Charlie Kirk was one of the most popular figures in America’s conservative Christian right, and former President Donald Trump himself thanked him for his help in mobilizing young voters for him in last year’s election, saying Kirk had built him “an army of young people.” But Kirk was also a highly divisive figure in the United States, often sparking controversy with remarks on the most polarizing issues in America’s cultural and social divide—from gun rights to LGBTQ rights.
His murder last week caused shock and condemnation across the political spectrum. But there were also some Americans identifying as liberals who expressed joy at the political assassination. While this appears to be a negligible minority, such extreme voices received wide amplification on social media—deepening polarization in the U.S. and fueling fears about the entrenchment of political violence. Earlier this year a Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota was assassinated, and last year Trump himself survived two assassination attempts during the presidential campaign.
One of the videos circulated online that caused outrage:
10 View gallery
The murder of Charlie Kirk has deepened the divides in the US
(Photo: Laura Segall / AFP)
Already in the first hours after the assassination of Kirk—at a debate event he held Wednesday at a university in Utah—social media began to fill with videos of his political opponents celebrating the news, while millions of Americans were reeling in shock. One of the most viral clips was of a TikTok user laughing after declaring: “He lived by the sword, and he died by the sword. After all, he himself said that deaths from guns are an acceptable side effect of gun rights.” She was referring to Kirk’s statement in April 2023, when, like many Republicans, he staunchly defended Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms, saying he was prepared to accept the “price” of several deaths per year from shootings in order to preserve that right.
That same user later published another mocking video saying: “Congratulations to Charlie Kirk for becoming the new poster child for gun violence awareness.” Another user, who uploaded a video of herself smiling broadly, said immediately after the assassination: “You want to know why I’m so excited? Go Google ‘Charlie Kirk’ and read the latest headlines, then you’ll understand.”
Kirk was also known for his criticism of transgender rights, and a transgender comedian named Brandy Bryant wrote on the X platform: “Breaking news: Charlie Kirk just lost the gun debate.” The post went viral, reaching at least 12 million views. Bryant later added another tweet, responding to the anger at his mockery: “People love to talk publicly about killing trans people, and you think I should have sympathy for them? Go fuck yourselves.”
It should be noted that Kirk never called to “kill” trans people, and he had previously been recorded politely conversing with a transgender person who asked him about his stance on the issue.
The moment that Charlie Kirk was shot
(Photo: From the networks according to Section 27A)
These voices, it is important to stress, do not represent the liberal camp—which by and large expressed horror at the murder. However, surveys have recently shown growing acceptance of political violence among young Americans. Just last week, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression published a survey asking American students whether they believed violence was acceptable to prevent someone from expressing their opinion on campus. Fully 34% said it was acceptable to some degree (19% said only in rare cases, 13% said “sometimes,” and 2% said “always”).
The hunt online: even a Secret Service agent was suspended
Kirk himself, well known for his strong defense of free speech and for hosting countless campus debates where he challenged critics to “beat” him in political arguments, warned just this April of what he described as a “ticking time bomb” of political violence—one he claimed was coming from the left.
“The left is incited to rampant violence. Any step backward, whether at the ballot box or in court, justifies the most extreme response. This is the natural outcome of a protest culture on the left that has tolerated violence and chaos for years,” he wrote, nearly six months before he was himself assassinated— allegedly by 22-year-old student Tyler Robinson from Utah. Robinson came from a Republican family but, according to reports, opposed Kirk’s positions and accused him of spreading “hate.” The motive for the murder, it should be stressed, has not yet been officially determined by investigators.
Prominent activists on the American right, who voiced deep shock after Kirk’s assassination, almost immediately began exposing those who expressed joy at the killing. Their “manhunt” has already yielded tangible results: Reuters reported Saturday that, by its count, at least 15 Americans—including teachers and journalists—have been fired or suspended from their jobs. The New York Times also reported on the online campaign by right-wing activists to expose and fire those who spoke against Kirk. It emphasized, however, that not all the posts were celebrations or support for the murder—some were simply critical of Kirk and his positions. For example, according to the newspaper, a Secret Service employee—the federal agency charged with protecting top officials, including the president—was suspended after posting on Facebook that Kirk had “spread hate and racism.”
As part of this right-wing effort, a website called Expose Charlie’s Murderers was launched, which has so far published the names of 41 people accused of “supporting political violence online.” The site’s operators say they are reviewing another 20,000 names that have already been submitted. Reuters noted that, while some of the highlighted posts indeed expressed support for the murder—one user for example wrote: “He got what he deserved”—others were more “factual” comments pointing out the irony of Kirk being shot dead with a rifle while constantly defending the right to carry guns without restrictions. One man named on the site told Reuters that his employer has since been inundated with calls demanding his dismissal. “I want to be clear—I do not support the murder of Kirk,” he said. “But at the same time, I do appreciate the irony of the situation.”
