Nick Wright brutally shuts down Stephen A. Smith's political takes

This is why Stephen A. Smith should stick to sports.

Nick Wright, host of First Things First on FS1, publicly called out Stephen A. Smith over his recent political commentary.

Wright wrote on X: “The problem with refusing to be honest with your audience (and potentially yourself!) about your politics while creating political content is you end up creating political content that appeals to… absolutely no one.”

This came after the U.S. midterm elections on November 3, 2026.

Smith, ESPN’s highest-profile personality, had released a video analyzing the Democratic Party’s performance and warning that their dominance could cost them in 2028.

Smith has been increasingly active in political commentary in recent months.

There have even been suggestions that he might eventually run for political office.

Smith has said in the past that he would run as a Democrat if he had to, but he has also agreed with Republicans on various issues.

Wright’s criticism was direct: Smith, he argued, is not being honest with his audience or himself about his political leanings.

The result, Wright said, is political content that satisfies no one.

Smith has not yet responded publicly to Wright’s comments.

But the criticism does not end with Wright.

An op-ed published November 4, 2026, in the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, written by Raynard Jackson, makes the same case in stronger terms.

Jackson’s piece is titled: “This Is Why Stephen A. Smith Should Stick to Sports.”

Jackson opens by referencing a dinner he had with “Stephen, King Solomon and I” — a rhetorical device — and says Solomon asked him to pass along a message from Proverbs 17:28.

The verse reads: “Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”

Jackson writes that social media has pushed high-profile Black men like Smith to respond to everything said about them online, making them more emotional and too verbose.

“We need to get back to the old-school notion of letting the truth speak for itself,” Jackson writes.

He quotes actor Denzel Washington, who once told him: “The loudest one in the room is the weakest one in the room.”

Jackson argues that at 58, Smith still has not learned that sometimes the best response is silence.

The immediate trigger for Jackson’s op-ed was Smith’s private dinner at the White House with President Donald Trump, comedian Bill Maher and musician Kid Rock.

Smith attended as Maher’s guest.

After heavy criticism from liberal voices such as Jemele Hill, Cari Champion, Charlamagne tha God and D.L. Hughley, Smith ran to his YouTube channel to justify himself.

Jackson says that only made matters worse.

In his video, Smith said his mission is “to look out for my community.”

He told the president that Black unemployment is about 7%, compared with roughly 3.7% for white Americans.

Jackson disputes the framing of Smith’s points on Black unemployment, DEI, federal job losses and corporate support for HBCUs.

He points instead to Black labor force participation data as a better indicator of Black economic health.

Jackson’s broader argument is that too many Black leaders hold power and position without understanding how to use it.

He writes that the Congressional Black Caucus is a sizable voting bloc in Congress, and African nations make up the largest bloc in the United Nations, yet both have little to show for their numbers.

“They have the power and the position, but not the understanding,” Jackson writes.

He applies the same criticism to Smith.

Jackson’s alternative proposal: Smith should have offered to bring 10 HBCU presidents to a White House meeting with corporate leaders to discuss long-term support.

Instead, Jackson argues, Smith used his access to the president to make a general point about unemployment numbers — without a specific ask or a concrete plan.

The op-ed frames Smith’s political foray as a failure of strategy, not just of messaging.

Smith, meanwhile, continues to be one of the most influential voices in sports media.

His daily show, First Take on ESPN, draws millions of viewers.

He has built a career on strong, often provocative opinions about the NBA and NFL.

But when he turns to politics, his critics say, he loses the sharpness that makes him effective on sports.

Wright’s X post and Jackson’s op-ed represent two different kinds of criticism — one from a fellow sports analyst, one from a political commentator — but they converge on the same point.

Both say Smith is out of his depth in political commentary.

Both say he would be better off sticking to sports.