Dangerous Conspiracies Already Swirling About Charlie Kirk’s Death

People on both sides of the aisle are rushing to conclusions to explain the assassination of Charlie Kirk, spreading conspiracy theories regardless of how little evidence they have to support their burgeoning political narratives.

Kirk was shot dead Wednesday during an event at Utah Valley University. Authorities have not yet captured a possible suspect for Kirk’s assassination, and have released only a few details about the suspect’s age and what weapon they used.

But that hasn’t stopped people from speculating. Even Donald Trump has become implicated in the messy conspiracies. On X, some users blamed the president for Kirk’s death, claiming that the 31-year-old firebrand’s shooting could have been orchestrated by Trump in a supposed attempt to distract people from the Epstein files.

“How do we know Trump didn’t order Kirk’s assassination as a distraction from Epstein—and a tactic to start the civil unrest he needs to declare Martial Law and delay the 2026 midterms?” wrote film director Morgan J. Freeman. The post received more than 40,000 likes.

Kirk had torched the Trump administration for failing to increase transparency for the investigation of the pedophilic sex trafficker earlier this summer. In July, the Turning Point USA founder stoked fury over the issue at a Turning Point USA Student Action Summit, querying his young conservative followers on how seriously they viewed Trump’s connections to Epstein. Regardless of the apparent public frenzy, Kirk chose to quiet down his criticism after receiving a personal call from the president.

Now that sequence of events has been cannibalized as a possible explanation for Kirk’s murder.

“Charlie Kirk, who headed an org essential to Trump’s political support network, stepped out of the party line and demanded the release of the Epstein files and now he’s dead,” posted an account relating itself to the decentralized, anarchistic hacker movement Anonymous. “I’m not saying one led to the other but it doesn’t look good.”

But Trump wasn’t the only individual bearing the conspiratorial blame. Israel and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, were also identified as potential threats to the conservative thought leader, with online users digging up previous statements made by Kirk in which he appears to be concerned that his political rhetoric could put him at risk with the foreign power.

“It’s not ‘totally ridiculous’ to point out ISRAEL possibly assassinated Charlie,” posted conservative grifter Jackson Hinkle. “He defended Israel throughout his entire career until the final months when he condemned the Iran war, called out Epstein as Mossad, offered to host Tucker & Dave Smith at TPUSA & condemned the terrorism against Christians in Gaza (I acknowledged this tepid change).

“Two weeks ago, Netanyahu invited him to Israel and he likely declined the request,” Hinkle continued. “Only [a] ZIONIST SHILL would claim Israel couldn’t have killed Charlie.”

President Donald Trump claimed that the United States military acted out of “self-defense” against an “imminent threat” last week by striking a vessel it claimed was carrying drugs. So why was the boat turning around?

The New York Times spoke Wednesday with officials briefed on the strike who said that the administration’s public statements, and a less than 30-second video of the boat exploding, only gave an abridged version of the deadly incident. 

Officials said that the boat began to turn around, likely because it had spotted the military aircraft above. The video Trump shared also does not show that the vessel was struck multiple times after it was disabled, before it eventually sank.  

Retired top military lawyers argued that these revelations severely undermine the administration’s defense of its extrajudicial attack, that the military acted in “self-defense.” 

“If someone is retreating, where’s the ‘imminent threat’ then?” Rear Admiral Donald Guter, a retired top judge advocate general for the Navy from 2000 to 2002, told the Times. “Where’s the ‘self-defense’? They are gone if they ever existed—which I don’t think they did.”

“I would be interested if they could come up for any legal basis for what they did,” said Rear Admiral James E. McPherson, who served as the top judge advocate general for the Navy from 2004 to 2006 and later held prominent civilian military roles in the Trump administration. “If, in fact, you can fashion a legal argument that says these people were getting ready to attack the U.S. through the introduction of cocaine or whatever, if they turned back, then that threat has gone away.”

A White House spokesperson did not directly respond to questions about the boat’s maneuvers, and repeated the line that Trump had “acted in line with the laws of armed conflict to protect our country” from “evil narco terrorists trying to poison our homeland.”

Senator Rand Paul revealed to The Intercept Tuesday that the deadly strike had been the work of drones, and a blatant violation of the rules of engagement. 

