- within Immigration topic(s)
The graphic assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk while speaking at Utah Valley University in September 2025 led to an immediate uproar on social media. Posts from Kirk opponents purportedly celebrating (or at least not mourning) his death led to public backlash from right-wing leaders. The controversy has left employers struggling to deal with public pressure against workers who publicly commented on the incident. Amidst the wave of firings and suspensions, companies must navigate the fine line between protecting themselves from public outcry and avoiding free speech-based lawsuits from employees.
Trump administration officials like Vice President JD Vance and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly called for people to report posts to their employers and praised employers taking disciplinary action. Right-wing activists targeted individuals who made left-leaning posts by doxxing them online, contacting their employers, and demanding repercussions, which led to them experience death threats in some cases.
Major airlines, MSNBC, sports organizations, and universities responded by suspending and terminating employees who commented "inappropriately" on Kirk's death. Other major corporations, including Nasdaq, Microsoft, and Office Depot also fired employees over their online remarks. Even some government agencies like FEMA and the Army suspended employees. All told, at least 33 individuals lost their jobs in the aftermath of the social media firestorm, highlighting the political polarization that has consumed the nation.
For employees at private companies, the First Amendment provides few protections. Since private workers are at-will employees in most states, they are vulnerable to termination for any reason other than illegal discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race and gender. Courts largely have upheld terminations for such actions when they adversely reflect on a private company or disrupt their work activities. Nonetheless, employers should take care to uniformly enforce such standards to avoid wrongful termination claims.
On the other hand, public-sector workers have stronger protections. Courts must balance the employee's right to speak freely on public matters with the efficient operations of the government employer. While Kirk's assassination is certainly a public topic on which employees have the right to speak, discipline may be warranted for particularly inflammatory comments that incite violence, disturb operations, or result in documented adverse effects.
Aside from the First Amendment, other federal and state laws may apply to the ability of employers to discipline employees under these circumstances. For instance, the National Labor Relations Act may protect some political workplace discussions, and a California state law shields political activities. As a result, discrimination claims continue to be a risk, particularly if discipline targets one group over another.
Employers also should take care to establish and enforce clear social media policies for their employees. Training for all employees about these policies also is critical so they understand the repercussions that may occur in some situations based on employee visibility, the range of the offending post, and effect on portrayal of company values. Many employers currently may not have adequate policies to cover rapidly changing technological advances in the digital realm.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
