In an episode that underscored the increasingly fraught relationship between politics and late-night television, former President Donald Trump renewed his attacks on comedians this week after a televised segment featuring Jimmy Kimmel and Robert De Niro sharply criticized his administration and its allies.

The exchange followed a period of tension between Mr. Trump and ABC, the network that airs “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Days earlier, the program had been temporarily suspended in several markets after Mr. Kimmel delivered a monologue condemning what he described as efforts to intimidate media organizations and restrict political satire. The interruption prompted protests from advocacy groups and fellow entertainers, who characterized it as a troubling sign for free expression.

When Mr. Kimmel returned to the air, he addressed the controversy directly. In a monologue that blended humor with a sober defense of free speech, he told viewers that the ability to criticize those in power was a cornerstone of American democracy. “What’s important,” he said, “is that we live in a country that allows shows like this to exist.”

The most widely discussed segment of the evening, however, came later. Mr. Kimmel introduced what he described as an opportunity for clarification from Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and a Trump appointee who had recently suggested that broadcasters could face consequences for repeated violations of public trust. Instead of Mr. Carr, the camera cut to Mr. De Niro, portraying the official as a mob-style enforcer who charged “by the word” for speech critical of the president.

The sketch drew laughter in the studio but also pointed commentary online. By casting one of Hollywood’s most recognizable actors associated with crime dramas as a regulatory official, the segment suggested that the lines between government authority and personal grievance had blurred. Mr. De Niro, a longtime critic of Mr. Trump, has often used public appearances to denounce what he calls authoritarian tendencies in American politics.

Mr. Trump responded swiftly. In social media posts and at campaign-style events, he accused Mr. Kimmel and Mr. De Niro of spreading misinformation and pursuing partisan agendas. He reiterated his view that many broadcast networks treat him unfairly and suggested that regulatory scrutiny of media companies was appropriate when they “cross the line.”

The episode comes amid broader debates over the role of federal agencies, the independence of broadcast networks and the limits of satire. Legal scholars note that the FCC’s authority over broadcast licenses is significant but bounded by constitutional protections for speech. Any direct attempt to penalize a network for political criticism would almost certainly face judicial review.

Still, the optics of public sparring between a former president and major media figures have become a defining feature of the Trump era. Throughout his political career, Mr. Trump has targeted comedians and actors who lampoon him, arguing that they contribute to a hostile cultural environment. His critics counter that satire is a longstanding and protected part of democratic discourse.

Mr. De Niro’s involvement amplified the moment. The actor, whose performances in films such as “Taxi Driver” and “Goodfellas” have made him synonymous with morally ambiguous authority figures, used the sketch to draw a parallel between cinematic mob bosses and what he portrayed as coercive political behavior. In interviews following the broadcast, he said that artists have a responsibility to speak out when democratic norms are tested.

The controversy also unfolded against a backdrop of partisan divisions in Congress and ongoing disputes over transparency, including renewed calls from some lawmakers to release investigative files related to past scandals. Mr. Trump, who has faced multiple legal challenges, has alternated between criticizing such inquiries as politically motivated and endorsing their release.

Media analysts say the clash illustrates how quickly political conflict now migrates from formal institutions to entertainment platforms. Late-night programs, once primarily comedic, have evolved into influential venues for political commentary, particularly among younger viewers. At the same time, politicians increasingly treat those programs as extensions of the news cycle, responding to monologues with the same urgency as they would to policy debates.

For supporters of Mr. Kimmel, the segment represented a defiant stand against perceived intimidation. For Mr. Trump’s allies, it was further evidence of what they describe as entrenched media bias.

What is clear is that the confrontation has once again placed questions of free expression, regulatory authority and political rhetoric at the center of public attention. In an era when satire can trigger official rebuttals and regulatory language can become material for comedy sketches, the boundary between governance and performance continues to narrow.

Whether the episode will have lasting consequences for the network, the regulator or the former president remains uncertain. But for one evening, at least, a late-night stage became the arena for a broader national debate — one in which humor served not merely as entertainment, but as argument.