A tale of two cities (Right vs Left response to tragedy)
After the tragic assassinations of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman (and here husband) in 2025, leaders across the political spectrum united in condemning the violence. Yet on social media, reactions split along partisan lines: fringe voices celebrated or mocked depending on the victim’s affiliation, revealing how deeply polarized our politics have become.
Polarized Reactions to Two Political Assassinations
Shock and Condemnation Across the Spectrum
The assassination of Charlie Kirk, a prominent 31-year-old conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA, on September 10, 2025 sent shockwaves through the nation[1]. Kirk was fatally shot while speaking to a crowd at Utah Valley University in Utah, and political leaders from both parties swiftly denounced the killing. Former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and other liberal figures joined conservatives in condemning the despicable act of political violence[2][3]. Even outspoken Trump critics like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rosie O’Donnell labeled Kirk’s murder a “horrible tragedy” and “wrong on every level,” urging Americans to “rediscover their humanity” and reject violence despite political differences[4][5]. This broad consensus – that violence has no place in democracy – was echoed after a similar tragedy three months earlier. On June 14, 2025, Minnesota House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, a Democrat, was assassinated at her home along with her husband in what authorities called a “targeted political assassination”[6]. The attack, carried out by an extremist posing as a police officer, also wounded a state senator and his wife. Leaders across the political aisle reacted with outrage and grief, unanimously condemning the crime and praising Hortman’s public service[7][8]. “There is no place in our democracy for politically-motivated violence,” declared a joint statement by the entire Minnesota congressional delegation – Republicans and Democrats alike[8]. From President Trump to local GOP legislators, conservatives joined Democrats in mourning Hortman’s death and affirming that such brazen acts of violence must be fully prosecuted[9][10].
Conservative activist Charlie Kirk (right) tosses hats to supporters at a campus event shortly before his assassination in September 2025[11]. His killing drew condemnation
Fringe Celebrations vs. Solemn Respect: A Tale of Two Reactions
While political leaders were united in condemning both killings, online fringe communities reacted very differently depending on the victim’s affiliation. After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a subset of left-wing commentators responded with shocking glee and vitriol. Several individuals openly celebrated or justified the murder of the Trump-aligned activist, broadcasting their sentiments on social media. For example, at the University of Mississippi an administrator reposted a message calling Kirk a “yt (white) supremacist and reimagined Klan member,” arguing there should be no sympathy for a man who “incited and clapped for the brutalizing” of marginalized groups[16][17]. A professor in South Dakota likewise unleashed a profanity-laced post labeling Kirk a “hate-spreading Nazi” who deserved his fate[18]. One assistant dean in Tennessee even wrote: “Looks like ol’ Charlie spoke his fate into existence… ZERO sympathy”, essentially blaming Kirk’s own “hate” for boomeranging back on him[19]. In perhaps the most disturbing example, a University of Tennessee professor cheered that “the world is better off without him,” callously adding that even Kirk’s children were “better off” growing up without their father, and slurring his widow as a “sick f— for marrying him”[20]. These extreme outbursts – effectively gloating over a murder – were met with swift backlash. Screenshots of the celebratory posts went viral, and employers swiftly took action. The Ole Miss staffer was fired for comments “completely counter to our institutional values”[17], the Tennessee dean was terminated the same day for “inappropriate and callous” remarks[19], and other faculty and public employees around the country faced suspension or dismissal as their hateful posts about Kirk’s death came to light[21]. In Ohio, a medical center employee who sneered that Kirk “deserves an unmarked ditch… maybe the vultures will [find] something” was put under investigation for his gruesome comment[22]. Even a renowned climate scientist, Michael E. Mann of UPenn, deleted his tweets after mocking Kirk’s killing as “white on white violence” and sharing posts calling Kirk “the head of Trump’s Hitler Youth.” Mann apologized for the “inappropriate & inflammatory language” and reiterated that political violence is unacceptable no matter who the victim is[23][24].
