Over a satirical essay called “My Dinner With Adolf,” which parodies Maher’s recent meeting with former President Donald Trump, comedian and political commentator Bill Maher has publicly attacked Larry David. Written for The New Yorker, David’s piece reinterpreted Maher’s contentious dinner as a darkly humorous meeting with Adolf Hitler, making comparisons between Trump and the Nazi tyrant. Rekindling discussions on the boundaries of political satire and Holocaust references in comedy, Maher called the comparison “insulting to the memory of six million dead Jews.”
Larry David’s essay, a parody of the 1981 philosophical film My Dinner With Andre, substitutes Hitler for the original intellectual sparring partner. Framing Maher’s choice to interact with Trump as a foolishly misguided attempt to “understand” a dangerous person, the fictionalized dialogue parodies her decision Known for his boundary-pushing humor on Curb Your Enthusiasm, David uses the premise to criticize what he views as Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric and the media’s acceptance of it.
Maher, though, attacked the comparison as ethically careless. On his podcast Club Random, he contended that calling Hitler to attack Trump lessens the historical horror of the Holocaust. “While doing it in a ‘funny’ manner, comparing someone you dislike politically to Hitler is lazy. That’s not only lazy; it’s disrespectful, Maher said. “There is no metaphor in the Holocaust. Six million Jews lost their lives. There is not material for a punchline here.
David’s supporters contend that, since “My Dinner With Adolf” clearly targets Trump’s rhetoric rather than Holocaust victims, satire has long been a weapon to challenge difficult facts. The hyperbolic assumption of the essay, they argue, highlights worries about democracy and the emergence of authoritarianism. “Satire is supposed to make you squirm,” cultural critic Judy Berman said in Slate. David’s work cautions against disregarding warning signs in real time, rather than glorifying the Holocaust.
But some Jewish advocacy organizations and Holocaust teachers have backed Maher. While conservative commentators accused David of using Jewish suffering for political gain, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reiterated that Hitler comparisons run the danger of “cheapening the specificity of Nazi genocide.”
The conflict highlights the role of comedy in the context of divided politics. Self-described free speech absolutist Maher has personally experienced criticism for provocative comments, but he argues some subjects call for respect. Liberals have objected to his Trump meeting, which Maher presents as an exercise in dialogue, calling David’s parody a meta-criticism of his apparent hypocrisy.
David has not yet answered publicly, although friends say the essay fits his career-long use of cringe humor to expose society’s complacency. The argument reflects past disputes, including the Borat films by Sacha Baron Cohen or The Producers’ “Springtime for Hitler,” where viewers struggled with comedy that weaponizes taboo.
Online responses separate along ideological lines. While conservatives and some centrists called David “tasteless,” progressives praised him for “calling out fascism with farce.” Families of Holocaust survivors held varying opinions; some described the work as “thought-provoking,” while others referred to it as a “slap in the face.”
As the feud progresses, more general questions persist: when does satire become negative? Can comedians challenge extremism without referencing past tragedies? For now, Maher and David’s conflict emphasizes the thin line separating provocative art from painful trivialization—a line that remains divisive as always.
