September 15, 2025 — The Washington Post has dismissed columnist Karen Attiah after a series of inflammatory social media posts surrounding the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, sparking renewed concerns over political bias and a glaring double standard in American media.
Attiah, who took to her personal Substack on Monday, claimed she was fired over accusations of “gross misconduct” and “endangering the physical safety of colleagues.” She denied the charges entirely, calling them “false” and “without evidence.”
“Nothing I said was new or false or disparaging – it is descriptive, and supported by data,” she wrote in her post.
However, the timing and nature of Attiah’s commentary following the tragic shooting of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, raised serious eyebrows. Rather than condemning the political violence or mourning the loss, Attiah’s focus shifted to a controversial narrative about systemic issues and Kirk’s prior statements—statements she quoted out of context.
While claiming her most popular post was not about Kirk, but rather about the “political assassinations” of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman, her husband, and their pet dog—a tragic and unrelated event—Attiah still chose to single out Kirk’s alleged past remarks, branding him as a symbol of hate.
Specifically, she referenced a quote in which Kirk allegedly said that Black women “do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously” and “have to steal a white person’s slot.” This out of context quote, widely circulated online after Kirk’s death, was taken from a July 13, 2023 episode of “The Charlie Kirk Show.”
What Did Kirk Actually Say?
According to a verified video segment, Kirk was discussing affirmative action and criticized Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson specifically for openly acknowledging they benefited from affirmative action policies.“If we would have said three weeks ago that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist,” Kirk said on-air.
“But now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us… You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot.”
Though critics labeled the comments as racist, context reveals he was making a pointed argument about merit-based advancement and the hypocrisy of identity politics. Kirk argued that those who admit to using racial preferences to advance in elite institutions are, by default, acknowledging that meritocracy was bypassed.
Notice that THIS edited version, to appear that he was talking about all Black women, is what the Left, including Left-leaning Snopes, reported:
“Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.” pic.twitter.com/j6PKQec2gn
— Elizabeth (@alluring_nyc) September 11, 2025
Conservatives have rightfully questioned why criticism of left-wing political figures is instantly branded as hate speech, while blatant attacks—like Attiah’s—on murdered conservative figures are treated as “nuanced commentary.”
Kirk, a close ally of President Donald Trump, was no stranger to controversy. But to weaponize his death to score political points is a line many believe Attiah crossed.
Notably, MSNBC also severed ties with analyst Matthew Dowd following his comments labeling Kirk as a “divisive” figure pushing “hate speech”—comments made immediately after the activist’s assassination.
Shortly after Kirk’s assassination, Attiah took to Bluesky, a social media platform, to write:
“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.”
In another post, she added:
“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.”
These words, callous and cold, were seen by many as deeply inappropriate—especially coming from someone in a prominent media position. Even worse, they were posted while conservative Americans were still grappling with the news that one of their brightest young voices had been gunned down in cold blood.
Attiah later announced on Substack that she had been terminated over what The Washington Post called “unacceptable” and “gross misconduct” on social media—accusations she claims are “without evidence.” But the evidence is plain as day. Her words weren’t measured analysis—they were a sneering dismissal of human tragedy based purely on race and ideology.
In her Substack post titled, “The Washington Post Fired Me — But My Voice Will Not Be Silenced,” Attiah tried to position herself as the victim, writing:
“They rushed to fire me without even a conversation. This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold.”
But let’s be clear: this is not the first time Attiah has flirted with racially inflammatory commentary. In 2021, she tweeted (and later deleted) that white women were “lucky” Black people were “just calling them Karens and not calling for revenge.” When questioned, she doubled down, adding:
“Be happy we are calling for equality. And not actual revenge.”
That’s not journalism—that’s racial grievance masquerading as insight.
Attiah also claimed she was terminated for “speaking out against political violence, racial double standards, and America’s apathy toward guns.” In reality, she used the murder of a political opponent to push an anti-white narrative, suggesting that compassion toward conservative victims of violence is misplaced or performative.
Conservatives have long warned about the hypocrisy of mainstream media, where progressive voices are too often given a free pass while right-leaning ones are silenced for far less. In this case, the tables have turned. And while the Post’s motives may have more to do with liability than principle, the outcome is one conservatives can applaud.
