Kirk was killed at a Utah college campus approximately 14 months ago. His death left behind a grieving family and sparked widespread discussion about political hostility and violence in America.
Yet the podcast hosts apparently saw an opportunity for comedy.
A Disturbing Joke Sparks an Outrageous Reaction
The controversy began during a November 5 episode of I’ve Had It, titled “Drinking MAGA Tears.”
Welch and Sullivan were celebrating Democratic victories in recent elections when they began reading social media posts from people on their side of the political divide.
One particular post took the discussion in a disturbing direction.
Welch read aloud: “We’re digging up Charlie Kirk and doing it again.”
Rather than expressing disgust or immediately moving past the comment, both hosts erupted in laughter. Their reaction reportedly continued for more than 20 seconds.
The show’s producer then added another remark, saying, “I’m zooming in for Fox.”
Welch responded, “No comment. No comment on that,” as the laughter continued.
The discussion subsequently turned toward Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing Kirk. The hosts characterized him as “a MAGA person” from a “white MAGA family.”
However, the political characterization raised additional questions. Robinson was not registered with a political party, making the hosts’ description particularly contentious.
The recording soon circulated online, drawing criticism from conservatives and others who questioned how anyone could find humor in the killing of a husband and father.
Corporate Sponsors Begin Walking Away
The reaction quickly moved beyond social media criticism.
Several companies associated with the podcast began announcing that they wanted nothing further to do with the program.
Cash App was among the first to publicly address the controversy.
The company issued a statement on X declaring: “We do not condone violence of any kind, and we are no longer sponsors of this podcast.”
Pet retailer Chewy also made its position clear, announcing that it does “not sponsor or support the ‘I’ve Had It’ podcast.”
Other businesses followed.
Boll & Branch reportedly confirmed that it would no longer advertise with Welch. Life insurance company Ethos also distanced itself from the comments, explaining that what happened on the program “doesn’t reflect our values, and we don’t condone violence in any form.”
Lola Blankets, Zenni, NOBL Travel, Jones Road Beauty, and apparel company PAKA were among the other brands reported to have withdrawn their support.
By Sunday, Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet placed the number of departing brands at 16.
The growing list represented a significant financial and reputational problem for the podcast.
It also demonstrated that companies do not necessarily want their names associated with personalities who appear to celebrate or trivialize political violence.
The Apology Arrives, but Questions Remain
Facing mounting criticism, Welch and Sullivan attempted to contain the damage.
On Saturday, the two published an apology on Instagram, acknowledging that their reaction had crossed a line.
“On Thursday’s show, we laughed at a joke about Charlie Kirk,” they wrote. “It was an insensitive joke, and we should not have laughed.”
They also revealed that they had made a donation to Everytown for Gun Safety, an organization that advocates for gun-control measures.
That decision, however, did little to satisfy critics.
Kirk was a prominent defender of the Second Amendment, making the choice of a gun-control organization as the recipient of their donation particularly controversial.
RealClearPolitics co-founder Tom Bevan also questioned whether the apology reflected genuine remorse.
Bevan indicated that he was unconvinced the hosts were sincerely sorry for what they had done.
Events the following day gave critics another reason to question the sincerity of their apology.
Welch Goes After Turning Point USA Instead of Backing Down
By Sunday afternoon, Welch had returned to the offensive.
Rather than allowing the controversy to subside, she accused Turning Point USA of exploiting the situation for political purposes.
Welch claimed the organization was pursuing a confrontation “because they want to prove to their donors, ‘We can cancel libs.'”
She then directly addressed Kolvet, making it clear that she had no interest in hearing his perspective.
“Andrew, we’re never ever going to sit down and listen to you.”
Her message to Kirk’s organization became even more hostile.
“F*** off. F*** all the way off.”
Sullivan joined the exchange, challenging the suggestion that the podcast had become toxic.
“We’re toxic, Andrew? I don’t think so. That’s the difference between us and you.”
Welch then offered another accusation against Turning Point USA, declaring: “At Turning Point, you all laugh at violence all the time.”
The remark was striking given that the controversy began with the hosts laughing at a social media post about repeating the murder of a political activist.
Instead of focusing on why their original reaction had generated such widespread condemnation, the hosts appeared determined to turn the dispute into another confrontation with conservatives.
This Wasn’t Welch’s First Attack on the Kirk Family
The latest controversy also comes after Welch previously made disparaging remarks about Erika Kirk.
In an October profile published by The Atlantic to promote her book, Welch reportedly described Kirk’s widow as an “absolute grifter.”
The same article included another extraordinary characterization of the conservative movement.
Welch described MAGA as an “anti-family, pro-pedophilia death cult.”
Those comments, combined with her latest podcast controversy, have intensified scrutiny of her rhetoric toward conservatives and the Kirk family.
For many critics, the issue is no longer simply one offensive joke. It is the broader pattern of hostility directed toward people associated with the conservative movement, including a woman raising two children after her husband’s violent death.
Welch Previously Encouraged Boycotts. Now She’s Facing One Herself.
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this entire episode is Welch’s previous enthusiasm for corporate boycotts.
Last Christmas Eve, Welch was reportedly captured on video advocating boycotts targeting Paramount, its advertisers, Bank of America, and journalist Bari Weiss.
At the time, using economic pressure against businesses and individuals she disagreed with appeared to be an acceptable political strategy.
Now that companies are independently deciding to withdraw their financial support from her podcast, Welch is portraying the situation as an organized effort to silence liberals.
The apparent double standard has not escaped the attention of conservative commentators.
There is an important distinction between government censorship and a private company deciding where it wants to spend its advertising money.
Welch remains free to express her opinions, make controversial jokes, and criticize political organizations on her own platform.
But sponsors are equally free to decide that they do not want their brands associated with those comments.
Consumers also have the right to take their business elsewhere.
That is not government censorship. It is the free market at work.
Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves More Than Political Mockery
Charlie Kirk spent years building Turning Point USA into a major force in conservative youth activism. His approach centered on bringing political discussions directly to college campuses, encouraging young Americans to challenge prevailing ideas and defend their positions.
His final public appearance reflected that mission.
He was engaging with students at a Utah college, taking questions and discussing difficult political issues with people who did not necessarily share his views.
According to the supplied account, he was responding to a student’s question about mass shootings when he was fatally shot.
His death devastated his family and sent shockwaves through the conservative movement.
No matter where someone stands politically, making jokes about repeatedly killing a husband and father is difficult to defend.
An apology and a charitable donation may help address a public-relations crisis, but they cannot automatically erase the judgment that produced it.
And now, with 16 brands reportedly distancing themselves from the podcast, Welch and Sullivan are discovering that public reactions have consequences.
The hosts can insist that Turning Point USA is attempting to cancel them. They can attack conservatives and dismiss their critics.
But they cannot demand that companies continue writing checks while simultaneously deciding that their public statements are acceptable.
The same freedom that allows Welch to speak also allows sponsors and listeners to walk away.
Sixteen brands have reportedly made their position clear.
And the controversy surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death has become a painful reminder that political disagreement should never require abandoning basic standards of human decency.
