The long-running sparring between President Donald Trump and late-night television entered a new phase this week after Jimmy Kimmel devoted a segment of his ABC program to a pointed critique of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Unlike many of Mr. Kimmel’s monologues, which often center directly on Mr. Trump, this one focused on what the host described as a broader pattern of communication from the administration’s podium. The segment, which aired on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” assembled clips from recent briefings alongside news headlines and public records, inviting viewers to compare statements with subsequent clarifications or contradictions.

Mr. Kimmel framed the exercise as straightforward. “If it can’t survive a replay,” he said, referring to official remarks, “it isn’t information. It’s marketing.” The audience responded with sustained applause.

The monologue did not rely on leaked documents or hidden-camera footage. Instead, it juxtaposed what Ms. Leavitt had said publicly with how events later unfolded, suggesting that the White House too often characterizes routine questioning as hostile or “fake.” Mr. Kimmel argued that labeling every inquiry illegitimate risks eroding public trust in basic accountability.

The segment quickly circulated online, where clips amassed millions of views within hours. Supporters praised Mr. Kimmel for what they saw as a measured challenge to official messaging. Critics accused him of amplifying partisan narratives under the guise of comedy.

Mr. Trump responded in characteristically forceful terms. In posts on his social media platform, he described Mr. Kimmel as a “propaganda clown” and defended Ms. Leavitt as “brilliant.” He suggested that the attention paid to the monologue demonstrated media hostility toward his administration.

The president has long treated late-night satire as a political adversary rather than background noise. During his first term, he frequently singled out hosts by name, questioning their ratings and motives. The pattern has continued into his second administration, as comedians remain among his most visible cultural critics.

Ms. Leavitt, for her part, addressed the segment from the White House briefing room. She rejected the suggestion that the administration avoids scrutiny and said decisions about television programming are made by network executives, not federal officials. She characterized the monologue as “Hollywood misinformation” and urged Americans to focus on policy outcomes rather than entertainment commentary.

The exchange highlights the evolving role of late-night television in American political life. Once dominated by celebrity interviews and light satire, programs like “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” have increasingly served as forums for direct engagement with current events. In a fragmented media landscape, monologues are dissected and shared across platforms, often reaching audiences far beyond the traditional late-night viewership.

Media scholars note that the tone of such segments can shape their impact. Mr. Kimmel’s critique was notable less for its volume than for its restraint. Rather than escalating the rhetoric, he returned the following night with a brief rejoinder to Mr. Trump’s posts: “If it was meaningless, why spend the day screaming about it?” He then pivoted to other topics.

The strategy — responding minimally to presidential invective — contrasts with the more theatrical back-and-forth that has characterized some previous clashes between politicians and entertainers. By declining to prolong the feud, Mr. Kimmel appeared to underscore his original point about attention and framing.

The broader question raised by the episode concerns the nature of public accountability. Press secretaries occupy a unique position in American governance: they speak for the president, yet are not themselves elected. Their credibility depends on the perception that they convey information accurately and in good faith. Critics argue that recent administrations of both parties have increasingly treated press briefings as platforms for message discipline rather than venues for substantive exchange.

At the same time, the merging of comedy and commentary blurs traditional distinctions. While late-night hosts are not journalists in the conventional sense, their segments can influence public perception as powerfully as editorial pages. Networks must balance creative freedom with corporate considerations, particularly when political content drives both engagement and backlash.

The week’s events also demonstrated how quickly narratives can harden in the digital age. Supporters of the president circulated claims that Mr. Kimmel had faced consequences for his remarks — assertions that independent fact-checkers have repeatedly found to be unfounded. Opponents amplified the clip as evidence of a communication strategy built on deflection.

In the end, the controversy was less about a single joke than about competing approaches to scrutiny. Mr. Kimmel framed his critique as an invitation to replay and verify. The president framed it as partisan provocation. Between those positions lies a familiar tension in contemporary politics: whether questions are seen as attacks or as obligations of democratic life.

For Mr. Trump, who has long measured influence in part by the ability to command attention, the challenge may be less the existence of criticism than its tone. Anger can be countered with anger. Calm, methodical skepticism — delivered to a national audience at 11:35 p.m. — is harder to dismiss.