This year, the tradition was set to continue with Amber Ruffin, a talented comedian known for her sharp wit, being hired to deliver the humor at the annual dinner. The event has a rich history, dating back to 1921, and since Calvin Coolidge‘s attendance in 1924, every sitting president has participated in at least one dinner, except the current one. This longstanding tradition underscores the importance of humor in politics, allowing for a moment of levity amidst the often serious nature of political discourse.

Donald Trump, well-known for his contentious relationship with the media, has made it abundantly clear that he will not attend this year’s gala as well. In a surprising turn of events, the WHCA decided to cancel Ruffin’s appearance at the last minute, which many perceive as a capitulation to the prevailing hostility between the White House and the press. This decision sparked discussions about the role of humor and free speech in the political landscape, highlighting the challenges faced by comedians in today’s environment.

It is not an uncommon occurrence for the dinner to proceed without a comedian, as has happened in 2020 and 2021. Those years were particularly challenging due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to restrictions and a reevaluation of the event’s format. However, the hiring and then sudden dismissal of a comedian like Ruffin adds a different layer to the conversation surrounding the event, raising questions about artistic expression and the political climate.

Despite the abrupt cancellation, Ruffin is handling the situation with grace and has taken the opportunity to reflect on the reasons behind the WHCA’s decision. Her ability to remain composed amidst such controversy speaks volumes about her character and professionalism in the face of adversity.

As a writer and performer for Late Night with Seth Meyers, it was widely anticipated that Amber Ruffin would respond sharply to the news of her cancellation. True to form, she did not disappoint; however, her response was not filled with anger but rather a thoughtful critique of the situation. This approach showcases her maturity as a comedian and her ability to navigate complex social issues with intelligence and insight.

In a clever and light-hearted manner, the moment was set up by Meyers as he broke the news of her firing, expressing his desire to hear her thoughts before transitioning to a lighter story about a man breaking into a bodega. This juxtaposition highlights the blending of serious topics with humor, a hallmark of Meyers’ style.

During the segment, Ruffin shared her thoughts on how Meyers was planning to approach a specific joke, eager to convey what she had learned from her unexpected dismissal. Her insights reflect a deeper understanding of the nuances of comedy and the responsibilities that come with it, especially in today’s charged political environment.

“Well, I mean, clearly I’m going to make a punchline making fun of the guy who robbed the bodega,” Meyers remarked, indicating his comedic instincts. This illustrates the inherent challenge that comedians face in balancing humor with sensitivity, particularly in a landscape where their material can be scrutinized from multiple angles.

“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 need to be fair to both sides,” Ruffin responded with a playful glint in her eye. This exchange showcases her unique perspective on the comedic narrative and the responsibility comedians carry in choosing their words carefully.

Meyers countered, suggesting that the situation might not lend itself to that kind of fairness, as one side featured an innocent bodega owner while the other involved the clearly guilty robber. This highlights a critical aspect of comedic storytelling: the necessity of context and the ethical considerations that accompany humor.

“Or, hear me out, there are very nice people on both sides,” Ruffin playfully countered, maintaining her comedic flair. This witty remark underscores her talent for using humor to navigate difficult conversations, a skill that sets her apart in the comedy landscape.

Ruffin continued to engage with Meyers’ points, humorously addressing the robber’s actions with clever quips, such as questioning whether breaking the door was a form of “innovative ventilation” or if stealing cash could be reframed as a “micro-loan.” Her ability to transform serious topics into comedic gold demonstrates her exceptional skill as a comedian, allowing her to address tough issues with levity.

“When people are objectively horrible, we should be able to point it out on television,” Meyers asserted, setting the stage for Ruffin to address her cancellation more directly. This underscores the ongoing debate about the role of comedy in commentary on societal issues, particularly in the current political climate.

“I thought that too,” Ruffin agreed. “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 profound statement encapsulates her evolving perspective on morality and comedy, highlighting the delicate balance comedians must strike in their work.

She further likened her situation to watching The Sound of Music, expressing that “you have to root for the singing children and the other people.” This creative analogy reflects her ability to weave personal experiences into broader cultural narratives, a hallmark of effective comedic storytelling.

When Meyers queried if she was referring to the Nazis, Ruffin retorted, “Calling them that’s so one-sided.” This clever response highlights her skill in navigating sensitive topics with humor while addressing the complexities involved in framing such narratives.

