Late night TV show presenter Jimmy Kimmel, who was taken off the air following a row over comments about Charlie Kirk, will return on Tuesday.

Kimmel, who was accused of being “offensive and insensitive” because of what he said on his show last Monday, will go back on air in his regular slot.

Disney said in a statement: “Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country.

“It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.

“We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”

Earlier today, hundreds of Hollywood stars signed an open letter to defend free speech following Kimmel’s suspension.

Robert De Niro, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Anniston, Selena Gomez, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep are among those who have penned the appeal.

More than 430 of the stars, including comedians, directors and writers, urged Americans to “fight to defend and preserve our constitutionally protected rights”.

The letter is addressed to the American Civil Liberties Union, and argues the decision was a “dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation”.

The letter adds: “Regardless of our political affiliation, or whether we engage in politics or not, we all love our country.

“We also share the belief that our voices should never be silenced by those in power – because if it happens to one of us, it happens to all of us.”

The list of signatures also includes Emmy-winner Noah Wyle, Oscar-nominated Florence Pugh, comedian David Cross, Tony-winner Kelli O’Hara and Molly Ringwald. Pedro Pascal, Billy Crystal, Nathan Lane, Kerry Washington and Kevin Bacon have also signed the letter.

The letter concludes: “This is the moment to defend free speech across our nation. We encourage all Americans to join us, along with the ACLU, in the fight to defend and preserve our constitutionally protected rights.”

Kimmel had used his show to accuse President Donald Trump and his allies of capitalising on the conservative influencer’s assassination.

He said: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Speaking about Trump, he added: “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”

“Many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalise on the murder of Charlie Kirk,” he continued.

The Disney-owned ABC pulled the show following criticism from Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Mr Carr had threatened to “take action” against Disney and ABC.

In an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson, he said: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way”.

Mr Carr then praised the move, saying “it is important for broadcasters to push back on Disney programming that they determine falls short of community values”.

But the decision sparked a global, furious backlash from the public and high-profile figures around the world.

Among them was former US President Barack Obama, who said on X: “After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like.”

He added: “This is precisely the kind of government coercion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent – and media companies need to start standing up rather than capitulating to it.”

The decision came at a time Disney and Nexstar, the network operator, had FCC business ahead of them, with the former seeking regulatory approval for ESPN’s acquisition of the NFL Network and the latter need the Trump administrations approval to complete a $6.2billion purchase of broadcast rival, Tegna.

Trump, who was on a state visit of the UK at the time, said Kimmel had been cut for “bad ratings”.

He had said: “Well, Jimmy Kimmel was fired because he had bad ratings, more than anything else.

“And he said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk.”

He added: “Jimmy Kimmel is not a talented person. He had very bad ratings, and they should have fired him a long time ago.

“So, you know, you could call that free speech or not. He was fired for lack of talent.”

Broadcaster John Stapleton has died, his agent has said.

The 79-year-old, who had Parkinson’s disease complicated by pneumonia, died peacefully in hospital this morning.

Stapleton was known for his work on programmes such as Newsnight, Panorama and GMTV’s News Hour. He was among Sky News’ original presenters.

Stapleton’s agent, Jackie Gil, said: “His son Nick and daughter-in-law Lisa have been constantly at his side and John died peacefully in hospital this morning.”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

From soaring power ballads to novelty earworms, disco to metal and even “ouija pop”, there’s nothing quite like Eurovision – watched by millions around the world, tuning in to celebrate live music’s weird and wonderful. 

Politics has always played a part, despite insistence by organisers the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) that it remains politically neutral.

Countries have pulled out or been banned in previous years – most notably Russia in 2022, just days after the invasion of Ukraine.

But it now seems like Eurovision could be facing its biggest political crisis yet.

In the last two years, there has been growing controversy over Israel’s participation, with protests in host city Basel, Switzerland, earlier this year, and Malmo in Sweden when it held the competition in 2024.

Ahead of next year’s ceremony in Vienna, Austria, tensions have risen already.

Earlier this month, Irish broadcaster RTE made an announcement: it will boycott the competition if Israel is allowed to take part. The Netherlands and Spain quickly followed suit, and other countries including Slovenia and Iceland have suggested similar.