“The recent drone attack on a small speedboat over 2,000 miles from our shore without identification of the occupants or the content of the boat is in no way part of a declared war and defies our longstanding Coast Guard rules of engagement which include: warnings to halt, non-lethal force to capture, and ultimately lethal force in self-defense or in cases of resistance,” Paul said. 

Missing details continue to cast doubt on the Trump administration’s narrative. Some officials at the Department of Defense privately expressed concerns that the government had changed details of its story about the deadly strike, which is especially worrying considering that the government has offered no evidence to support its claim that the individuals on the boat were in fact drug traffickers, or that they were en route to the United States.

We know almost nothing about the shooter who killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk—yet President Donald Trump delivered an address Wednesday evening blaming the “radical left” and their rhetoric for political violence.

According to the president, Wednesday’s shooting, which was swiftly condemned by prominent Democrats, was the result of the left “demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year in the most hateful and despicable way possible.”

Trump went on: “For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”

The president promised to hunt down those he deems responsible for the violence on Wednesday and other violent acts, “including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”

Trump continued, citing examples of “radical left political violence.” He mentioned the attempt on his life in July 2024, the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, attacks on ICE agents, and the 2017 mass shooting at a congressional baseball game.

He notably failed to mention acts of political violence perpetrated by right wingers against the left—e.g., the June shootings of two Minnesota Democratic lawmakers and their spouses, which killed State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband; the 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi, in an attempted kidnapping of Nancy Pelosi (which Trump mocked); the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, stoked by Trump; and the thwarted kidnapping of Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic governor of Michigan.

Despite his condemnation of “demonizing” rhetoric, Trump has done more than perhaps any other singular figure to stoke partisan tensions.

In 2024, Trump repeatedly called Kamala Harris a “fascist.” In May 2024, he said Biden had turned America into “a fascist state.” In November 2023, he vowed to “root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” And back in 2020, he raised the specter of “left-wing fascism” gripping the Democratic Party, saying, “Fascists! They are fascists. Some of them, not all of them. But some of them.”

As The New York Times observed in September 2024, he has also “long favored the language of violence in his political discourse.”

In short, the president is no stranger to vilifying those with whom he disagrees, giving his words Wednesday a hollow ring.

On Wednesday, a Democratic representative brought up multiple ways in which her congressional colleagues received the “gender-affirming care” they wanted to ban. It made MAGA Representative Nancy Mace so upset she started screaming.

Democrats and Republicans were arguing in Congress about amendments to the annual defense bill. Mace had added multiple anti-transgender amendments, including one that specifically removed gender-affirming care from the U.S. military’s health care coverage.

Mace has a long history of bigoted anti-trans rhetoric and legislation, and California Democratic Representative Sara Jacobs used her time on the floor to rebuke her, calling Mace out for her blatant hypocrisy without mentioning the representative by name.

“I would just like to point out that I think it’s very interesting that my colleague from South Carolina is so obsessed with the issue of trans people, using horrible slurs about them, when many people in this body have received gender-affirming care,” Jacobs said. “Filler is gender-affirming care. Boob jobs is gender-affirming care. Botox is gender-affirming care. Lots of my colleagues have received gender-affirming care. And let me be clear, I think everyone should have access to the gender-affirming care that they need, and I think that we should respect everybody in this country.”

In response, Mace started hollering.

“Ridiculous,” the representative from South Carolina said. “You are absolutely ridiculous. What the hell is your problem? You are disgusting. You are an insult.”

Mace may have reacted so strongly because she’s been accused of getting nearly every kind of procedure mentioned by Jacobs. Back in November, Mace’s former communications director, Natalie Johnson, shared a text from Mace in which the congresswoman complained about not wanting to see the “trans mob” in her bathroom. “I don’t want to see your botched, cheap hooker-inspired boob job on my television,” Johnson hit back in a now-deleted post, alluding to the oft-spread rumors about Mace’s cosmetic work. “Can we introduce a bill to bar that?”

Mace took the time to call out Jacobs on X after losing control in the House.

“To @RepSaraJacobs, I talk about women’s safety and your response is commentary about my body on the House floor,” Mace wrote. “If you knew anything about survivors you would know some women change their bodies because of the trauma of sexual violence. They live with the consequences for a lifetime. PS—I have a good surgeon if you ever want to get your nose done.”

Jacobs responded to Mace’s display of hate with pity.

