In the tense days following the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, former Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Eileen Davidson found herself at the center of a national controversy. What began as a single social media post spiraled into a heated debate about gun rights, political violence, and the responsibility of public figures. The incident has revealed the raw divisions in the American political landscape, showing how a few words can ignite a firestorm of both condemnation and support.
The situation continues to evolve as Davidson defends her stance against a wave of backlash. Her comments and her unwavering response to critics have sparked discussions that go far beyond celebrity gossip, touching on some of the most sensitive issues facing the country today. Here’s a detailed look at exactly what happened and how the drama has unfolded throughout September 2025.
You Might Like: Snake Eyes and Charlie Kirk: The Bizarre Story
The Controversial Post and the Immediate Backlash
The incident started when Eileen Davidson, an Emmy-winning soap opera actress, shared a post on her Instagram story that quickly captured national attention. The post read: “I am not in support of what happened to Charlie Kirk, but Charlie Kirk was in support of what happened to Charlie Kirk.” Although she later deleted it from Instagram, a screenshot had already spread like wildfire across the internet, particularly on Reddit, where it amassed tens of thousands of upvotes and hundreds of comments.
The remark was a direct reference to Kirk’s own past statements on gun violence. At a Turning Point USA event in 2023, Kirk argued that gun-related deaths are an unfortunate but necessary cost of protecting the Second Amendment, stating, “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” Eileen Davidson’s post was widely interpreted as using Kirk’s own logic to suggest that his death was a consequence of the policies he supported.
The backlash was swift and severe. Critics flooded her social media accounts, accusing her of mocking the murder of a political figure and blaming the victim for the violence committed against him. One critic charged that she was “mocking it thinking you were making some profound political point,” calling it “extremely poor taste to say the least.” Another simply stated, “You celebrated his assassination. What a piece of human trash you are.” The commentariat saw her post as a blatant attempt to score political points in the wake of a tragedy.
Also See: Could Charlie Kirk Soon Be on a US Coin?
Eileen Davidson’s Defense and the Ongoing Debate
Faced with intense criticism, Davidson moved to clarify her position, but she did not back down. On X (formerly Twitter), she posted a statement saying, “Never ever in one million years would I celebrate the assassination of anybody, ever. Please don’t twist things around.” She insisted that her words were being misinterpreted and that she was not celebrating the killing.
However, when users pointed out that her original post had been deleted, revealing what they saw as backtracking, Davidson defiantly replied, “I stand by my post, sweetie.” To another critic, she fired back, “Don’t be insipid.” This pattern of responses made it clear that while she was clarifying her intent, she was not apologizing for the underlying sentiment of her original post. In the days that followed, she continued to share content critical of Kirk’s ideology, including a quote that read, “A nation who mourns deeper for a dead right-wing hate merchant than it does for dead school children is a nation who has lost her soul.”
Update: Despite deleting it, Eileen stands by her post, excusing the assassination of Charlie Kirk…
I will repeat, Charlie Kirk was NOT in support of political warfare or assassinating people for having differing viewpoints. https://t.co/e7Z3nHkwKF pic.twitter.com/hwD9IBdUx0
— Zack Peter (@justplainzack) September 15, 2025
The controversy surrounding Davidson is part of a larger, painful national conversation about political violence. Kirk’s death has led to intense scrutiny of rhetoric on all sides. This was highlighted by the firing of MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd, who was let go from the network after making comments during coverage of the killing that were deemed “inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable” by the network’s president. The incident shows the extreme sensitivity and high stakes of public discourse in the current climate.
While Eileen Davidson faced a torrent of anger, she also received support from some followers who argued her point was being taken out of context. One supporter wrote, “People know your heart,” suggesting that her character was being unfairly maligned. Another defender argued that the post was a truthful, if blunt, observation about the connection between political stances and real-world consequences. This split in public reaction mirrors the deep political divisions in the country, proving that even in the face of assassination, finding common ground remains a formidable challenge.
