Charlie Kirk

Can an opinion columnist for a news publication retain their job after writing or saying anything she or he wants, however offensive, mean-spirited, or wrong?

On Monday, The Washington Post was ordered by an independent arbitrator to reinstate opinion columnist Karen Attiah, who was fired last September for “gross misconduct” following radical comments she made after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. They were also ordered to give her the compensation she would have otherwise earned since last September. 

On the day of the Turning Point USA founder’s murder, Attiah took to social media to bemoan the collective mourning from those on both the political and ideological right and the left. 

“Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence,” the 40-year-old columnist wrote on Bluesky. 

She then wrote:

“Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence.”

Attiiah followed that screed with this one:

“If anything, the rush to coddle violent white men is self-protective — that we know they are not used to feeling vulnerable and mortal — and will react violently out of fear. And we will all suffer.”

Five days later, Attiah announced to her followers that The Washington Post had terminated her employment for violating the company’s social media policies. As a member of the Post’s labor union, she filed a grievance, which then triggered a nearly year-long review.

Sarah Miller Espinosa, the private arbitrator, ruled the Post “did not have good and sufficient cause” to fire Attiah and “violated” its labor agreement by doing so. According to Ms. Espinosa, “The Washington Post failed to establish the grievant engaged in gross misconduct.” 

Those coming to Attiah’s defense have insisted the columnist wasn’t celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder or advocating for more of the same. It seems the arbitrator agreed, but such sympathy ignores the offensive reality of what she posted on social media.

In the hours after Kirk was gunned down in cold blood, Attiah clearly and falsely claimed that the Christian commentator had “espoused violence” and was, himself, violent.

When terminating Attiah’s employment back on September 15, 2025, the company said the writer’s social media posts “violate the Post‘s social media policies, harm the integrity of our organization, and potentially endanger the physical safety of our staff.”

What’s included in The Washington Post’s social media policy for employees? Here are some relevant sections:

A Post journalist’s use of social media must not harm the editorial integrity or journalistic reputation of The Post.

Post journalists should be civil on social media and treat people with respect.

The Washington Post social media policy also calls for employees to exhibit “professionalism, empathy, collegiality and a focus on the facts.”

In what universe is falsely accusing and describing a man who was consistently peaceful and loving as “violent” akin to treating people with civility, empathy, and respect? 

Sarah Miller Espinosa’s arbitration ruling establishes a dangerous and destructive journalistic precedent that strips the publication of its moral authority to rein in employees who may threaten and damage the company’s reputation. It also invites and potentially empowers unhinged opinion writers to recklessly serve up false claims in the interest of garnering more clicks and attention.

A five-day preliminary hearing regarding evidence against Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin, is expected to conclude today in Provo, Utah.

Turning Point USA founder and beloved Christian commentator Charlie Kirk was murdered while speaking at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025.

Prosecutors have presented mountains of evidence implicating 23-year-old Robinson, who has yet to enter a plea. Throughout the painful week, and with Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow, in the courtroom, many of the heartbreaking details surrounding that horrific day have been resurfaced.

Despite the objections of the Kirk family, Judge Tony Graf ordered significant portions of the available evidence to be redacted. He cited numerous reasons, including not wanting to prejudice future jurors, wanting to protect sensitive and personal information and concluding that some of the information was irrelevant to the case against Robinson.

Yet, what was presented and allowed was overwhelming – DNA evidence linking Robinson to the rifle and the rooftop, surveillance video placing him at the scene of the crime, and recorded interviews with his former roommate and same-sex partner in which he shared with police that Robinson not only said he did it, but that he regretted doing so.

Then there are the text messages from Robinson himself indicating the assassination was carefully planned – and that he was the one who pulled the trigger. “I’ve had enough of his (Charlie Kirk’s) hatred,” the alleged assassin texted his “boyfriend.”

Prosecutors turned over one such text from Tyler Robinson that reads, “It was me at UVU yesterday.” Officials also have a handwritten confession, as well as testimony from Robinson’s family, indicating he confessed his guilt to them before turning himself in.

Given the volume of evidence, it’s understandable why some are suggesting the proceedings and process is both a circus and a charade. But what’s maybe even more distasteful and disgraceful are the grifters and conspiratorialists who continue to dispute the obvious evidence.

Commentator Candace Owens has previously said, “I don’t think Tyler Robinson was even there.” She told CNN last November, “I first and foremost do not believe that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. I want to be very clear on that.” She also said police didn’t interview Robinson’s roommate, which they did – twice.

Candace Owens has repeatedly attacked Erika Kirk, calling her a “clinical psychopath” and “narcissist.” She’s also said, “There’s no humanity in Erika.”

CBS’ Bari Weiss has asked Mrs. Kirk for her response to Owens’ accusations and commentary. She replied with one word: “Stop.”

The murder of Charlie Kirk has been tragic on so many levels, of course. It rightly took people’s breath away to see a vibrant family man of faith killed because of the hatred in another man’s heart. It was a reminder that evil and wickedness are very real and on parade in this world. It was evidence of the destructiveness of sin and the very real risks of living out one’s Christian faith publicly, which Charlie did courageously and unapologetically.

As the official trial draws closer, we as Christians should continue praying for Erika Kirk and their entire family. Few can fathom how difficult it must be to sit and watch everything unfold – including slanderous, unhinged, and seemingly downright demonically inspired ravings from critics who seem determined to exploit the death of your loved one.

Charlie Kirk’s radio shows and rallies were wonderful lessons on how to engage and challenge not only the spirit of the age but also culture’s agitators. In the days since Charlie’s murder, Erika has picked up where her late husband left off. Her one-word response to Bari Weiss was undoubtedly inspired by Jesus’ own admonition:

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matthew 5:11).

May the Lord continue to strengthen and sustain the Kirk family.