On Monday, September 16, 2025, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld delivered one of the most heated monologues in recent memory on The Five, completely shutting down co-host Jessica Tarlov during a discussion about the tragic assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The tension in the studio was palpable as both hosts attempted to dissect the political climate following Kirk’s shocking death, yet the conversation quickly escalated into a fiery confrontation that has since gone viral across social media.

The exchange began when Tarlov, attempting to contextualize the rise in politically motivated violence, suggested that extremism and aggression are a problem for both sides of the political spectrum. She cited recent incidents, including the killing of Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman in June, as examples of violence that transcends party lines. Tarlov’s comments were intended as a cautionary analysis, emphasizing that America is facing a broader cultural and political crisis, not one confined to a single ideology.

However, Gutfeld was having none of it. Interrupting her mid-sentence, he cut straight to the point: “We don’t need more information. What is interesting here is why is only this happening on the left and not the right? That’s all we need to know.” His tone was sharp, his body language unyielding, and the tension in the studio was so thick it could be felt through the television.

Tarlov, trying to maintain composure, responded by bringing up Hortman’s murder again, implying that political violence can come from multiple directions. “What about Melissa Hortman?” she asked, highlighting the need for a balanced perspective. Gutfeld, however, refused to entertain the comparison, dismissing the notion that the violence on the right matched the intensity and cultural amplification of attacks associated with left-wing extremism.

“Did you know her name before it happened?” Gutfeld shot back, his voice rising. “None of us did. None of us were spending every single day talking about Melissa Hortman. I never heard of her until after she died.” Tarlov pressed on, seemingly confused by his logic, “So she doesn’t matter?” Gutfeld leaned in, his expression a mix of frustration and incredulity, and snapped, “Don’t play that bulls–t with me. What I’m saying is there was no demonization amplification about that woman before she died. It was a specific crime against her by somebody that knew her. Then you’ll bring up Josh Shapiro, but you will not bring up that that was a pro-Palestine person.”

By this point, the debate had escalated to full-blown confrontation, with Gutfeld declaring, “The fact of the matter is the both sides argument not only doesn’t fly, we don’t care. We don’t care about your both sides argument. That sh–t is dead.” His voice, sharp and unwavering, resonated across the set, leaving both the in-studio audience and viewers at home stunned by the intensity of his remarks.

This fiery episode did not occur in isolation. Gutfeld has been openly vocal since the assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University the previous week. During his monologue on Gutfeld! the previous Friday, he reflected on the loss of the 31-year-old activist with visible emotion, underscoring the personal and societal impact of such politically motivated violence. “So why was Charlie assassinated?” Gutfeld asked, his voice grave. “It wasn’t about his ideas; it is that he was so good at them. He was the best. There was no one like him. This will backfire. Look at the history of those murdered because they were good. MLK Jr.’s dream did not die with him. Or JFK’s. Or Lincoln’s. As much as I hate the song ‘Imagine,’ it still gets played thousands of times a day around the globe. So their legacy grows, and Charlie’s will as well, beyond his wildest dreams.”

Gutfeld’s perspective was clear: killing the man behind an idea does not kill the idea itself. Instead, it only amplifies its power, giving it “wings” as he dramatically put it. His monologue resonated with viewers who saw Kirk not merely as a political figure, but as a symbol of a broader ideological movement. In his view, Kirk’s assassination, while tragic, would only solidify the influence he had painstakingly built over his career.

The controversy over the “both sides” argument is emblematic of a larger media debate. In recent years, discussions about political violence have been framed as a bipartisan issue, with commentators often emphasizing that extremism exists on both sides of the aisle. Gutfeld’s refusal to entertain this framework during Monday’s episode sparked both praise and criticism online. Conservatives celebrated his unflinching stance, arguing that the left’s violent rhetoric is uniquely amplified and culturally normalized, while progressives criticized him for ignoring instances of right-wing violence entirely.

Social media erupted almost immediately after the episode aired. Clips of Gutfeld’s outburst circulated on X, TikTok, and Instagram, garnering millions of views within hours. Hashtags like #GutfeldVsTarlov, #BothSidesIsDead, and #CharlieKirk dominated trending charts, fueling intense debates among commentators, pundits, and the general public. Some praised Gutfeld’s candor, calling him a rare voice willing to confront uncomfortable truths. Others condemned his dismissive tone toward Tarlov, accusing him of silencing legitimate discussion and oversimplifying a complex issue.

Political analysts have weighed in, noting that the public response reflects a country deeply divided over how political discourse should be framed. Professor Angela Reynolds of Georgetown University commented, “The Gutfeld-Tarlov exchange underscores how polarized media environments have become. Discussions that once involved nuanced debate now often devolve into theatrical confrontations. Both sides get amplified, but the intensity of emotional performance sometimes overshadows the substance.”

Meanwhile, Tarlov’s attempt to highlight overlooked examples of violence did not go unnoticed. Though largely overshadowed by Gutfeld’s dramatic statements, her persistence serves as a reminder that politically motivated violence does not respect party lines. Some observers noted that the discussion inadvertently highlighted the media’s role in shaping public perception of which incidents receive attention and which are forgotten.

For Fox News viewers, Gutfeld’s passionate defense of Kirk resonated deeply. Many fans flooded social media with supportive messages: “Finally someone calling out the lies of the both sides argument,” wrote one user. “Gutfeld is right — the left’s violence gets amplified constantly,” commented another. Conversely, critics accused him of deflecting from broader concerns: “This isn’t about party politics — it’s about the rise of political violence across the board,” one tweet read.

The episode also revealed the personal stakes involved for Gutfeld. Having built a career around blending humor, commentary, and cultural critique, he sees the assassination of Kirk not just as a political event, but as an attack on civility, dialogue, and the public sphere itself. His impassioned defense reflects a belief that ideas must be protected even when the individuals behind them are threatened.

As discussions continue in the wake of Kirk’s death, Monday’s confrontation between Gutfeld and Tarlov will likely be remembered as one of the most vivid examples of modern cable news drama. It encapsulates the intensity, polarization, and performative nature of contemporary media discourse, raising important questions about accountability, ideological bias, and the role of emotion in public commentary.

In conclusion, Greg Gutfeld’s explosive rejection of the “both sides” argument has left an indelible mark on the conversation surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination. By publicly and forcefully declaring that such arguments are “dead,” he has ignited debates over media responsibility, political polarization, and how society interprets acts of violence. As the nation grapples with grief, outrage, and reflection, the clash between Gutfeld and Tarlov serves as a reminder that in today’s media landscape, discussions about truth, accountability, and ideological responsibility are never simple, never quiet, and always intensely human.

The implications of this debate extend far beyond the walls of The Five studio. It raises urgent questions for political analysts, journalists, and viewers alike: How do we assess responsibility for political violence? How do we balance free expression with the amplification of harmful rhetoric? And perhaps most importantly, how do we honor the legacies of those like Charlie Kirk while confronting the broader societal trends that enable extremism?

Monday’s explosive episode, with Gutfeld at the center, is more than a cable news confrontation—it is a cultural touchstone, a moment of reckoning for media, politics, and the public discourse that shapes our understanding of violence, responsibility, and justice in America.