Media Headline Draws Strong Reactions
When hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona to honor Charlie Kirk — a conservative leader assassinated on stage for daring to speak his beliefs — the tone of the event was somber, resolute, and unmistakably patriotic. From grassroots activists to high-ranking officials, the entire conservative movement came together in a unified display of mourning and strength.
President Donald Trump was there. So were members of his potential future Cabinet. Security was tight, as it should have been. This wasn’t just a memorial; it was a moment of reckoning — a national flashpoint following one of the most high-profile political assassinations in modern American history.
So leave it to The Washington Post to find something to complain about.
In what should have been a straightforward report on security logistics — 500 to 800 Secret Service agents, DHS’s highest event security designation, and multi-agency coordination — the Post instead chose to scoff at the scope of protection, describing the memorial with a tone of smug bewilderment, as if this level of seriousness was somehow excessive or performative.
You can sense the editor seething through the headline lol. Stay mad. https://t.co/BzqOTXMtNI
— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) September 21, 2025
Let’s make this very clear for the beltway geniuses behind the keyboards:
Charlie Kirk was murdered.
On stage.
During a peaceful political event.
And just days ago, an armed man was detained at the memorial venue itself — caught by the Secret Service.
What exactly do they think happens after a political assassination that shook half the country? Do they really believe it’s appropriate to whine about the cost or the optics of security? This isn’t a celebrity funeral or a music festival. This was a gathering of national leaders and hundreds of thousands of everyday Americans paying tribute to a man who was killed for his ideas.
But The Washington Post treats the event like some overblown Trump rally — as if the security presence is more offensive than the fact that one of the most prominent young voices in conservative politics was gunned down in front of a live audience.
Their framing isn’t just clueless — it’s despicable.
This wasn’t just about protecting VIPs. It was about protecting freedom of assembly, free speech, and the lives of people who showed up to grieve. If Kirk had been a liberal activist murdered by a right-wing extremist, you better believe the Post would be demanding even more security, endless commissions, and round-the-clock coverage of the “rise of hate.”
But when it’s Charlie Kirk? They roll their eyes at the law enforcement presence and grumble about the cost.
