Amanda Seyfried says she will not apologise for calling Charlie Kirk ‘hateful’ after his shooting

11 December 2025

In a recent interview with Who What Wear, award-nominated actress Amanda Seyfried stood her ground and emphatically stated that she will not apologise for a stark social media comment she made about conservative activist Charlie Kirk following his fatal shooting in September 2025. Seyfried’s remarks have reignited debate about celebrity voices in politics and the delicate balance between free expression and public sensitivity. Her refusal to retract her opinion speaks to a broader culture clash unfolding at the intersection of fame, activism and outrage in the digital age.

Earlier this year Kirk, a polarising right-wing commentator and founder of the conservative advocacy group Turning Point USA, was shot and killed during a campus speaking event at Utah Valley University. The tragedy shocked the nation and drew intense media coverage, as well as widespread public reactions from across the political spectrum. In the days after the shooting, Seyfried responded to an Instagram reel summarising some of Kirk’s most controversial public statements by typing the simple but pointed phrase “He was hateful” in a comment that was intended to reflect her view of his rhetoric.

That comment alone was enough to trigger a storm of online criticism. Some social media users accused her of insensitivity, arguing that in the aftermath of any violent death there should be collective pause and compassion instead of political judgement. Others defended her right to express an opinion about a public figure’s record, particularly one as divisive as Kirk’s. In defending her stance to Who What Wear, Seyfried said her comment was grounded in documented quotes and footage and that her voice was her own to use as she saw fit. “I’m not fucking apologising for that,” she said, emphasising that she was merely stating an opinion based on what she saw as factual evidence about Kirk’s public rhetoric.

The actress did make a subsequent clarification on Instagram in mid-September, a few days after her original comment, aiming to add nuance to her perspective. In that post, she said she could be angry about misogyny and racist rhetoric while at the same time condemning violence and deploring Kirk’s violent death as deeply disturbing and unacceptable. “No one should have to experience this level of violence,” she wrote, highlighting her broader concerns about senseless shootings in the United States and a national climate marked by persistent violent incidents.

Seyfried’s position illustrates the tightrope that public figures must walk when they comment on politically charged events, especially in the era of instantaneous social media reaction. She acknowledged that her initial comment had been taken out of context by some who chose to frame it as callous or provocative. By seizing the opportunity to clarify and elaborate on her reasoning, she has sought to reclaim the narrative and communicate both her critique of Kirk’s rhetoric and her horror at the circumstances of his death.

The broader backdrop to this controversy is the fact that reactions online to Kirk’s assassination were intense and immediate. In the hours and days after the shooting, social media saw a mix of heartfelt condolences as well as, in some quarters, extreme and even celebratory posts that mourned or mocked the loss of life. Platforms struggled to manage the spread of such reactions, with some messages prompting content moderation efforts and statements from the platforms warning against glorification of violence.

Meanwhile law enforcement and the legal system have been moving forward with the case of the man accused of killing Kirk. Twenty-two-year-old Tyler Robinson has been charged with aggravated murder and other related offences. Prosecutors have said they intend to seek the death penalty if he is convicted after trial, underscoring the severity with which authorities view the shooting. The case remains active, and court appearances continue to draw attention as it moves through the judicial process.

Seyfried’s reluctance to apologise also highlights the ongoing cultural debate about how commentators, artists and other public figures engage with political figures and movements. In a climate where personal beliefs and professional careers can become deeply enmeshed, her comments reflect a larger pattern of celebrities using their platforms to advocate for causes or to critique those they oppose. Critics argue that this can inflame tensions or oversimplify complex issues, while supporters maintain that such expressions are part of vibrant public discourse and necessary engagement with societal challenges.

For Seyfried personally, the episode has been a reminder of both the power and peril of speaking out in a hyperconnected world. Her career, spanning roles in major films and series and including upcoming appearances, now intersects with this moment of political controversy in ways that illustrate how celebrity and sociopolitical debate continue to collide in contemporary media. Whether her stance will have lasting effects on her public image or professional opportunities remains to be seen, but for now she has made clear that she stands by her words and her right to express them.