NBC reported that, in another case, two university staff members in Tennessee were suspended after complaints about their Facebook posts on the assassination. One reportedly wrote: “You reap what you sow.” The other: “This is not a tragedy, it’s a victory.” According to NBC, a public school employee in Virginia was fired after posting: “I hope he suffered.”
10 View gallery
Charlie Kirk memorial event outside Utah Valley University where he was murdered
(Photo: Cheney Orr/Reuters)
10 View gallery
Charlie Kirk memorial event outside Utah Valley University where he was murdered
(Photo: Chet Strange / Getty Images / AFP)
One of the leading figures behind the exposure campaign is far-right activist Laura Loomer, who promised on X: “Prepare for the destruction of all your future career prospects if you are so sick as to celebrate his murder.”
Another activist is Scott Presler, a prominent Trump supporter and openly gay conservative, who rejected claims that Kirk was homophobic, noting that Kirk had invited him to public events in the past. Presler also shared a post by a woman declaring she was cutting off Facebook friendships with people who expressed outrage at the assassination, wondering why they had not shown similar outrage at past shootings. When a user objected that cutting ties over political differences was extreme, she replied: “He wasn’t the ‘boy next door,’ he was a Nazi. He was a terrible person who said horrible things about people who didn’t look like him. That’s not a ‘different opinion,’ those are opposing values.”
Many Republicans point to these reactions as evidence that the American left is supposedly becoming more “violent.” Trump himself quickly accused Democrats of responsibility for Kirk’s assassination, claiming they had demonized him and other conservatives, thereby justifying political violence against them. Democrats, who strongly condemned the murder, countered by noting Trump’s own frequent use of inflammatory rhetoric against his rivals, whom he often describes as enemies seeking to destroy America. “Maybe start with the president of the United States? With every disgusting meme he posts and every ugly word,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
10 View gallery
Tyler Robinson from Utah, the alleged killer of Charlie Kirk
(Photo: Patrick T. Fallon / AFP)
In an interview Saturday night with NBC in the wake of the murder, Trump said he wanted “to see the nation heal” but quickly added: “We are dealing with an extreme left-wing group of lunatics. They don’t play fair and they never have.” He also said: “The left doesn’t like what’s happening—we’re winning a lot lately,” and claimed that Jewish Hungarian-American philanthropist George Soros, a frequent Republican target linked to Democrats, “should be sent to prison.”
Reuters pointed out that some right-wing activists now leading the campaign against those who expressed joy at Kirk’s murder had in the past shown a degree of tolerance toward political violence aimed at Democrats. After former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked with a hammer in his San Francisco home ahead of the 2022 midterms, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) mocked him in a tweet he later deleted. After Kirk’s murder, Higgins called for anyone celebrating the assassination to be banned from social media “for life.” Loomer, too, had suggested—falsely—after the Pelosi attack that the assailant was actually his lover. Kirk himself had called for the attacker’s release from prison (though he condemned the attack itself): “If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to be a real hero in the midterms, somebody should pay the bail to release this guy,” Kirk said at the time.
The Oxford storm: “Shoot him, LOL”
The uproar over reactions to Kirk’s murder has also crossed the Atlantic. In Britain, it sparked anger when the incoming president of the Oxford Union, the prestigious debating society active since 1823, reacted mockingly to the assassination. George Abaraonye, elected to lead the student society but not yet in office, had debated Kirk himself in May on the question of masculinity in the modern world.
The Telegraph revealed that, after the murder, Abaraonye wrote messages in a WhatsApp group updating others on the shooting, adding the expressions “let’s fucking go” and “LOL.” The current and outgoing leadership of the society condemned Abaraonye. He has since deleted the messages and apologized, saying he had acted “impulsively” and that the comments did not reflect his values: “No one should fall victim to political violence,” he told the Times of London.
So far no disciplinary steps have been reported against him, but the Union announced Saturday that a “disciplinary process” had been opened. The organization reiterated its condemnation of his comments, but also noted that Abaraonye has since been subjected to racist abuse and threats. “We are deeply troubled and strongly condemn the racist abuse and threats George has faced in response. No person should be attacked for their skin color or community background. Death threats are abhorrent. Such rhetoric has no place online, or anywhere else in society,” the statement read.