It comes amid increasing criticism of Israel’s continued military action in Gaza, launched in response to the attack by Hamas militants on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, which left some 1,200 people dead.

The Eurovision Song Contest Reference Group, the competition’s governing body, has extended the deadline for broadcasters to confirm participation to mid-December. It says a decision on Israel’s participation is pending and that it has “taken note of the concerns expressed by several broadcasters”.

Politics at Eurovision – and why is this different?

What is unfolding now is unlike anything that has come before, says Dean Vuletic, a historian of contemporary Europe and author of Postwar Europe In The Eurovision Song Contest.

“Politics has always been there,” he says. “Countries have always used the contest to send political messages. For example, in the very first contest in 1956, West Germany was represented by a Jew and a Holocaust survivor.

“In recent years, though, things have changed because the European Broadcasting Union has had to make political decisions.”

Vuletic cites Belarus’s exclusion in 2021, after the country had experienced large protests over the disputed re-election of leader Alexander Lukashenko, and its entry was deemed too political.

The following year, Russia was kicked out just a few days after the start of the invasion on Ukraine. The EBU said at the time that Russia’s participation would “bring the competition into disrepute”.

But these are not the first examples of countries being excluded from the competition; this first happened in the early 1990s, when the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was banned due to UN sanctions.

“When it came to Belarus, Russia, there were also European sanctions,” says Vuletic. “Israel was for a long time not subject to sanctions from European countries for its actions in Gaza – although in recent days we’ve seen that changing.”

What about the BBC?

BBC director general Tim Davie has said the corporation is “aware of the concerns” raised, but the song contest has “never been about politics”.

A spokesperson for the broadcaster sent a similar statement to Sky News, saying: “We are aware of the various views and concerns which have been expressed in recent days in relation to next year’s Eurovision. At this stage, we will continue to be part of the discussions, led by the European Broadcasting Union, with other members and broadcasters.

“Eurovision has never been led by politics, it has been – and is – a celebration of music and culture that brings people together from across the world.”

Why is Spain’s stance particularly important?

Spain is one of Eurovision’s “Big Five” countries, a group which also includes France, Germany, Italy and the UK. While the host broadcaster – decided by the previous year’s winner – will often contribute most towards the cost of staging the contest, the Big Five will also make up a significant amount.

These countries are big markets for Eurovision and acts are given direct entry to the final because of this. They also act as reserve countries should a winning country not be able to host; in 2023, the UK stepped in following Ukraine’s win the previous year.

“Dr Eurovision” Paul Jordan, who has a PhD in the subject and also worked behind the scenes as part of the EBU’s communications team between 2015 and 2018, says Spain’s stance has increased the pressure.

“There’s always been these tensions but there’s never been a kind of threat of a mass boycott in the way that has happened now,” he says. “The fact they are now outwardly saying they won’t participate with Israel in, that could make the EBU sit up and take notice because there is potential funding pitfalls and audience pitfalls.

“Having a big five country not part of the contest could potentially unravel the funding model. I also think the funding itself potentially needs to be looked at in the context of the financial challenges facing public broadcasters today.”

The EBU has said it is “assessing the potential impacts” of broadcasters pulling out. When asked by Sky News if this includes financial ones they, simply said that “all impacts will be assessed”.

Are other countries likely to follow suit?

Sky News has contacted broadcasters set to take part in the event. Italy’s RAI, another of the Big Five, said it hoped to have news on the issue soon. Germany’s SWR said its parent company, ARD, supports the consultation process and will back the EBU’s decision.

In a statement, an SWR spokesperson said the goal is “to reach a well-founded and sustainable agreement that aligns with the values” of the EBU.

“The ESC has been a major musical event for decades, connecting people across Europe and beyond through diversity, respect, and openness, regardless of origin, religion, or beliefs. It is a competition organised by EBU broadcasters, not by governments.”

Experts agree the number of countries threatening a boycott will likely increase – although it could work both ways.

“We have to see what this period of consultation will bring, which countries will also join the calls for a boycott of the contest if Israel does participate, which countries might be steadfast in their support of Israel,” says Vuletic.

