as much as its substance.

Mr. Trump has a long history of contentious exchanges with reporters, particularly women. During his presidency and subsequent campaigns, he frequently sparred with journalists, challenging their credibility and, at times, their professionalism. His allies argue that such confrontations reflect his willingness to push back against what they see as hostile coverage. Critics contend that the attacks are personal and meant to intimidate.

In this instance, Mr. Colbert framed the remark as part of a pattern in which appearance and demeanor are invoked to deflect substantive questions. He suggested that instructing a reporter to smile while discussing allegations connected to a sex-trafficking investigation carried particular weight.

The Epstein case continues to reverberate years after Epstein’s death in federal custody in 2019. Court filings and document releases have periodically renewed scrutiny of his connections to politicians, business leaders and celebrities. Mr. Trump has previously acknowledged knowing Epstein socially but has denied any wrongdoing.

On his program, Mr. Colbert did not delve deeply into the legal complexities of the documents. Instead, he focused on what he described as the symbolism of the exchange: a powerful man responding to questions about serious accusations by critiquing a woman’s facial expression.

At one point, Mr. Colbert sharpened his commentary, suggesting that smiles cannot be compelled in moments of gravity. The line drew sustained applause and quickly circulated online in clipped form, shared by viewers who saw it as a pointed rebuke.

Conservative commentators countered that late-night hosts routinely amplify isolated remarks while ignoring broader context. Some argued that Mr. Trump’s frustration stemmed from what he views as repetitive or bad-faith questioning, not from the gender of the reporter. Others accused Mr. Colbert of turning a heated exchange into a sweeping moral indictment.

The clash illustrates how moments that once might have faded into the churn of daily news now find a second life on entertainment platforms, where they are reframed for audiences primed for satire. In this feedback loop, political figures perform for the cameras, and comedians perform for viewers reacting to those performances.

By the following morning, clips of both the Oval Office exchange and Mr. Colbert’s monologue were circulating widely. Supporters of the former president dismissed the late-night critique as partisan theater. Critics said the episode captured something essential about power and posture in public life.

Whether the exchange will have any lasting political impact is unclear. Mr. Trump has weathered countless controversies, often turning media rebukes into rallying cries for his base. Late-night hosts, for their part, have built loyal audiences by channeling outrage into satire.

Still, the moment offered a snapshot of a broader tension in American public discourse: the collision between questions of accountability and the theatrics of response. In the space between a reporter’s inquiry and a president’s retort, and then between that retort and a comedian’s rebuke, the boundaries between news and commentary continue to blur.

What remains is the original question — about Epstein, about transparency, about responsibility — now layered beneath arguments over tone. In an era when even a facial expression can become political, the directive to “smile” was destined to travel far beyond the room in which it was spoken.