Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly has ignited a new round of controversy by taking direct aim at CNN analyst Van Jones, accusing him of hypocrisy and opportunism in the days surrounding the assassination of conservative activist
Charlie Kirk.
The Spark: A Private Message Made Public
At the heart of the dispute lies a private message Charlie Kirk sent to Jones on Sept. 9, 2025, just one day before he was gunned down at Utah Valley University. In it, Kirk extended what he described as an invitation to a
“respectful conversation about crime and race.”
After Kirk’s death, Jones published an op-ed on CNN reflecting on that message. He painted the invitation as an olive branch, suggesting that Kirk sought to bridge divides despite their sharp differences. To some, it was a poignant detail. To Kelly, it was a carefully crafted
public relations maneuver.
Kelly’s Anger: From Admiration to Accusation
On her SiriusXM program, Kelly blasted Jones as a “coward,” citing his recent op-ed as self-serving. She accused him of
smearing Kirk as a racist during a CNN broadcast just two days before the assassination, only to turn around and praise him after his death.
“Van Jones came out on Friday with a nice story about Charlie, and as I’m sure he predicted, it’s now getting even conservatives to say nice things about Van. Well, I’m not one of them. Not today.”
Kelly reminded listeners of a past encounter with Jones. In 2018, following her ouster from NBC over remarks about blackface, Jones had privately offered support — only to later back out, citing death threats and FBI advice. To Kelly, this history reinforced her view that Jones prioritizes self-preservation over principle.
The ‘Racist’ Label
Kelly took particular issue with Jones’ comments on Sept. 8, when he criticized Kirk for suggesting that race played a role in the killing of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in North Carolina. According to Kelly, Kirk was citing a witness account, but Jones branded him a “racist” on-air.
“It was totally irresponsible of you,” Kelly said, “and you have yet to undo it.”
Though Kelly clarified that she does not hold Jones responsible for Kirk’s murder, she accused him of fueling hostility against Kirk — and then pivoting after his death to avoid backlash.
Jones’ Defense
In his CNN essay, Jones acknowledged that he had often disagreed — sometimes “strongly” — with Kirk’s statements. But he framed their private exchange as proof that dialogue remained possible. By making the message public, Jones positioned himself not as Kirk’s adversary, but as someone willing to see nuance in a polarizing figure.
To Kelly, however, the timing was suspect. “Van Jones saw what happened to Charlie and clearly started to panic,” she argued. “Because he had been in a very open fight with him.”
A Clash of Narratives
The feud highlights deeper tensions in American media: the collision of personal relationships, political branding, and public tragedy. To Kelly, Jones’ actions symbolize cowardice — the attempt to sanitize one’s image after a rival’s death. To Jones, his essay was an attempt to humanize Kirk and perhaps remind audiences that even bitter opponents can find space for conversation.
What remains undeniable is that Kirk’s assassination has left behind not only grief, but also a raw battlefield of words, accusations, and conflicting legacies. In death, as in life, Charlie Kirk continues to be a lightning rod — and those who speak his name are still being forced to pick sides.
Leave a Reply