Liberal commentators discussed the recent events surrounding Sharon McMahon, who, after being invited to give the 2026 commencement speech at Utah Valley University, found her invitation revoked. This came after significant backlash due to her remarks criticizing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in the wake of his assassination.
Since the incident, McMahon has embarked on a media campaign, portraying herself as a champion for free speech and a target of conspiratorial attacks.
The Initial Incident
Just two days after Kirk was killed at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, McMahon made derogatory comments about him, addressing the tragedy surrounding his death.
McMahon, a middle-aged former high school teacher, has built her platform by frequently tackling misinformation and criticizing conservative figures, including Kirk. She posted controversial quotes from him online, insisting that these statements shouldn’t be dismissed simply because of the violence he faced. She emphasized that Kirk’s harmful rhetoric didn’t simply disappear with his tragic death.
She claimed that Kirk had propagated bigoted ideas and noted that while his death was indeed a loss, it didn’t negate the damage his words had caused along with the actions of his followers. On March 26, Utah Valley University announced that McMahon would address the commencement ceremony on April 29 and receive an honorary doctorate in education.
At the time, the university’s President Astrid Tuminez praised her as a “force of nature” who promotes democratic engagement through knowledge and kindness. However, this decision sparked outrage among members of the university’s Turning Point USA chapter, as well as conservative circles, given that Kirk had been vilified by McMahon just after his death.
Caleb Chilcutt, president of the TPUSA chapter at the school, expressed disappointment, arguing that McMahon’s response to Kirk’s assassination prioritized her agenda over sensitivity, especially considering the ongoing emotional toll on many in the community.
Criticism mounted, with former Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz and Senator Mike Lee questioning McMahon’s suitability as a speaker. They proposed that the university wouldn’t have considered her for the role if the circumstances were reversed. Additionally, a Republican state representative highlighted her speech as being inappropriate in light of ongoing discussions about public funding for the university.
Facing increased scrutiny, the university eventually opted for a different approach. On April 16, they announced, after consulting with public safety experts, that they would proceed with a featured speaker for the commencement ceremony while reconsidering McMahon’s role.
Public Reactions
A month later, McMahon gave an emotional interview, expressing dissatisfaction with how the situation unfolded. In various media appearances, she claimed there was a concerted effort by some political figures to suppress her voice, presenting herself as a victim of this political climate.
Through various platforms, including a blog post, McMahon articulated her belief that the cancellation of her speech was a significant threat to free speech. She stood by her criticisms of Kirk, arguing for the necessity to address his legacy critically. While acknowledging safety concerns, she accused those who protested her speaking invitation of creating an environment of fear.
As she continued to advocate for her narrative of victimhood, she framed her situation as indicative of broader issues surrounding free speech in America, urging those who supported Kirk to reflect on the implications of her rescinded invitation.
