The assassination of Charlie Kirk: what happened

On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, co‑founder and CEO of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), was fatally shot while speaking at a campus event at Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, Utah. The event was part of what the organization called “The American Comeback Tour.” Approximately 3,000 people were in attendance. Witnesses captured video showing Kirk under a tent in a courtyard answering audience questions when a single gunshot rang out. The bullet struck him in the neck, causing severe bleeding; he was rushed to hospital, but died later that day.

Authorities described the shooting as a “targeted attack” likely fired from a nearby building, roughly 200 yards away. In the chaotic minutes after the shot, two individuals were detained, but both were released after investigation. As of the initial reporting, no suspect had been conclusively identified — the investigation remained ongoing.

In response, UVU canceled classes, evacuated the campus, and closed for the remainder of the week. The event shocked both the campus and the nation, prompting condemnation from political leaders and calls for unity. The governor of Utah described the killing as a “political assassination.” A vigil was held days later, in which students, faculty, and community members gathered to mourn Kirk’s death and call for peace and solidarity.

The Jezebel “curse” article and its content

Just two days before the shooting, on September 8, 2025, Jezebel published an article provocatively titled “We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk.” The piece described how the author had allegedly hired self‑described “witches” from Etsy to cast symbolic “hexes” on Kirk as a form of political protest, citing his conservative rhetoric as justification.

While the article employed hyperbole, satire, and dark humor — for instance fantasizing about minor inconveniences such as a malfunctioning microphone or a mysterious zit rather than physical harm — the claims struck many as unsettling. The author claimed to have paid “multiple curses,” referencing spells aimed at punishing Kirk for his ideology.

After Kirk’s assassination, the article quickly became the subject of intense scrutiny and outrage. Jezebel removed the article and added an editor’s note condemning the shooting, stating explicitly that the outlet did not endorse or excuse political violence. The timing — a mere 48 hours before a fatal shooting — led many to view the piece as reckless and irresponsible, regardless of the author’s claim that it was symbolic or satirical.

Public backlash, media condemnation, and debate over media ethics

In the wake of the shooting and the revelation of the Jezebel piece, public outrage erupted. Critics from across the political spectrum condemned the article. Media figures such as Megyn Kelly labeled it “vile” and “reckless,” arguing that even if the “curse” was meant metaphorically, publishing it so close to a high‑profile public appearance was deeply irresponsible — especially given the elevated political tensions and rising incidents of violence.

The controversy reinvigorated a broader debate over the responsibilities of media outlets and creators when using provocative satire or symbolic language. Many critics argued that the distinction between satire and incitement becomes dangerously blurred in politically charged contexts. In this case, what might have been dismissed as edgy humor under calmer circumstances took on a haunting resonance in light of the assassination.

Additionally, the article’s co‑option of “witchcraft” imagery and metaphors sparked concerns within certain communities — notably among Pagan individuals — over stigmatization and the weaponization of spiritual beliefs for political ends. Observers warned that even satirical use of occult language can contribute to fear-mongering, reinforce harmful stereotypes, or fuel extremist narratives in volatile contexts.

The emotional toll on Erika Kirk and her public response

In the aftermath of Kirk’s death, his widow, Erika Kirk, emerged as a central figure in public mourning and advocacy. According to reporting, she and others close to Kirk were deeply disturbed by the Jezebel article — not only for its content but for what it represented: symbolic dehumanization of a living individual in a fraught political climate.

In interviews and public messages, Erika described how the article had shaken her and heightened concerns for her husband’s safety in the days leading up to the event. The depiction of her husband as a legitimate target — even under the guise of satire — reportedly caused deep distress and spiritual anguish. Some media outlets noted that she had turned to faith and prayer, seeking comfort and protection for her family during that period.

Her grief has resonated widely. Under the shock of sudden loss, Erika has spoken candidly about the pain of losing a spouse, father, and public figure. Her reflections — rooted in faith, sorrow, and resolve — have drawn sympathy from both supporters and critics alike, transforming what began as a political flashpoint into a deeply human story about loss, mourning, and resilience.

What is — and isn’t — proven: facts, speculation, and open questions

As tragic and emotionally charged as the timing and proximity between Jezebel’s article and Kirk’s assassination may appear, there is currently no verified public evidence establishing a causal link between the satirical “curse” article and the fatal shooting. Law enforcement investigators have not publicly tied the shooter’s motive or identity to the article, nor have prosecutors cited it in charging documents.

Much of the connection drawn in media and public discourse remains speculative — based on coincidence, timing, and emotional interpretation rather than evidence. The fact that the shooter reportedly fired from a building some distance away, and that no credible suspect was immediately identified, underscores the uncertainty around motive.

That said, the controversy has fueled important conversations about the power of language, media responsibility, and the real-world consequences that symbolic or satirical content can have — especially when directed at individuals who are under public scrutiny and in volatile political climates. Whether or not a direct causal link can be established, the emotional trauma experienced by Erika Kirk and others is real.

Broader implications: media ethics, political violence, and societal responsibility

The intersection of satire, ideological conflict, and deadly violence in this case has sparked renewed scrutiny of how media outlets — online platforms, opinion sites, and cultural commentary venues — wield influence. The Jezebel article stands as a flashpoint in ongoing debates over where humor or irreverence ends and irresponsible provocation begins.

Critics argue that in politically polarized times, “jokes” or symbolic acts can be interpreted, twisted, or acted upon by bad actors — either as justification or as fuel for legitimate violence. Even if the original author did not intend to incite harm, the removal of the article and the public condemnation from many quarters highlight recognition that words can carry real weight.

At the same time, civil‑liberties advocates caution against simplistic causal attributions, arguing that conflating satire with incitement risks suppressing free expression — and that legal or moral responsibility should be tied to real evidence. The case therefore raises complex questions: how should societies balance protecting individuals from dehumanizing rhetoric, while preserving space for dissent, satire, and political critique?

Finally, Erika Kirk’s public response — grounded in grief, faith, and determination — has transformed a personal tragedy into a broader call for compassion, accountability, and reflection. Her voice has become a user-facing reminder that behind political conflict and ideological battles, there are people whose lives are irrevocably altered.