Larry David’s Satire Sparks Controversy Over Maher’s Trump Dinner

NEW YORK — Comedian Larry David took aim at Bill Maher’s recent dinner with President Donald Trump in a satirical essay, “My Dinner With Adolf,” published in The New York Times on April 21, 2025. David’s fictional account parallels Maher’s experience, provoking reactions from various quarters regarding political discourse and moral boundaries.

In the piece, David imagines himself as a guest at a dinner with Adolf Hitler in 1939, reflecting his long-standing criticisms of the Nazi leader. The narrative begins with the protagonist recalling warnings against the meeting: “He’s Hitler. He’s a monster.” Yet, as the dinner progresses, he finds himself drawn into a surprisingly congenial exchange with the infamous dictator.

“No one I knew encouraged me to go. But eventually, I concluded that hate gets us nowhere,” David writes, capturing the essence of his character’s internal conflict. The satirical essay mimics Maher’s stance during his own White House dinner, where he expressed a desire to engage with contrary political views, albeit with a less ominous counterpart.

During the dinner, David’s character describes Hitler as “quite disarming,” noting, “I realized I’d never seen him laugh before.” He draws a juxtaposition between the public persona of Hitler and a more relatable private figure, stating, “Here I was, prepared to meet Hitler… But this private Hitler was a completely different animal.” This mirrors Maher’s recent comments about Trump, where he described the president as “gracious and measured.”

Maher, who openly supports civil discourse with political adversaries, previously announced his intention to have dinner with Trump on his show, prompting backlash from critics who felt he was legitimizing the president’s contentious behavior. Following his White House visit, Maher received criticism from fellow commentators for reportedly being charmed by Trump. Democratic pundit Keith Olbermann expressed concern, branding Maher as having “prostituted himself.”

In David’s literary twist, the fictitious dinner ends with a chilling display: “Although we disagree on many issues, it doesn’t mean that we have to hate each other,” he states before performing a Nazi salute to exit the chilling yet humorous scenario.

This satirical commentary illustrates the thin line between humor and horror in the context of political dialogues. It emphasizes the moral complexities associated with engaging in conversation with those holding extremist viewpoints, provoking debate about the implications of such interactions in today’s political climate.

The piece was well received, with support from various platforms for its bold take on an uncomfortable subject. Patrick Healy, the deputy opinion editor at The Times, clarified the intent behind David’s essay, expressing that it was not meant to compare Trump with Hitler, but to highlight the nuances of understanding one’s opponent without losing moral clarity.

As the discourse continues, David’s blend of comedy and critique serves as a potent reminder of the responsibilities that come with public dialogue, particularly when opposing opinions collide.