Megyn Kelly Blasts Jamie Lee Curtis Over Charlie Kirk Comments as Dishonest

Jamie Lee Curtis tried to put out a fire, and Megyn Kelly showed up with a can of gasoline. Curtis says people misunderstood her recent comments about Charlie Kirk. Kelly calls that spin. Here is how this mess started and why folks are still yelling.

The quick version

• Back in September, Curtis talked about Charlie Kirk on the WTF podcast and got dragged for it.
• In a new Variety interview, she says people misread her words. She claims she was not praising Kirk; she was talking about his faith in God.
• Megyn Kelly responded on her show, saying they had initially given Curtis credit at the time, even noting Curtis has a trans child and opposes Kirk on trans issues, because they believed she was acknowledging that a man had been killed.
• Kelly now argues Curtis is walking it back to dodge criticism and says that kind of clarification puts right-leaning speakers at risk.

Let me pause to address the obvious: yes, the whole conversation is framed around Kirk’s supposed death. Charlie Kirk is alive. That is part of why this keeps spiraling — the way Curtis’s comments were discussed, then reinterpreted, was confusing at best.

According to Curtis, the pile-on started because people took her remarks as her offering warm wishes to Kirk. She says that is not what she meant. Her point, as she explains it now, was narrower: she was referring to his belief in God, not vouching for the man or his politics.

"That is completely dishonest. She walked this back because she clearly got blowback over it."

That is Kelly’s headline takeaway. She also said she and her team initially cut Curtis some slack despite their differences with her on trans issues, but now thinks Curtis is rewriting the moment to make it more palatable. Kelly went further, arguing that this kind of revision puts conservatives who speak to large crowds in danger — her words, not mine.

In the same Variety chat, Curtis zoomed out. She said we live in a moment where people act like you cannot hold two competing ideas at once. She gave her own example: as a Jewish woman, she believes Israel has a right to exist and also rejects the destruction in Gaza — and thinks saying both gets you vilified. It is a detour from the Kirk talk, but it is clearly how she is processing the backlash: she sees nuance, the internet refuses it.

So where does that leave this? Curtis stands by her intent — not praise, just a note on faith — and Kelly thinks that is a post-hoc cleanup. The larger takeaway is that a messy, muddled moment from a podcast is now doing the cable-and-social circuit, and nobody involved seems ready to drop it.