🔥 Fox News’ The Five Implodes Over Charlie Kirk’s Assassination: Is the “Both Sides” Argument Dead?
What started as a somber panel on Fox News’ The Five quickly unraveled into one of the show’s most explosive confrontations in recent memory.
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shocking assassination, a heated clash between co-hosts Greg Gutfeld and Jessica Tarlov exposed just how fractured the national conversation on political violence has become.
The segment, originally intended to address the broader implications of the tragedy, veered sharply off course—culminating in Gutfeld’s furious rejection of what he called the “dead and buried” both sides narrative.
🎯 The Tragedy That Ignited the Firestorm
Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University on Wednesday. Authorities swiftly arrested Tyler Robinson, 28, of Provo, Utah. According to police, Robinson admitted to the shooting and now faces first-degree murder charges, among others.
Only 8% of Democrats know that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a liberal.
— Cabot Phillips (@cabot_phillips) September 16, 2025
They don’t believe their side is violent because the legacy media refuses to tell them the truth. pic.twitter.com/OhprtuS4GH
The killing sent shockwaves through political and media circles, with some commentators treating it as a grim reflection of America’s intensifying ideological battles.
⚡ On-Air Clash: Gutfeld vs. Tarlov
During Thursday’s broadcast, Greg Gutfeld opened with a pointed claim: the violence, he said, is disproportionately one-sided.
“Why is this only happening on the left and not the right? That’s all we need to know,” Gutfeld declared.
Jessica Tarlov quickly pushed back, citing recent cases of violence targeting Democratic figures—most notably the killing of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman.
“What about Vance Boelter? What about Melissa Hortman that we just talked about?” she countered.
That’s when the temperature in the room spiked.
“None of us were talking about Mrs. Hortman every day,” Gutfeld snapped. “Don’t play that bulls—t with me.”
He dismissed the idea of equivalence between Kirk’s killing and other political violence, arguing there had been no preemptive media demonization of those figures.
“There was no amplification of hate against Hortman. Charlie was targeted because of what he stood for.”
🚨 Gutfeld’s Full Rejection of “Balance”
As the debate grew more volatile, Gutfeld escalated his position, claiming the both sides framing had lost all relevance:
“We don’t care about your both sides argument. That s—t is dead.”
He tied Kirk’s killer to radical left-wing ideology and what he described as “the trans cult,” suggesting Robinson had embraced a nihilistic worldview that devalues life and rejects biological reality.
“If you believe biology is fake, you can believe murder is justified. It’s a worldview where truth is optional and people are disposable.”
Though Tarlov repeatedly affirmed that she was not minimizing Kirk’s death, she advocated for broader context and consistency when discussing political violence.
Gutfeld was unmoved.
“Charlie had a conversation—and he got shot. That’s where we are now. No more false equivalence. We’re done playing that game.”
🔍 A Nation Divided—Even in Mourning
The fiery exchange struck a nerve with viewers, drawing sharp lines between those who embraced Gutfeld’s no-more-whataboutism stance and those alarmed by the increasingly polarized rhetoric.
While Gutfeld sees the media as complicit in fomenting hate against conservative figures, critics warn that such absolutism shuts down any space for nuance—and risks pushing the national discourse even further toward extremism.
🔹 Conclusion
Charlie Kirk’s assassination was a seismic moment—and the fallout on The Five underscores just how fractured the American dialogue has become. Gutfeld’s emphatic rejection of balance and Tarlov’s call for perspective reveal two radically different visions for how political violence should be understood—and who bears responsibility.
In the wake of this tragedy, the old tools of debate—context, comparison, balance—may no longer satisfy a country increasingly exhausted by violence and enraged by perceived media bias.
Whether this moment leads to a reckoning or a further descent into tribalism remains to be seen.