“I feel sad for you. Stop lashing out against trans kids and pretending it’s to ‘protect women,’” she replied. “Hope you get the help you need.”

In the immediate wake of the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk Wednesday at Utah Valley University, little to nothing is known about the suspect, and prominent Democrats were quick to condemn the violence.

And yet many on the far right have taken to social media to claim that the shooting—and an increase in political violence in general—was incited by the political left and the Democratic Party.

“The Left is the party of murder,” wrote Elon Musk on his social media platform, X.

“It’s a real treat to see all these Liberals condemn political violence now,” posted Katie Miller, the wife of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. “You called us Hitler. You called us Nazis. You called us Racists. You have blood on your hands.”

“It’s time for the Trump administration to shut down, defund, & prosecute every single Leftist organization,” tweeted far-right activist Laura Loomer. “If Charlie Kirk dies from his injuries, his life cannot be in vain. We must shut these lunatic leftists down. Once and for all.”

“The left are evil murdering scum who kill people or let others kill people,” tweeted far-right provocateur Andrew Tate. “THEY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.”

Conservative social media personality Isabella Maria DeLuca similarly wrote, “We don’t have a gun problem. We have a Democrat problem.”

James Woods, an actor and Trump supporter, posted a photo of Kirk with the caption: “It’s not gun violence. It’s Democrat violence.”

Right-wing podcast host Joey Mannarino called for the Democratic Party to be “classified as a domestic terror organization and their members & leaders treated accordingly.”

“Democrats are the party of death and destruction,” wrote the conservative political commentary duo the Hodgetwins.

“The left has declared LITERAL WAR on us. DEMOCRATS AND THEIR VlOLENT RHETORIC OWN THIS!” wrote pro-Trump journalist Nick Sortor, sharing a video of a man being detained, who Sortor claimed was the shooter—though it has since been reported that a suspect is not yet in custody.

Charlie Kirk was shot dead at a college event in Utah Wednesday.

The 31-year-old Turning Point USA founder was speaking at Utah Valley University as part of his American Comeback Tour when he was struck in the neck by a single bullet. Videos taken by attendees at the event show Kirk bleeding profusely out of the side of his neck after the shot rang out.

Kirk, a college dropout, had become one of the most prominent conservative activists in the country, attracting droves of young people to the Republican cause by meeting and debating them on college campuses across the nation. He was one of the few conservative personalities to maintain regular contact with Donald Trump, and was credited with playing a critical role in reelecting Trump in 2024.

He was a staunch activist against abortion, transgender care, and, notably, gun control.

Trump wrote Kirk a brief obituary on Truth Social Wednesday, announcing that he had not survived the attack.

“The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead,” Trump wrote. “No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us. Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family. Charlie, we love you!”

The president also ordered that flags on government buildings be lowered to half staff until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. to honor Kirk, whom he described as a “great American patriot.”

Andrew Kolvet, Kirk’s spokesman, also confirmed Kirk’s death. Kirk is survived by his wife Erika Frantzve and his two children.

Moments before he was killed, Kirk was debating the issue of gun violence in America with an audience member on the campus green.

“Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?” the attendee asked.

“Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk responded, seconds before he was struck.

The conservative firebrand became well-known for his fervent and often extreme arguments against gun regulation. In 2023, Kirk said he believed it was “worth it” for people to die from gun violence so long as the current iteration of Americans’ Second Amendment rights remained untouched.

“I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” Kirk said at the time. “That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.”

Kirk’s 2023 comments came a week after three children and three adults were killed at Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.

This story has been updated.

Hard-core MAGA representative Lauren Boebert is trying to conflate the conditions that preceded Trump’s federal takeover of Washington, D.C., with those of the January 6 insurrection. 

Boebert went on a strange tangent at a congressional hearing on Wednesday, comparing the two events in an attempted “gotcha” of liberals who disapproved of Trump’s federal takeover of the nation’s capital. 

“As far as taking issue with the National Guard having a temporary presence to get your city, this city, our nation’s beautiful capital, under control and safe—I didn’t hear any problems from Washington, D.C. residents or or my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when 20,000 national guards came in and surrounded the Capitol Building and prohibited your first amendment right to petition your government with your grievances,” the representative from Colorado said. 

“I didn’t see an uprising there. We weren’t happy about the fences. And the hundreds of miles of barbed wire surrounding our nation’s Capitol ... keeping you out of the people’s house. But now they’re here to help and keep you safe, and that’s somehow an issue?”  