In stark contrast, when Melissa Hortman – a Democrat – was assassinated, there was no comparable chorus of celebration or ridicule from mainstream conservative circles. Not a single prominent Republican figure cheered or excused the killing of this liberal lawmaker. On the contrary, GOP officials at all levels uniformly denounced the crime and expressed sorrow. Minnesota’s Republican House Speaker praised Hortman’s accomplishments and asked for prayers for the victims of the “horrific attack”[7][25]. The Republican minority leader in the state senate likewise declared that “Senate Republicans are unified in our condemnation of this brazen act of violence”[10]. National Republicans – from Donald Trump down to local congressmen – also condemned the targeted murder of Hortman and her husband[7][9]. In fact, a viral claim that “not a single Republican condemned” Hortman’s assassination was quickly proven false: many Republicans did speak out, including Trump, who issued a statement vowing that “such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States”[9]. The entire Minnesota congressional delegation (which includes several Republicans) put out a bipartisan statement of “outrage, grief, and condemnation” within hours of the attack[7]. Unlike the vitriol from fringe leftists after Kirk’s death, no parallel wave of public gloating by right-wing academics or officials occurred after Hortman’s death. There were no reports of Republican staffers calling her slurs or celebrating the assassin. This asymmetry was even noted by conservatives – with some arguing that “the problem is on the left. It’s not on the right” when it comes to people cheering political violence[26][27].
That is not to say the far-right fringe was silent after Hortman’s murder – but their response took a different form. Rather than openly rejoicing, some right-wing influencers seized on the tragedy to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories. Within hours of the news, a small network of far-right personalities began pushing false narratives about the circumstances of Hortman’s death[28][13]. One popular conservative commentator insinuated on social media that Hortman was targeted because of an unrelated policy vote, attempting to sow confusion about the killer’s motives[29]. Another extremist influencer even floated an evidence-free conspiracy “just asking” if Minnesota’s Democratic governor had “her executed to send a message”[13] – a baseless and incendiary claim. This was part of what observers called a “feeding frenzy for right-wing disinformation,” as partisan actors tried to muddy the waters about the crime[30]. Perhaps most ironic, Elon Musk and others amplified posts suggesting the assassination was the work of the “far left,” directly contradicting law enforcement’s finding that the suspect’s hit list “was all Democrats”[31][32]. A U.S. senator on the right even tweeted, “This is what happens when Marxists don’t get their way,” alongside photos of the suspect – implying, without evidence, that a leftist was to blame[14]. In short, the far-right reaction was characterized not by celebratory taunts against the victim, but by deflection and propaganda – trying to pin the violence on their political adversaries. While deeply corrosive to truth, these responses still differ fundamentally from the gleeful moral inversion seen among certain left-wing commentators after Kirk’s killing.
A Contrast in Partisan Reactions
The divergent responses to these two assassinations underscore how partisanship can warp public reactions to political violence. In Charlie Kirk’s case, a fringe of left-wing voices reacted with overt hostility – some effectively celebrating the murder of a man they viewed as a dangerous provocateur. They took to social media with insults and justifications, treating Kirk’s assassination as just deserts for his conservative activism[17][19]. This phenomenon was widely condemned by leaders on the left themselves. Progressive commentators implored their peers not to cheer the killing, reminding them that “no one should be killed for their political views” and that “there is nothing to celebrate here”[34][35]. Publications like Jacobin and The Nation ran essays labeling Kirk’s death “a tragedy and a disaster” and warning that embracing violence would be morally wrong and self-defeating for the left[34][36]. In other words, mainstream progressives repudiated the gleeful fringe, recognizing that political violence – even against one’s adversaries – poisons democracy and can spiral out of control[37][38]. The embarrassment and firings of those who mocked Kirk’s death also sent a clear signal that such inhumanity in discourse is beyond the pale.
By contrast, after Melissa Hortman’s assassination, the political right did not produce a similar subset of celebrants. No mainstream conservative figures lauded or joked about the murder of a Democratic lawmaker. On the contrary, Republicans joined in mourning Hortman and condemning her killer[10][7]. The absence of “gleeful” reactions from the right-wing equivalent of that fringe is notable. This may be partly because Hortman’s assassin was an anti-abortion, anti-Democrat extremist – a fact that put the far right on the defensive rather than giving them reason to rejoice. Indeed, rather than praise the violence, some on the right tried to distance themselves or distort the narrative, as seen with the flurry of false claims pinning blame on the left[13][14]. While deeply problematic, those conspiracy-laden reactions served a different purpose – propaganda rather than celebration. In sum, the left’s fringe response to Kirk’s death was to openly applaud or rationalize political violence (a response widely condemned as “appalling”[39]), whereas the right’s fringe response to Hortman’s death was to deflect blame and spread disinformation, but not to applaud the act itself.