Meyers reiterated the importance of a free press, stating, “The whole reason we have a free press is so we can report stories, you know, as they actually happen.” This reinforces the critical role that journalism plays in society, particularly in holding power accountable through truthful reporting.

“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 countered, illustrating the often ironic nature of political discourse and the expectations placed on comedians and journalists alike.

Ruffin continued, accusing her boss of “sowing the seeds of discord” and admitting that she once shared similar views. However, her experience of being fired for her comedic voice has granted her a new perspective on the responsibilities of artists in political commentary.

“I thought when people take away your rights, erase your history, and deport your friends, you’re supposed to call it out,” she stated. “But I was mistaken.” This reflection showcases her growth as a performer and her deepening understanding of the complexities surrounding freedom of speech and artistic expression.

Ultimately, Ruffin expressed gratitude for learning these lessons before the event, stating, “because if they had let me give that speech, baby, I would have been so terrifically mean.” Her self-awareness and humor in the face of disappointment reflect her strength as a comedian.

Ruffin humorously mentioned that she would have to return the dress she bought for the dinner, playfully suggesting that she would claim the tags “blew off in the wind.” Meyers countered that such a statement would be dishonest, to which she responded, “Ah ah ah, you can’t say that. This is journalism!” This light-hearted banter further illustrates the camaraderie and wit that characterize their exchanges.

Ruffin’s appearance on Monday night came just two days after the WHCA president, Eugene Daniels, announced via email to members that they were pulling the comedian from the event. This timing adds a layer of urgency and relevance to her commentary, as it reflects the ongoing tensions between comedy and political correctness.

“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, according to The Hollywood Reporter. This statement underlines the need for unity and support within the journalism community during challenging times.

This marks a stark contrast to Daniels’ earlier statements in February when Ruffin was initially booked, where he expressed excitement in having her, stating, “When I started 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 shift in tone speaks volumes about the evolving relationship between comedy and the current political landscape.

The decision to reverse course and withdraw Ruffin was reportedly influenced by her recent appearance on a Daily Beast podcast, where she candidly expressed she had been instructed to target both Republicans and Democrats in her speech, to which she adamantly refused. This incident raises significant questions about the pressures comedians face regarding content and the expectations of neutrality in political humor.

“There’s no way I’m freaking going to be doing that, dude,” Ruffin stated during the podcast. “They want that false equivalency that the media does… It feels great. It makes them feel like human beings. But they shouldn’t get to feel that way because they’re not.” This bold statement encapsulates her refusal to compromise her comedic integrity for the sake of political correctness.

Regarding her planned appearance, Ruffin hinted, “I’m not 100% focused on being like, ‘Ha, you’re here. Look at your stupid head. You’re burned,’” she shared. “I care, like, ‘You’re kind of a bunch of murderers.’” Her candidness and willingness to confront uncomfortable truths through humor illustrate her fearless approach to comedy.

This final remark caught the attention of Taylor Budowich, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, who took to social media to label Ruffin “a second-rate comedian” while sharing a clip from her podcast appearance. This public backlash highlights the ongoing tensions between political figures and comedians, reflecting broader societal divisions.

“What kind of responsible, wise journalist would attend something like this?” he wrote. “More importantly, what kind of company would sponsor such a [sic] hate-filled and violence-inspiring event?” This comment encapsulates the polarized views surrounding the dinner and the comedians who perform there, raising questions about accountability in entertainment and journalism.

This is not the first instance where the WHCA has faced backlash. Following comedian Michelle Wolf‘s provocative performance in 2018, which targeted then-press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the WHCA responded by inviting historian Ron Chernow to speak in 2019 as a means to counterbalance the criticism. This history of navigating controversial performances reveals the delicate balance that the association must strike in curating the event.

In recent years, comedians Trevor Noah, Roy Wood Jr., and Colin Jost have taken the stage at the annual dinner, continuing the tradition of humor in politics, with President Biden also upholding the custom of being roasted by comedians. This enduring tradition underscores the essential role of comedy in providing commentary on political affairs.

President Biden joins a long line of predecessors who have faced their fair share of comedic critiques from entertainers like Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Chevy Chase, Al Franken, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Wanda Sykes, and Conan O’Brien. This rich history of political satire reflects the integral relationship between comedy and politics, a relationship that may be challenged in the current climate.