Jesse Watters Says Firings Over Charlie Celebration Are Justice Not Cancel Culture

In a climate where outrage and ideology often clash across digital and professional landscapes, Fox News host Jesse Watters has taken a bold and unapologetic stance.

Following the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, Watters praised a wave of mass firings targeting individuals who publicly celebrated the killing online. His controversial commentary drew a sharp line between what he considers “true cancel culture” and what he described as “America healing.”

Watters’ statements ignited immediate reactions across the political spectrum. But for him, this wasn’t about silencing dissent—it was about drawing a moral boundary. “If you’re cheering on death and domestic terrorism, you’ve already stepped out of civil society,” he declared.

This article unpacks the context behind Watters' comments, the reactions it has stirred, and the broader implications for the definition of cancel culture in today’s ideological battlefield.

Charlie Kirk, a high-profile conservative commentator and founder of Turning Point USA, was recently assassinated in what authorities have deemed a politically motivated act.

The tragedy not only devastated Kirk’s followers but also unleashed a firestorm of reaction online, particularly on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Instagram.

Some users, instead of condemning the act, posted celebratory memes, gleeful hashtags, and mocking remarks. Screenshots of these posts began circulating widely, catching the attention of conservative digital watchdogs and influencers.

Within days, employers of some of these individuals reportedly received tips, resulting in a number of terminations across various sectors—from tech companies to academic institutions.

Jesse Watters, host of “Jesse Watters Primetime,” took to the airwaves to express his support for the firings. With piercing clarity, he made a distinction between this wave of job losses and what has traditionally been labeled “cancel culture.”

“This isn’t cancel culture. This is accountability,” he stated. “You celebrate the murder of an American—of a man who was killed for expressing his political views—and you think there’s no consequence?”

According to Watters, true cancel culture involves punishing people for political incorrectness, jokes taken out of context, or controversial but nonviolent opinions. In contrast, he argues, celebrating violence crosses a line that demands social and professional consequences.

Perhaps the most headline-grabbing part of Watters’ monologue was his blunt satisfaction with the firings.

“I’m GLAD people are losing their job. Every person losing their job for celebrating Charlie's assassination is a step in the right direction,” he said. “This is America healing.”

Watters framed this as a necessary purge of radicalized individuals who have no place in a civilized, democratic society. In his view, it’s not about revenge—it’s about preserving the integrity of the workplace and the broader American fabric.

Watters went further, dissecting the term “cancel culture” itself.

“Cancel culture is when you say something politically incorrect about the WNBA or COVID and then lose your job. That’s cancel culture. This—this is something else entirely.”

By offering this distinction, Watters tried to reframe the debate. He suggested that there’s a moral difference between punishing dissent and holding people accountable for endorsing political violence. In his eyes, the latter is not suppression of free speech, but enforcement of basic human decency.

The reaction to Watters’ commentary was predictably polarized.

On the Right, his remarks were lauded as long overdue. Many supporters argued that the Left had for years weaponized cancel culture to silence conservative voices, and that the tide was finally turning.

Hashtags like #AccountabilityNotCancelCulture and #CharlieDeservedRespect began trending in conservative circles.

On the Left, however, critics accused Watters of hypocrisy. Some commentators questioned whether similar firings would be supported if the political affiliations were reversed.

Others pointed out that celebrating the death of a political figure—however vile—was still protected speech under the First Amendment, and should not automatically lead to termination.

The debate raises complicated questions about the intersection of free speech, social media, and employment. While private companies have the legal right to terminate employees for behavior they deem harmful to their brand or workplace culture, it remains ethically fraught.

Civil liberties organizations have expressed concern that firings based on social media activity—even reprehensible comments—could set dangerous precedents. If celebrating an assassination is grounds for dismissal today, what about controversial opinions tomorrow?

Yet many employers justify the terminations under “conduct unbecoming,” especially if the comments draw public attention or violate workplace codes of conduct.

Whether this moment represents “healing,” as Watters put it, or a new flavor of cancel culture, remains open to interpretation.

Supporters say it’s long overdue moral clarity in a time of chaos. Critics warn it could become a weaponized witch hunt. The tension lies in where society draws the line—and whether that line moves depending on who is holding the marker.

As conservative figures like Watters gain cultural momentum in the post-Kirk assassination landscape, the battle over speech, consequences, and cultural norms shows no signs of slowing.

Jesse Watters’ fiery defense of mass firings following the assassination of Charlie Kirk is more than a momentary media flare-up. It’s a cultural statement, a redefinition of cancel culture, and perhaps a litmus test for where the American Right is headed.

Whether one agrees with him or not, Watters has drawn a hard boundary—one that says celebrating political violence is incompatible with civilized discourse. And for now, at least in some corners of America, that boundary has teeth.

The larger question is whether this redefinition of “cancel culture” will stick—and what it means for the ideological future of the country.