Key Differences in the Aftermath
- Fringe Left Glee: Several left-leaning academics, professionals, and online commenters cheered Charlie Kirk’s assassination, posting hateful remarks that he “had it coming.” These posts included slurs (calling Kirk a “Nazi” and “Klansman”) and celebrations that “the world is better off without him,” betraying a disturbing vindictiveness[19][20]. Their comments were met with public outrage and led to swift professional consequences (firings, suspensions) as society at large reaffirmed that political murder is never a cause for celebration[17][19].
- Fringe Right Restraint: In contrast, when a Democrat (Hortman) was slain, conservative pundits and officials did not publicly celebrate or justify it. No analogous wave of posts appeared praising the murder of a liberal leader. Instead, right-wing leaders voiced sorrow and respect for Hortman’s public service[25][10]. The far-right online response focused on pushing narratives (however false) that shifted blame away from their side, rather than reveling in the death. This suggests an implicit recognition, even among partisan extremists, that openly applauding an assassination crosses a red line that invites severe backlash.
- Unified Condemnation vs. Politicization: Both assassinations saw bipartisan official condemnation, but the political narratives diverged. After Kirk’s death, Republicans (including President Trump) angrily blamed “the radical left” for fostering a climate of hate, and even Musk declared “The Left is the party of murder”[40][41]. Democrats, for their part, demanded stronger gun control and warned against authoritarian overreach in response[42][43]. After Hortman’s death, Democrats pointed to rising right-wing extremism as a threat to democracy[44], while some Republicans seemed to downplay or deflect the event (Trump initially claimed not to know who Hortman was when asked about honoring her[45][26]). Still, neither side’s mainstream celebrated the other side’s loss – the differences lay in tone and narrative rather than in any tit-for-tat gloating.
Ultimately, these twin tragedies reveal how political violence tests the moral fabric of partisans. In an ideal world, an assassination would universally be met with somber condemnation and unity against violence. To a large extent, that happened here: leaders across the aisle did denounce both killings, and ordinary Americans of all stripes grieved the victims. Yet the differences in fringe reactions are telling. They highlight a concerning reality that some partisans will abandon basic empathy when the victim is from the “other” camp – a sign of just how toxic polarization has become. As commentators on the left and right have argued, no cause is advanced by political murder[37][38]. Celebrating such violence – or cynically spinning it – only erodes the norms of civil society. Both assassinations should serve as a wake-up call: in a democracy, “we are not a country that settles our differences at gunpoint,” as Minnesota’s governor reminded us[46]. Whether liberal or conservative, Americans must reject the voices that cheered these crimes and instead stand together against political violence in all its forms. Only then can we begin to bridge the vicious divides that these dark events have exposed.
A candlelight memorial at the Minnesota State Capitol days after the June assassination, where mourners honored Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark[33]. Unlike the fringe reactions to Kirk’s death, the response to Hortman’s murder was marked by solemn condemnation and a notable absence of celebratory rhetoric from mainstream conservatives.
Sources: Political leader statements and reactions from news coverage[8][10]; reports on social media fallout and firings[16][47]; fact-checks on partisan responses[7][48]; analysis of disinformation trends[13][14]; and progressive commentary urging non-violence[34][36].
[1] [6] [7] [9] [32] After Kirk’s Death, a False Social Media Post on Partisan Reaction to Violence – FactCheck.org
[2] [3] [4] [5] [12] [15] [40] [41] [42] Death divides US: What social media reactions to Charlie Kirk assassination tell us | Euronews
[8] [10] [25] [46] Reaction to assassination of Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, shooting of Sen. John Hoffman – KSTP.com 5 Eyewitness News
[11] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [47] College professors fired nationwide for Charlie Kirk assassination posts | Fox News
[13] [14] [28] [29] [30] [31] [44] In Hortman Killing, an Opportunity for Right-Wing Disinformation – Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
[26] [27] [45] [48] Donald Trump’s Reaction to Melissa Hortman Flag Question Sparks Anger – Newsweek
[33] Minnesota lawmaker killed at home to like in state at Capitol | AP News
[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [43] Left Voices Speak Clearly on Horror—and Dangers—of Charlie Kirk Assassination | Common Dreams
[39] Since Wednesday, social media feeds have been full of reactions to …