1 day ago
6
Wren Graves (Managing Editor): Way back in 2017, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said they planned to “back off” jokes about Donald Trump. “It’s really tricky now as satire has become reality,” Parker explained at the time. As recently as last year they seemed intent on sticking to that plan, announcing that they would skip the 2024 election “on purpose,” with Parker adding, “I don’t know what more we could possibly say about Trump.”
Somehow, they said more. Season 27 premiered with “Sermon on the ’Mount,” one of South Park‘s most shocking episodes in years, with vivid jokes about Trump’s corruption and penis-size, alongside attacks on Comedy Central’s parent company, Paramount.
There’s a lot to get into, from politics to media, corporate finances to the state of satire in 2025. But let’s begin here: What changed? After seven years of telling pretty much any interviewer who asked that they didn’t want to touch Trump, why do you think they pivoted so quickly after the 2024 election?
Alex Young (Publisher): I’m not going to try to mind-read Matt and Trey, but the simplest explanation is that they clashed with then-incoming Paramount/Skydance CEO David Ellison over streaming distribution rights this past summer — all while the company was cozying up to the Trump Administration. That clearly ticked them off, as evidenced by the statement they released when announcing the show’s postponement, and it essentially became the foundation for the season premiere episode (alongside Trump’s infamous micro-penis subplot). Given the episode’s record-breaking ratings — a 26-year high — and the ensuing reaction from the White House, Matt and Trey would be crazy not to keep pursuing that storyline.
Liz Shannon Miller (Senior Entertainment Editor): From my perspective, it feels like the answer comes from the degree to which the Trump Administration has attempted to take over modern American life, with Trump himself so much more prominent a figure than he was during his first administration. For two guys with a clear passion for challenging authority, the bait is too tempting, especially considering how much material this current administration is giving them in terms of over-the-top policy decisions and ridiculous characters. After seeing the ways the show has chosen to depict Kristi Noem and JD Vance, I’m increasingly eager to see how they might take aim at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Alex: Yeah, the fascinating question is what other hot-button issues they’ll tackle next. So far, they’ve gone after Republican-led cancel culture, corporate capitulation, immigration, and Epstein — all topics that line up with their libertarian leanings. At the same time, they remain equal-opportunity offenders, and their main initiative seems to be finding new ways to skewer Trump, his lackeys, and their own parent company’s entanglement with him, as opposed to advocating on behalf of a specific issue.
Wren: They’ve never been big on the issues, except maybe “Leave us alone.”
Liz: Taking on Trump in this way also comes with the additional benefit of allowing Stone and Parker to taunt their parent company at a politically very dicy time for Paramount, which is literally eating a lot of shit right now for the compromises it’s made on the news side of its operation. Which feels very true to the nature of this show.
Wren: Let’s unpack that. The timing here is remarkable: South Park signs a $1.5 billion deal with Paramount less than two days before airing their most provocative Trump content. The episode itself mocks Paramount for settling with Trump for $16 million. This feels like either the most expensive middle finger in television history or a calculated bet that controversy drives more value than litigation risk. How should we think about this from a corporate governance perspective? Are Parker and Stone demonstrating their leverage, or is Paramount using South Park as a heat shield to take pressure off the Colbert cancelation and say things their news division can’t?
English (US) · 