This year, the tradition was expected to continue with Amber Ruffin, a talented comedian known for her sharp wit, slated to bring her unique humor to the gathering that has roots dating back to 1921. Since the attendance of President Calvin Coolidge in 1924, every sitting president has participated in at least one dinner during their term, with the notable exception of the current president, who has opted out of this longstanding event, raising questions about the relationship between the administration and the media.

Former President Donald Trump has been vocal about his disregard for the press, already indicating he would not attend this year’s dinner. In a surprising turn of events, the WHCA canceled Ruffin’s appearance at the last minute, a decision some interpret as a concession to the current administration’s antagonism toward the media. This cancellation has sparked debates about the role of satire and comedy in political discourse and the pressures faced by entertainers in such a charged environment.

It is important to note that it is not entirely uncommon for the dinner to proceed without a comedic speaker, as evidenced by past events in 2020 and 2021, which were significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the decision to hire and then abruptly fire a comedian, especially one as prominent as Ruffin, adds a layer of complexity and controversy that has drawn attention from both the media and the public. This shift raises questions about the evolving relationship between comedy and political commentary in today’s climate.

Despite the circumstances surrounding her dismissal, Ruffin has shown remarkable resilience, maintaining a positive outlook. She appears to have gained a deeper understanding of the WHCA’s decision and the broader implications of their reasoning, reflecting a maturity that resonates with her audience. Her ability to navigate this challenging situation speaks to her character and professionalism within the entertainment industry.

As a writer and performer on Late Night with Seth Meyers, it was widely anticipated that Ruffin would deliver a scathing critique of the WHCA’s decision to cancel her appearance. However, her response was not driven solely by anger or frustration; instead, she approached the conversation with a level-headed perspective, demonstrating her ability to engage in thoughtful dialogue even when addressing contentious issues.

During the segment, Meyers broke the news of Ruffin’s cancellation, expressing his disappointment and emphasizing how much he would have loved to hear her take on the situation. This moment set the stage for a conversation that touched on the delicate balance between humor and the serious nature of political commentary, highlighting the ongoing struggles comedians face when navigating such a polarized environment.

Ruffin made it clear that she was looking forward to sharing her thoughts on the broader implications of political humor and its intersection with media ethics. She expressed her eagerness to explore the nuances of how comedians can effectively critique social issues while maintaining a sense of responsibility in their craft. This moment reflects the ongoing dialogue about the role of comedy in political discourse and its impact on audiences.

“Well, I mean, clearly I’m going to make a punchline making fun of the guy who robbed the bodega,” Meyers informed her, indicating his intent to humorously address current events while grappling with the sensitive nature of the subject matter.

“See, Seth, the problem is that’s divisive. Take it from me. If there’s one thing I learned from this weekend, it’s that you have to be fair to both sides,” Ruffin emphasized with a playful glimmer in her eye, underscoring the complexities of comedy and its potential to deepen societal divides if not approached thoughtfully.

Meyers countered, suggesting that the situation did not lend itself to a balanced perspective, as there is a clear distinction between an innocent bodega owner and the individual who committed the theft. This exchange illustrates the challenges comedians face in striving for fairness while addressing controversial subjects that elicit strong emotions.

“Or, hear me out, there are very fine people on either side,” Ruffin playfully countered with a smile, highlighting the absurdity of attempting to equate two vastly different perspectives in a contentious dialogue.

She cleverly addressed each of Meyers’s points regarding the robber’s actions with humor and wit. For example, when discussing the robber shattering the door, she quipped, “Or did he provide an innovative ventilation system?” This playful banter serves to illustrate how comedians can use humor to dissect and critique societal issues while engaging their audience in meaningful discussions.

“When people are objectively horrible, we should be able to point it out on television,” Meyers stated, setting the stage for Ruffin to address her dismissal more directly and engage in a deeper conversation about the responsibilities of comedians in today’s media landscape.

“I thought that too,” Ruffin concurred. “On Friday. But today is Monday, and Monday’s Amber Ruffin knows that when bad people do bad things, you have to treat them fairly and respectfully.” This statement reflects her growth and understanding of the complexities of human behavior and the media’s role in addressing it.

She further likened her experience to watching The Sound of Music, suggesting that “you have to root for the singing children and the other people,” illustrating the challenge of navigating moral complexities in storytelling and comedy.

When Meyers asked if she meant the Nazis, Ruffin playfully retorted, “Calling them that’s so one-sided.” This exchange underscores the nuances of language and how comedy can serve as a vehicle for exploring deeper truths about society.

Meyers attempted to emphasize the importance of a free press, stating, “The whole reason we have a free press is to report stories, you know, as they really happen.” This statement reiterates the foundational role of journalism in democratic societies and the responsibility of media professionals to uphold truth and integrity.

