Greg Gutfeld Slams Jessica Tarlov After “Both Sides” Argument in Charlie Kirk Segment

On a recent episode of The Five, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld erupted at liberal strategist Jessica Tarlov during a heated exchange over whether political violence in America is fueled by both ends of the spectrum—or if it’s largely coming from leftist extremism. The clash, which erupted in live television, has since sparked widespread commentary and debate.

The argument began after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, allegedly at the hands of a suspect whose motivations are being linked by some to “leftist ideology.” During the panel discussion, Gutfeld stated bluntly, “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.”

Tarlov, seeking to broaden the discussion, responded by pointing out the politically motivated killing of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband earlier in the year as evidence that violence also comes from the right.

Gutfeld reacted sharply. “Did you know her name before it happened? None of us did. None of us were spending every single day talking about Mrs. Hortman. I never heard of her until after she died,” he said, accusing Tarlov’s use of that example as a deflection. When Tarlov suggested that the point being ignored was whether her death mattered, Gutfeld snapped back: “Don’t play that bulls**t with me.”

He went on to argue that in Kirk’s case, there was constant demonization, amplification, and public discourse targeting him long before his death—that unlike what he described, there was no comparable build-up of rhetoric in the Hortman case. He declared that the “both sides” argument no longer holds up: “That s**t is dead.”

Tarlov attempted to clarify: she said she was horrified by Kirk’s death and was not trying to minimize it—but she felt public discussion needed context and evidence before assigning blame broadly. Gutfeld, however, was unmoved. He pressed that what matters is how the rhetoric has evolved, how certain individuals become targets, and how media discourse contributes to escalation.

The clash reveals deeper polarization over political violence and how Americans perceive threats and responsibility. For many conservatives—including Gutfeld—the Kirk case represents what they see as a tipping point: when rhetoric and demonization allegedly lead to real, deadly consequences. For others, Tarlov’s warning is that such discussions risk oversimplifying the causes and ignoring examples from across the political aisle.

Public reaction to the segment has been split. Some viewers defended Gutfeld, saying Tarlov was engaging in whataboutism—raising counterexamples to distract from what Gutfeld claims is unique escalation from the left. Others criticize Gutfeld for dismissing valid concerns and for using heated language instead of a more nuanced analysis.

No matter the side, the exchange has underscored how fraught and emotionally charged debates around political violence have become—and how difficult it is for television commentators to navigate between immediate outrage, responsibility, and fairness.