Bill Maher sharply criticized Jimmy Kimmel’s wife, Molly McNearney, after she revealed that she severed ties with family members who refused to abandon Donald Trump in the last presidential election. Maher, who has long positioned himself as a critic of tribalism on both the left and the right, took aim at what he described as a troubling rise in “purity test culture” among liberals. According to him, issuing political ultimatums to family members does nothing to change their views and serves only to damage relationships.

McNearney, who serves as co–head writer and executive producer of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, had recently appeared on the We Can Do Hard Things podcast, where she spoke candidly about her frustration with relatives who continue to support Trump. She explained that she believes these family members are “deliberately being misinformed every day,” and said her husband’s very public clashes with Trump have made the situation even more complicated. To her, a vote for Trump — especially following years of antagonism between the former president and her husband — was akin to a personal rejection. She described her relatives’ decision as “them not voting for my husband and me and our family,” acknowledging that the political divide had fractured long-standing relationships.

According to McNearney, she tried to persuade her relatives to reconsider their support for Trump and sent them an email outlining “ten reasons” they should not vote for him. She said her message was mostly ignored or met with what she described as “insane responses.” Ultimately, she chose to cut ties with those who refused to change their votes. She also admitted on the podcast that she has become “angry all the time” with those she feels helped return Trump to power.

Maher seized on these revelations with characteristic bluntness. On Real Time, he recounted McNearney’s account and mocked the idea of issuing ultimatums to family members. “She says she’s lost relationships with relatives because she wrote them an email before the election with ten reasons why they shouldn’t vote for Trump, and some still didn’t obey,” he said. “Ten reasons? I can think of 100. But I would never present it to someone as an ultimatum. Ultimatums don’t make people rethink their politics. They make them rethink you.” His criticism echoed his long-running argument that liberals often alienate potential allies by adopting a posture of moral superiority.

Maher also broadened his critique to address what he sees as a pervasive issue within the modern left — the belief that ideological purity should take precedence over persuasion. He argued that this mentality ultimately harms Democrats by pushing away undecided voters or those who feel judged, pointing to Vice President Kamala Harris’s defeat in 2024 as an example of the long-term consequences. “Write a top ten list to yourself where you try to imagine ten reasons why 77 million Americans didn’t want to trust you with taking power,” Maher said. “As I like to remind my very pure friends, we voted for the same person. You’re just why she lost.”

McNearney, for her part, has defended her choices. On the podcast, she described becoming closer to relatives “aligned” with her values, suggesting that the political fractures have also revealed deeper differences in worldview. She emphasized that for her, the disagreements were not merely political. “Part of me goes, ‘Don’t let politics get in the way.’ But to me, this isn’t politics. It’s truly values. And we’re not aligned anymore,” she said, implying that the divide was too vast to bridge.

These family tensions play out against a broader, more heated backdrop: Jimmy Kimmel’s contentious relationship with Donald Trump. In September 2024, after Kimmel made incendiary remarks in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Trump successfully pressured Disney to take Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air for several days. Before the network suspended the show, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr even threatened to revoke ABC’s broadcast license if Kimmel was not disciplined. Although ABC reinstated him amid public backlash, the feud has only become more intense. Kimmel has continued to target Trump in his monologues, and Trump has responded by calling for his show — and those of Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon — to be canceled.

Within that environment, McNearney’s belief that her relatives’ votes for Trump were personal takes on added context. Her husband’s career, reputation, and even his show’s airtime have all been directly affected by Trump’s retaliatory power. To her, voting for Trump was not just political — it was an endorsement of someone who actively sought to threaten her family’s livelihood. Yet Maher insists that emotional stakes, however real, do not justify cutting people out of one’s life for political differences.

Maher’s critique reflects his longstanding effort to push back against what he sees as excessive ideological rigidity. For him, McNearney’s stance is emblematic of a broader trend: liberals losing sight of the importance of persuasion, dialogue, and coalition-building. His message was not that Trump’s behavior is excusable — Maher has consistently criticized the former president — but rather that social and political progress requires engagement with those who disagree, not separation from them.

McNearney’s comments reflect the messy reality for many families navigating deep political divides. What she views as moral clarity others see as intolerance, and what she considers necessary boundaries, Maher frames as counterproductive purity tests. The conflict exposes the complex tension between personal values and relationships in an increasingly polarized nation.

As the political climate grows more unforgiving and personal conflicts become political flashpoints, the debate between Maher and McNearney underscores a larger question: how much should politics dictate our personal lives? For some, like McNearney, the stakes feel existential. For others, like Maher, the cost of emotional and ideological isolation is too high.

And as long as figures like Trump continue to dominate American politics and culture — shaping debates, fueling polarization, and provoking reactions across the political spectrum — the question of how families handle these divisions will remain deeply relevant, and deeply fraught.