“For now, that’s not clear, whether countries will actually be so supportive of Israel so as to themselves contribute to a boycott of the contest. That would be a very big political message because if they take the side of Israel and not of their European partners, then we might see even greater ramifications of this crisis.”

What has Israel said?

Israel’s broadcaster, Kan, did not respond to Sky News’ request for comment.

However, chief executive Golan Yochpaz reportedly told the Times of Israel that the event should not become political and that that there is “no reason” why Israel should not be part of it.

He also highlighted Israel’s success in the competition, with one win in 2018 and three other top-five finishes in recent years.

The situation in Gaza

More than 65,000 people in Gaza have now been killed in the war, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. The figure does not specify the number of Hamas members killed.

The ongoing military action continues following the Hamas terror attack on Israel in October 2023, which saw around 1,200 people killed and 251 people taken hostage. Forty-eight remain in Gaza, but fewer then half are thought to still be alive.

Earlier in September, a UN commission agreed Israel is committing genocide – the first time such an explosive allegation has been made publicly by a UN body. Israel has vehemently denied this claim as “distorted and false”.

Sky News analysis shows thousands of families remain in crowded tent camps in Gaza City, with the UN estimating last week that a million people remain there.

Israel, however, believes 40% of the population has already fled south and earlier this week opened a new evacuation route for 48 hours.

What happened at the contest this year and in 2024?

Israeli contestant Yuval Raphael, a survivor of the October 2-23 Hamas attack, won the public vote with the song New Day Will Rise, and at one point looked set to be crowned the overall winner of this year’s competition – but ultimately finished second when the jury vote was included.

There were protests before and during her performance.

“I was just metres away from pro-Palestinian protesters who threw red paint when the Israeli artist appeared on stage,” says Vuletic. “And of course, it must be hugely stressful for these artists. There are also increased security measures, especially for these artists who are targeted.

“You could sense the tension in the arena when it became apparent that Israel could win the contest. A lot of people were willing to allow Israel to participate in the contest, they were not necessarily supporting the Netanyahu government… but when it appeared that Israel really could win the contest you could really sense this fear among the live audience in the arena, that the contest could be held in Israel the following year.”

Having Israel as a host country would lead to a lot more countries boycotting, he says.

“It’s become so toxic,” says Jordan. “You see now, booing on the stage in a way that you had for Russia before. But really, in 2024, it became much more pronounced.

“Eurovision is meant to be joyous. And I remember the day of the [2024] final being with friends in a pub. And it just felt like an impending sense of doom, something was going to go wrong… it just felt that this is a house of cards that could potentially come falling down…

“Eurovision for me was all about escapism, they call it the Eurovision bubble. And that was a very special thing. And I feel now that’s kind of changing. It feels like an event that we all grew up with, now at 70 years old, and it could potentially start to unravel. It’d be a great shame, I think, culturally, if that does happen.”

Who else has commented?

Austrian singer JJ, who won this year’s competition, has also reportedly called for Israel’s exclusion in 2026.

Following his win in May, singer JJ said it was “disappointing to see Israel still participating”, according to Spanish newspaper El Pais. “I would like the next Eurovision to be held in Vienna and without Israel,” he added.

And Austria will of course host the show next year.

Read more from Sky News:
More prison officers to get stab-proof vests and Tasers
Lib Dems toughen up immigration rhetoric
Dropping Chinese spy charges ‘leaves door open’

In a statement sent to Sky News, broadcaster ORF said the decision is a matter for the EBU.

“It is always the public broadcaster of a country that takes part in the Eurovision Song Contest, not the government or country itself,” an ORF spokesperson said. “Ultimately, however, the decision regarding participation is a matter for the EBU and its members. ORF will be a good host for all delegations in May 2026.”

What happens now?

The competition’s director, Martin Green, has said the EBU understands “the concerns and deeply held views around the ongoing conflict in the Middle East” and that the organisation is still consulting with all members “to gather views on how we manage participation and geopolitical tensions”.

Broadcasters have until mid-December to confirm whether or not they are taking part – and the EBU then has a decision to make.