“No, we have a free press so that we can be nice to Republicans at fancy dinners. That’s what it says in the First Amendment,” Ruffin cleverly argued, highlighting the irony and absurdity often present in political discussions regarding freedom of speech and expression in the media.

Ruffin continued to critique her employer’s approach, accusing them of “sowing the seeds of discord” and reflecting on how her perspective has evolved since being fired for her bold stance on using her voice. Her insights reveal a thoughtful consideration of the ethics surrounding political comedy and its impact on public discourse.

“I thought when people take away your rights, erase your history, and deport your friends, you’re supposed to call it out,” she stated, reiterating her belief that accountability is crucial in the face of injustice. “But I was wrong.” This statement encapsulates her journey of understanding the complexities involved in standing up for truth in a divisive political climate.

Ultimately, Ruffin conveyed her gratitude for discovering these insights before the dinner, stating, “because if they had let me give that speech, child, I’d have been so terrifically mean.” This remark highlights her self-awareness and the importance of reflection in the face of adversity.

Ruffin humorously mentioned that she would need to return the dress she purchased for the dinner, jokingly claiming that the tags “blew off in the wind.” When Meyers pointed out that would be dishonest and “that is wrong,” she playfully responded, “Ah ah ah, you can’t say that. This is journalism!” This light-hearted exchange underscores the comedic tension between personal anecdotes and broader societal commentary.

Ruffin’s appearance on the show came just two days after an email sent by WHCA president Eugene Daniels, announcing the decision to withdraw the comedian from the event. This timing adds a layer of intrigue to the ongoing discussion about the intersection of comedy, politics, and media ethics.

“At this consequential moment for journalism, I want to ensure the focus isn’t on the politics of division but entirely on awarding our colleagues for their outstanding work and providing scholarship and mentorship to the next generation of journalists,” the email stated, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter. This statement reflects the WHCA’s intention to emphasize the importance of journalistic integrity amidst a turbulent political landscape.

This approach stands in stark contrast to comments made in February when Ruffin was initially booked, where Daniels had proudly declared, “When I began to think about what entertainer would be a perfect fit for the dinner this year, Amber was immediately at the top of my list.” This inconsistency highlights the unpredictable nature of political events and their impact on media personalities.

The WHCA’s decision to withdraw Ruffin was reportedly influenced by her comments during a recent Daily Beast podcast, where she expressed that she had been instructed to target both Republicans and Democrats in her speech. Ruffin candidly stated her refusal to comply with this request, emphasizing her commitment to authenticity in her comedic voice and the importance of speaking truth to power.

“There’s no way I’m frickin’ going to be doing that, dude,” Ruffin asserted during the podcast. “They want that false equivalency that the media does … It feels good. It makes them feel like human beings. But they shouldn’t get to feel that way, because they’re not.” This candid reflection underscores the challenges comedians face when navigating the expectations placed upon them in politically charged environments.

As for her original plans for the dinner, Ruffin teased that she was not solely focused on delivering a light-hearted roast. Instead, she indicated her intention to address serious issues with humor, stating, “I care, like, ‘You’re kind of a bunch of murderers.’” This bold statement reflects her willingness to confront uncomfortable truths through comedy, adding depth to her comedic approach.

It was this final remark that seemingly caught the attention of Taylor Budowich, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, who took to X to label Ruffin “a second-rate comedian” while sharing a clip from her podcast appearance. This incident highlights the contentious relationship between politics and entertainment and how comedic commentary can provoke strong reactions from political figures.

“What kind of responsible, wise journalist would attend something like this?” Budowich questioned. “More importantly, what kind of company would sponsor such a hate-filled and violence-inspiring event?” This statement underscores the polarized environment surrounding political events and the scrutiny that media figures face for their choices.

This situation is not the first instance in which the WHCA has responded to criticism. Following comedian Michelle Wolf‘s provocative performance in 2018 that targeted then-press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the WHCA faced backlash and subsequently invited historian Ron Chernow to speak in 2019 as a response to the uproar. This pattern indicates the delicate balance the WHCA must maintain between humor and political sensitivity.

Recent hosts of the annual dinner, including Trevor Noah, Roy Wood Jr., and Colin Jost, have continued the tradition of using humor to address political issues, with President Biden participating in the event and showing a willingness to engage with comedic critique. This dynamic reflects the ongoing relationship between political figures and the media, particularly in an age where humor plays a significant role in shaping public perceptions.

President Biden follows in the footsteps of numerous predecessors who have endured comedic jabs from entertainers like Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Chevy Chase, Al Franken, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Wanda Sykes, and Conan O’Brien, all of whom have contributed to this longstanding tradition of political humor that dates back centuries. The potential end of this tradition in 2025 raises concerns about the future of political satire and its role in American culture.