BREAKING REPORT: Moments Ago — Megyn Kelly Revealed That Erika Kirk Was Left “Deeply Disturbed” After a Jezebel Article Allegedly Described Placing a “Curse” on Her Late Husband, Charlie Kirk. Sources close to the widow say the piece left her visibly shaken, calling it “a vile and heartless attack” at a time when she continues to mourn and protect her husband’s legacy.

Megyn Kelly Reveals Erika Kirk Was Shaken by Jezebel’s “Curse” Article on Charlie Kirk

A controversy at the intersection of media ethics, grief, and political hostility has erupted after Megyn Kelly revealed that Erika Kirk, widow of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, was left deeply shaken by a Jezebel article bragging about placing a “curse” on her husband shortly before his death.

The story centers on a now-removed Jezebel piece titled “We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk,” in which the outlet described commissioning so-called witches via Etsy to hex Kirk with minor humiliations and misfortunes — wardrobe issues, tech failures, public embarrassment — framed as darkly comic political “satire,” not physical harm.

Days later, Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at a college event in Utah, and the tone of the article, combined with its timing, sparked widespread outrage and alarm.

“Genuinely Rattled”: What Megyn Kelly Says Happened

On her show, Megyn Kelly recounted private details about how Erika and Charlie reacted after learning of the Jezebel piece. According to Kelly, the couple did not laugh it off as harmless internet theater. Instead, Erika was “genuinely rattled,” distressed that anyone would publicly celebrate invoking curses — even rhetorically — against her husband.

Kelly said the situation disturbed Erika so much that the family reached out to a priest friend to come and pray with them and over Charlie the night before his killing. That detail, now widely circulated, has intensified public focus on how far partisan media and online culture are willing to go.

Jezebel’s Defense and Removal of the Article

Following the assassination, Jezebel removed the original article from its site and appended an editor’s note. The outlet characterized the piece as satire, claimed it did not endorse violence of any kind, and insisted that no real harm was intended. The text was taken down, they said, out of “an abundance of caution” in light of unfolding events.

Critics, however, argue that hiding behind satire does not erase the impact of celebrating symbolic harm or dehumanizing political opponents — particularly when the target, and his grieving family, become the real people left to process the fallout.

A Grieving Widow at the Center of a Culture War

For Erika Kirk, the Jezebel story was not an abstract culture-war talking point. According to accounts shared by Kelly and others close to her, the article felt like a vicious taunt aimed directly at her family’s faith and pain.

The idea that people were publicly boasting about “cursing” her husband — even as a joke — cut deeply. In Kelly’s telling, Erika experienced it as a spiritual and moral line being crossed: an attack not only on Charlie’s beliefs, but on the sacredness of human life and death itself.

That sense of violation has fueled growing calls from commentators on the right for accountability from Jezebel and platforms that enabled the stunt, with some insisting that such content normalizes hatred and dehumanization in the name of politics.

Beyond Satire: The Ethics of “Cursing” in Modern Media

The incident has reignited a broader debate:

• Where is the line between satire and targeted cruelty—especially when the “joke” centers on wishing harm, humiliation, or spiritual attacks on a real person?

• Do outlets bear responsibility for escalating rhetoric that, while not directly inciting violence, celebrates symbolic harm in a hyper-polarized environment?

• What about the families? Critics emphasize that behind every headline is a spouse, a child, a parent forced to read strangers gleefully invoking curses or celebrating their loss.

Supporters of Jezebel frame the piece as clearly hyperbolic and argue that blaming satire for later real-world violence is unfair and dangerous. Opponents counter that when political opponents are treated as villains to be hexed, mocked, or symbolically destroyed, it coarsens the culture and erodes the basic respect that should transcend partisanship.

Megyn Kelly’s Message — and Erika’s Path Forward

Megyn Kelly’s decision to publicly share Erika Kirk’s reaction has added emotional weight to what might otherwise have been dismissed as “just online content.” By centering Erika’s fear, faith, and grief, Kelly has turned the spotlight onto the human cost of performative cruelty.

At the same time, reports note that Erika has chosen a response rooted in forgiveness and resolve: publicly emphasizing her determination to honor her husband’s legacy and continue their shared mission, even in the shadow of mockery, spiritual attacks, and unspeakable loss.

A Warning Sign in the Digital Age

The uproar over Jezebel’s “curse” article is about more than one headline.

It underscores a sobering reality of modern politics and media: words crafted for clicks, laughs, or ideological victory can collide with real tragedy, leaving real families to pick up the emotional pieces. And as Megyn Kelly’s account of Erika Kirk’s reaction shows, the damage is felt most intensely far away from the timelines where outrage is just content.

In the end, this episode raises a simple but urgent question for the digital age: Just because something can be framed as satire — should it be?