Shockwaves rippled through American political circles this week after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, during a speech at Utah Valley University. The tragedy, which unfolded on September 10, 2025, has not only left Kirk’s family and supporters in mourning but has also ignited a fierce debate over the role of rhetoric and responsibility in modern politics. At the center of this storm is "CBS Mornings" co-host Nate Burleson, whose pointed questioning of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has drawn a tidal wave of criticism from conservative commentators and media personalities.
Charlie Kirk, a husband and father of two, was shot in the neck while addressing an audience in Orem, Utah, and later succumbed to his injuries. The incident stunned the nation, with many Americans expressing grief and disbelief at the violence that claimed the life of one of the country’s most prominent conservative activists. According to Fox News Digital, the killing quickly became a national flashpoint, with some voices on the left scrutinizing Kirk’s own rhetoric and that of his allies, while others decried the politicization of a deeply personal tragedy.
The controversy escalated on September 12, when Nate Burleson, a former NFL wide receiver turned broadcaster, questioned Kevin McCarthy on CBS about whether Republicans should "reflect" on their rhetoric in the wake of Kirk’s assassination. Burleson noted that Kirk’s words had at times been "offensive to specific communities" and that "not everyone took to his words or his rhetoric." He pressed further, asking, "Speaking of this tragedy, is this a moment for your party to reflect on political violence? Is it a moment for us to think about the responsibility of our political leaders and their voices and what it does to the masses as they get lost in misinformation or disinformation that turns in, and spills into, political violence?"
Co-host Gayle King joined the discussion, emphasizing that "both parties" should take the opportunity to reflect. McCarthy, however, pushed back on the idea that political violence was the purview of any single group. He responded, as reported by Fox News Digital, that he does not see rising political violence as an issue confined to individual parties but rather as a challenge confronting the entire nation.
The exchange set off an immediate backlash among conservative commentators, who accused Burleson of unfairly politicizing a moment of grief. Tim Brando, a respected broadcaster who spent nearly two decades at CBS Sports before moving to Fox Sports, was among the first to voice his disapproval. "I have nothing but positive things to say about my experiences there. The level of professionalism and decorum was its calling card. Walking thru the Broadcast Center to Studio 43 was an honor. This kind of rhetoric would never have been tolerated," Brando wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. He continued, "Some of what’s online today is disgusting but when ya see this on airwaves once considered pillars of journalism it’s no small wonder how we’ve plummeted. It’s beyond the pale what’s said here. Where and when does this end?"
The criticism didn’t stop there. Steve Guest, a longtime conservative communications strategist, called Burleson’s remarks "unhinged" and shared a clip of the exchange that quickly went viral, racking up more than 3.6 million views by the morning of September 12. Jay Feely, a former NFL player and congressional candidate, was even more direct, stating, "This was highly offensive Nate Burleson. Charlie Kirk was assassinated in front of his family and you ask if Republicans need to tone down their rhetoric? When you call one side racist Nazis that are a threat to democracy you encourage this Violence."
Other prominent conservative voices echoed these sentiments. Townhall columnist Dustin Grage remarked that Burleson needed to "read the room," while Meghan McCain, daughter of the late Senator John McCain, blasted the CBS host. She wrote, "So one of the most prominent republicans on planet earth gets slaughtered in cold blood in front of his wife and kids and WE need to tone down the rhetoric? Bari Weiss can’t take over this piece of s--- network fast enough," referencing reports that The Free Press founder Bari Weiss is set to join CBS News in a leadership role.
NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck chimed in as well: "Nate Burleson, probably a nice guy... but reminding us that he's a former NFL player and got WAY, WAY, WAY out over his skis." Political pundit Stephen L. Miller added, "If they aren't going to change over this, they aren't going to change over anything." Conservative radio host Erick Erickson called for Burleson’s removal, stating, "Nate Burleson at CBS News should be on the layoff list when Paramount reorganizes." Nicholas Fondacaro, associate editor at NewsBusters, described the segment as "absolutely ghoulish behavior," while OutKick columnist Bobby Burack simply called Burleson "clueless."
Despite the uproar, CBS News and its parent company Paramount did not respond to repeated requests for comment by Fox News Digital as of September 12. The silence from the network has only fueled further speculation and debate about the boundaries of responsible journalism and the politicization of tragedy in the media landscape.
Meanwhile, the viral nature of the exchange underscores the heightened sensitivity and polarization that now define much of American political discourse. The question at the heart of the controversy—whether political leaders should reflect on their words and the potential consequences—remains unresolved. Some argue that Burleson’s line of questioning was an important reminder of the responsibilities carried by public figures, particularly in a climate where misinformation and heated rhetoric can spill over into real-world violence. Others, however, see it as an opportunistic attempt to score political points at the expense of a grieving family and community.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk, and the media firestorm that followed, have exposed deep divisions not only between left and right, but even within the media establishment itself. For some, Burleson’s remarks were a necessary, if uncomfortable, prompt for national introspection. For others, they were a step too far—a politicization of tragedy that risks deepening wounds rather than healing them.
As the nation processes the loss of a high-profile political figure and debates the appropriate response, one thing is clear: the intersection of tragedy, rhetoric, and media responsibility will remain a contentious battleground for some time to come.
