On June 2025, Greg Gutfeld — host of Gutfeld! on Fox News — launched a scathing personal attack on climate activist Greta Thunberg, calling her beliefs “shallow” and suggesting she seeks attention.His remarks are just the latest in a series of harsh critiques from right‑wing media personalities targeting Thunberg’s activism. The language and tone of the insults raise questions: when does political critique cross into personal harassment? What does it say about media discourse around climate activism, youth voices, and gender?

This article investigates the incident, places it in a broader pattern of attacks, explores responses and consequences, and interrogates the boundaries of acceptable public criticism.

The Incident: What Gutfeld Said & How It Landed

Gutfeld’s Attack

In a segment aired in June 2025, Gutfeld criticized Greta Thunberg’s climate work, arguing that her public persona leans more toward spectacle than substance. The clip’s title reads:Gutfeld: Greta Thunberg’s beliefs are as shallow as her need for attention.”

He suggested that Thunberg’s activism is driven less by scientific rigor and more by a desire to be noticed — essentially accusing her of leveraging guilt, dramatic posing, or moral posturing. While he couches it as critique of her message, the framing centers on Thunberg’s character, emotional motives, and persona as much as climate content.

Though Gutfeld did not in that clip call her “the Swedish girl who makes you want to hurl,” such phrasing echoes a lineage of dismissive and demeaning media commentary (i.e. personalizing attacks, mocking nationality, youth, or emotional intensity).

Why It Matters

Gutfeld is a high‑profile media figure; his statements reach large audiences sympathetic to or aligned with his perspectives. When he frames criticism in terms of mockery or personal discredit, it shapes how viewers perceive both Thunberg and climate activism more broadly. The rhetoric moves away from policy debate into personal vilification.

Patterns of Critique: From Idea to Insult

Gutfeld’s remarks are not an isolated phenomenon. Over the years, various media personalities have attacked Thunberg with dismissive, derisive, or insulting language. Two notable examples:

Bug-eyed brat” & “shrieking psycho brat”Gutfeld has used phrases like “bug-eyed brat” to describe Thunberg in past appearances.

Michael Knowles’ remark & apologyIn 2019, commentator Michael Knowles called Thunberg a “mentally ill Swedish child” during a Fox News segment. That comment drew backlash; Fox News later apologized, calling it “disgraceful.”

These instances share certain features:

Personalization over policy — attacks focus on the person (age, nationality, emotional disposition) rather than engaging climate arguments.

Gendered tone — many insults echo tropes used historically against outspoken women: hysterical, emotional, attention seeking.

Mocking youth — Thunberg’s youth is often weaponized as a marker of irrationality or naiveté.

Media amplification — these attacks are amplified in cable news, social media, and partisan echo chambers, normalizing harsh rhetoric.

Gutfeld’s recent attack continues this pattern, reinforcing a media environment where personal mockery serves as proxy for argument.

Responses & Pushback

Greta Thunberg & Her Supporters

Thunberg often responds to insults and criticism with measured statements and further activism rather than personal retaliation. She has previously reclaimed labels or used social media to pivot attention back to climate issues.

In the face of Gutfeld’s critique, her supporters and climate proponents are likely to frame his comments as a deflection: attacking messenger to avoid engaging message. They may argue that belittling a young activist distracts from the real and urgent climate science.

Media & Public Criticism

Critics of Gutfeld’s style see it as symptomatic of what’s wrong with political media today: entitlement to mock, belittle, and degrade dissenting voices, especially young and female ones. Some will say such rhetoric shuts down criticism rather than challenging it.

Journalists and media ethicists may condemn the personal tone, arguing that public discourse should aim at ideas, data, and policies — not emotional or ad hominem attacks.

Fox Network Calculus

Fox News has in the past responded to backlash by distancing itself from comments deemed over the line (as in the Knowles incident). The network may opt to ignore or excuse Gutfeld’s critique, or perhaps issue a mild clarification if pressure mounts. Historically, the network has defended hosts’ freedom to express strong opinion, within a partisan framework.

Consequences & Stakes

Chilling Effect on Activism & Youth Voices

When public figures with power mock or demean youth activists, it can intimidate or silence some, especially younger or marginalized voices. The message: step into the spotlight at your peril.

This creates a chilling effect: activists may self-censor or avoid provocative statements, reducing the scope of public debate.

Shaping the Public’s Perception of Climate Discourse

Rhetoric of ridicule helps normalize seeing critics not as interlocutors but as targets. People who might otherwise take Thunberg’s message seriously may instead dismiss her as a caricature. That shift harms the possibility of reasoned dialogue about climate urgency.

Reinforcing Polarization & Tribalism

Gutfeld’s style reinforces the “us vs them” dynamic: his viewers see him as courageously speaking truth to virtue-signalling elites, while skeptics see him as dismissive and cruel. The tone contributes to polarization rather than deliberation.

Responsibility of Commentators & Media Platforms

This incident reinvigorates debates about media responsibility. If networks allow personal attacks masquerading as commentary, where is the guardrail? What standards should apply when commentary targets children or teenagers speaking in public?

Evaluation: Did Gutfeld Go Too Far?

The critique of Thunberg’s arguments is fair game in public discourse. But Gutfeld’s tactic leans heavily on personal mockery: calling attention-seeking, questioning sincerity, reducing her to emotional posture.

In that style lies a narrowing of debate — one that privileges tone over content and discourages engagement with her scientific, ethical, or moral claims. The rhetorical strategy is less “critique” than “canceling by insult.”

While opinion hosts always push boundaries, there is a line between strong disagreement and dehumanizing language. Gutfeld’s remarks sit uncomfortably close to that edge — especially when directed at a young activist whose personhood is too often tied to her activism in public imaginaries.

Conclusion

Greg Gutfeld’s assault on Greta Thunberg — implying her activism reflects vanity and emotional posturing — is part of a broader media pattern: attacking the person instead of the ideas, especially when the person is young, female, or from a marginalized position. His statement, her beliefs are as shallow as her need for attention,” is less of an intellectual engagement and more of a branding exercise — painting her as a spectacle, not a serious actor.