They lost their jobs after posting about Charlie Kirk, but some have no regretsSome people fired in the wake of Kirk's assassination have won big settlements from employers, others have had to start over from scratch.1 hr agoUS & Canada

In September 2025, Gerald Bourguet felt he was finally living his dream life: he and his wife had bought a house with a pool, they had just welcomed a baby boy, and he was writing about professional men’s basketball as his full-time job.

But all of that changed after he made a series of online posts critical of the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk hours after he was fatally shot on 10 September, while speaking on the campus of Utah Valley University.

In the posts, Bourguet described Kirk as an “evil man” and suggested he had dedicated his life to hateful causes. He also criticised Kirk’s supporters saying they had not been vocal about school shootings.

“I had seen the way that people were talking about this person – kind of eulogising him and lionising him and it bothered me based on a lot of the things that he had said,” Bourguet told the BBC.

Screenshots of Bourguet’s critical posts went viral quickly. He was fired from his job, his address was exposed online, and he began receiving threatening text messages, he said. Concerned for their safety, the family fled the state with their four-month-old. They returned months later to sell the house and permanently relocated.

A year later, he says he doesn’t regret what he said, but acknowledged: “My life will never be the same after this”.

“At age 35, I am having to start over in a lot of respects… I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy,” Bourguet said from his new location, which the BBC agreed not to disclose.

PHNX Sports, Bourguet’s former employer, did not respond to the BBC’s request for comment.

Bourguet was one of hundreds fired or disciplined over critical comments of Kirk after his death. While some of those who have lost their jobs have been reinstated or received restitution – sometimes in the millions – others like Bourguet have had to rebuild from scratch.

In the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, most people kept their feelings to themselves, or shared them with close friends.

But on polarised social media, people rushed to laude, or denounce, the controversial activist. Some called the criticisms, posted hours after his death, tasteless. But others called for swift action, arguing they were callous, mocking, and could even incite further violence.

Laura Loomer, an influential right-wing commentator with nearly 2 million followers on X, warned Kirk’s critics to “prepare to have your whole future professional aspirations ruined”.

The push for punishment also came from the highest levels of US government.

“When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out,” Vice-President JD Vance said days after the assassination. “And hell, call their employer,” he added.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle told the BBC: “Anyone who engages in or endorses political violence or assassination culture must be condemned in the harshest terms possible.”

Critics on the left said there was a difference between criticism of Kirk and celebrating his death. Some accused these conservative leaders of hypocrisy, as many had previously bemoaned the rise of “cancel culture” – where people who voice controversial opinions face severe consequences at work and socially.

“Cancel culture can be good, it’s bad when it’s applied in the wrong ways,” Jordan Pace, a Republican member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, told the BBC. “If you are someone who celebrates political assassinations and the murder of an innocent man with two young children in a way that many people did, then yeah, that’s an appropriate way for society to function, to shame those people.”

Pace had previously called for defunding universities in his state if they didn’t take actions against employees who made comments about Kirk. One of his posts was re-shared by US President Donald Trump.

Across the nation, some employers – private and public – acted swiftly to the pressure campaign. Reliable figures on the number of people fired or disciplined are hard to come by, but a Reuters tally last November found more than 600 instances. It is likely an under-count because not all cases received national or local press attention.

The specific actions that led to these disciplinary decisions run the gamut. In Tennessee, anthropology professor Tamar Shirinian was suspended and later fired for a Facebook comment saying “the world is better off” without Kirk.

A Delta Air Lines flight attendant was fired after posting “good riddance” in response to Kirk’s killing. Office Depot supply store fired an employee for refusing to serve a customer who had wanted to print flyers for a Kirk vigil. Delta Air Lines declined to comment. Office Depot did not respond to a request for comment.

Others were disciplined even if they did not make any direct comments about Kirk or his death. Darren Michael, a theatre professor in Tennessee, was fired after he posted a screenshot of a news article from 2023, that covered Kirk’s controversial speech on gun control. In the article, Kirk is quoted saying protecting citizens’ rights to own guns was worth it even if it led to some gun deaths every year.

Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission fired biologist Brittney Brown after she reposted a meme that also satirised Kirk’s position on gun violence in light of his own shooting.

“I was absolutely gutted,” Brown said about her firing to the BBC. “It was like the entire world just completely flipped on its head in a moment.”

In the year since Kirk’s killing, dozens of lawsuits have been filed across the country by people fired for their comments about the activist, arguing their terminations violated their rights to free speech. The suits have led to substantial pay outs in some cases.

Brown agreed to a $485,000 (£355,000) financial settlement – about 12 times Brown’s annual salary.

Darren Michael was reinstated by the Austin Peay State University and in January, the school agreed to pay him $500,000 to settle legal claims. The school did not respond to a request for comment.

In the largest settlement reviewed by the BBC, the University of Tennessee agreed to pay $1.9m to resolve a lawsuit brought by anthropologist Tamar Shirinian, over her “better off” comment. As part of the settlement, she will not be reinstated and has agreed not to reapply for future positions at the school.

Recently, an arbitrator ordered The Washington Post to rehire, with back pay, opinion journalist Karen Attiah, who was fired for her online posts that said in part she was not going to engage in “performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence”.

Several other lawsuits remain pending, the BBC found.

Most of the legal actions have been pursued by employees of government institutions, or unionised workers, who have some free-speech protections.

But in the US, most private sector employees work under “at-will” contracts, which means they can be can be fired without reason.

Even those who have scored some victories don’t see it as a win.

“All I wanted was my job back,” biologist Brown said. “How much taxpayer money did they waste on this when I barely made $40,000 a year? So no, it does not feel like justice.”

Shirinian told the BBC she too had wanted to return to her job but felt a legal case could be a lengthy affair.

“I took a settlement because this allows me to move on with my life,” she told the BBC. “The one small regret that I have is that I will not see my day in court and justice will not be served in that way. But I think that the number of the settlement actually speaks to that anyway.”

The University of Tennessee and Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission did not respond to the BBC’s request for comment.

As an at-will employee at a private company, Bourguet is unlikely to prevail in a lawsuit challenging his dismissal. A year on, he said he has struggled to find work. The new state he lives in has a professional basketball team, but he believes the ordeal has made him unemployable in the small world of sports writers. Instead, he’s started his own podcast, although he doubts he can earn enough through it to pay the bills.

“I have accepted that that life is over and that I need to start a new one.” Leaving the country is now on the table, he said.

Despite the huge personal and professional costs, those who spoke to the BBC said after months of reflection, they did not regret their actions.

“I have a right to say what I want to say,” Brown said. “They are the ones who should have the regrets, not me,” she said referring to her former employer.

Shirinian apologised to the university days after her suspension. She told the BBC her comment was “an emotional outburst” that was not intended to be public and that she regretted the tone used.

“I don’t regret the sentiment, however” she said, adding “the sentiment was that I am not sad. And I refuse to be made to feel like I have to be sad that someone who was so hateful was killed”.

Bourguet also said he does not regret his comments although he has conflicting thoughts about its consequences.

“I don’t regret that line of thinking because I think it’s important to push back on things that are steeped in hatred,” he said, referring to Kirk’s political message.

“I don’t regret what I said. I don’t regret the way that I said it. I do regret the ripple effects that came from it and the way that they impacted me, my career, my family, and my son.”