For years, Stephen Colbert had made Donald Trump a nightly subject of satire. The jokes were sharp but familiar: critiques of policy, jabs at rhetoric, and mockery of presidential excess. Mr. Trump, for the most part, responded sporadically, alternating between dismissal and irritation. Then, in the spring of 2017, a single monologue abruptly shifted the relationship between the presidency and late-night television.

The moment came after Mr. Trump publicly criticized a CBS journalist during an interview. When Mr. Colbert opened The Late Show that evening, his tone was noticeably angrier. The monologue departed from the rhythm of conventional satire and moved into openly caustic territory, culminating in a crude joke linking Mr. Trump to Vladimir Putin. The line crossed standards that network television rarely approaches, let alone prime time comedy.

The studio audience reacted with a mix of shock and uneasy laughter. At home, viewers flooded social media with clips and commentary. Within hours, backlash spread rapidly. A hashtag calling for Mr. Colbert’s firing trended nationally. Conservative commentators condemned the monologue as vulgar and unfit for broadcast. Petitions circulated demanding consequences. Advertisers received complaints.

Pressure soon extended beyond public opinion. The Federal Communications Commission announced it would review whether the broadcast violated indecency standards. CBS, which airs The Late Show, declined immediate comment, fueling speculation about possible disciplinary action. For a brief period, the future of the program appeared uncertain.

Mr. Trump responded forcefully. On social media, he attacked Mr. Colbert personally, calling him untalented, unfunny, and undeserving of his platform. He amplified criticism of the show’s ratings and suggested it should be canceled. Conservative media outlets, including Fox News, echoed the president’s remarks and intensified calls for accountability.

The confrontation appeared to fit a familiar pattern: a public figure uses outrage to overwhelm a critic and force institutional retreat. Yet the outcome unfolded differently.

After reviewing the episode, the F.C.C. concluded that no regulatory violation had occurred. CBS announced it would stand by its host, citing First Amendment protections and editorial independence. Then came the most unexpected development: ratings.

In the weeks following the controversy, The Late Show experienced a sharp increase in viewership. New audiences tuned in, many drawn by curiosity about the backlash itself. By the end of the season, Mr. Colbert’s program had surpassed its late-night competitors to become the most-watched show in its time slot. What had been framed as a potential career-ending moment became a turning point.

Mr. Colbert addressed the controversy upon returning to air. He said he did not regret speaking out but acknowledged that he would have chosen his words differently. It was not a full apology, nor was it an escalation. The statement reflected a recalibration rather than a retreat.

The episode revealed a broader shift in American media culture. Late-night television, once viewed primarily as entertainment, had increasingly become a site of political accountability. Satire functioned not merely as humor, but as a lens through which power was examined. Attempts to suppress or punish that scrutiny risked amplifying it instead.

For Mr. Trump, the episode marked another instance in which confrontation with media critics produced unintended consequences. Each attack drew additional attention to the very platform he sought to undermine. For Mr. Colbert, the controversy cemented his role as a central political voice in late-night television, defining the tone of his tenure more than years of routine monologues had.

The line that Mr. Colbert crossed did not end his career. Instead, it clarified the boundaries—and the resilience—of televised satire in the modern political era. The effort to silence a comedian ultimately strengthened him, demonstrating once again that in American media, attempts at control often yield the opposite result.