OXON HILL, MARYLAND - FEBRUARY 21: Political commentator and journalist Megyn Kelly speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on February 21, 2025 in Oxon Hill, Maryland. The annual four-day gathering brings together conservative U.S. lawmakers, international leaders, media personalities and businessmen to discuss and champion conservative ideas. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Controversy erupted this week as media personality Megyn Kelly faced significant backlash for remarks made on her SiriusXM show regarding Jeffrey Epstein. During the broadcast, Kelly argued that Epstein should not be labeled a “pedophile,” suggesting instead that he preferred “very young teen types,” specifically mentioning girls aged 15.
Kelly cited an unnamed source “very, very close to the case” who claimed Epstein “liked the barely legal type,” which she described as “disgusting.” Despite acknowledging the disturbing nature of Epstein’s actions, Kelly maintained that a distinction exists between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, questioning the appropriateness of the widely accepted label of “pedophile.”
The comments, particularly those made around the 33:40 mark of the broadcast, sparked immediate criticism. Kelly also expressed skepticism toward former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who previously stated that Epstein possessed thousands of graphic videos involving minors. Kelly conveyed that she had once viewed Epstein as “an actual pedophile,” but expressed doubt about Bondi’s credibility regarding the case.
Public Reaction and Criticism
The backlash was swift, with notable reactions coming from various corners of the media. Host Josh Johnson of “The Daily Show” featured Kelly’s remarks in a segment, expressing disbelief at her argument. He stated, “How the hell was Megyn Kelly ever an attorney?” and criticized her comments as a form of “diet pedophilia.” Johnson further emphasized that while there is a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old, it is inappropriate to discuss that distinction in the context of sexual abuse.
Online critics echoed Johnson’s sentiments, accusing Kelly of minimizing the severity of Epstein’s crimes by reframing them in a less severe light. Advocates for survivors of sexual abuse pointed out that Epstein’s long history of coercion and trafficking involved minors who were legally incapable of consent, regardless of their age. The reactions highlight a growing concern regarding the language used when discussing such sensitive topics.
As of now, Kelly has not issued further comments in response to the widespread criticism. The public discourse surrounding her statements raises important questions about the portrayal of sexual abuse and the implications of minimizing such serious offenses.
The Broader Implications
The incident reflects a broader issue within media narratives surrounding sexual abuse and exploitation. The distinction Kelly attempted to make has been met with concern from various advocacy groups, who argue it could undermine the experiences of survivors. As discussions about accountability and the language used in these contexts continue, the impact of Kelly’s remarks serves as a reminder of the responsibility media figures hold when addressing sensitive topics.
In a landscape where public figures influence discourse, the reactions to Kelly’s statements may contribute to ongoing conversations about the importance of clear and responsible language when discussing matters of abuse and consent. The fallout from this incident may linger as audiences demand accountability for statements that could potentially harm vulnerable communities.