 It doesn’t matter how loud or how confidently Boebert says it. This is a stupid, deceitful misrepresentation of what actually happened on January 6, 2021, and why President Donald Trump called in the National Guard for his military crackdown on D.C.

On January 6, the National Guard was called in because a mob of over a thousand people, including far-right militia groups armed with guns and pipe bombs, stormed the Capitol Building, scaling walls, breaking windows, brutally attacking police officers, and threatening to kill legislators. 

Meanwhile, the true catalyst for the National Guard’s recent deployment  in D.C. was a former DOGE bro, Edward Coristine, a.k.a. “Big Balls” getting mugged—an event nowhere near as dire or dangerous as the insurrection. 

Those two events are nowhere near the same.  

Boebert is also exaggerating the scope and scale of the January 6 deployment, as those 20,000-odd troops took almost a month to fully deploy, with only around 1,000 arriving on the date itself, and well after most of the rioting had cleared. 

 Boebert’s comments drew sharp criticism, and quickly. 

“A violent insurrectionist coup attempt where police were mercilessly beaten and politicians were hunted through the Capitol was not ‘petitioning the government,’” one X user wrote in Boebert’s comment section. “Yes, the National Guard was deployed to protect the Capitol from psychopaths who couldn’t handle losing an election.”  

This January 6 revisionism has been rampant since Trump returned to office and pardoned virtually every insurrectionist, from average QAnon kooks to violent Oath Keepers. Boebert acting like the January 6 insurrectionists politely knocked on the door of the Capitol and asked to have a nice meeting is just another example of that. 

South Korean businesses have suspended at least 22 U.S. projects after an ICE raid on a Hyundai Motor factory site in Georgia detained hundreds of South Korean workers.

Some 475 employees, including 300 South Koreans, were taken into custody Thursday at the Savannah-area battery plant. Videos released by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials showed the detained workers in shackles and chains. The raid shocked Seoul, a key U.S. ally, where people expressed a sense of betrayal by Washington.

The facility was part of a $4.3 billion joint venture that was slated for completion later this year. It was expected to create 8,500 jobs that would support the car company’s nearby electric vehicle plan, but construction on the factory was put on pause after the raid.

Work on at least 22 other factory sites with ties to South Korea has also been halted, reported The Korean Economic Daily. Those facilities are involved in industries related to automobiles, shipbuilding, steel, and electrical equipment.

South Korean companies with U.S. business interests have canceled travel plans and recalled their U.S.-based staff, fearing that their employees could be affected by more raids.

“Korean workers are being treated like criminals for building factories that Washington itself lobbied for,” a company executive in Seoul told the business newspaper. “If this continues, investment in the U.S. could be reconsidered.”

President Donald Trump defended the raid, claiming Friday that the employees were in the U.S. “illegally” and that U.S. companies needed to focus on training their American employees in order to do the jobs they would otherwise outsource.

An immigration attorney representing several of the detained South Koreans, Charles Kuck, told the Associated Press that the president’s statement wasn’t just wrong—as many of the workers were authorized to work under the B-1 business visitor visa program—but was basically unfeasible in the short term, as no U.S. companies make the machines utilized at the Georgia factory.

“They had to come from abroad to install or repair equipment on-site—work that would take about three to five years to train someone in the U.S. to do,” the AP reported.

Industry officials in Seoul have warned that the projects—collectively worth more than $101 billion—could face serious delays or be placed on indefinite hiatus unless Washington agrees to bilateral talks for new visa arrangements for South Korean employees.

The South Korean workers were expected to be released back to their home country on a chartered plane Wednesday afternoon, though the flight was reportedly delayed “due to circumstances on the U.S. side,” the South Korean Foreign Ministry told the BBC.

A new report from the Center for American Progress projects that the Trump administration’s economic policies will leave all but the wealthiest Americans worse off financially.

According to the nonpartisan policy institute, by 2027, Trump’s tariffs and policies under his so-called One, Big, Beautiful Bill will have decreased the incomes of all but the top 1 percent of American households—which will be $5,000 richer, per the report.

Meanwhile, the 90–99 percent will lose about $675 and the bottom 20 percent will be $1,650 poorer. Groups in between will see losses ranging from $1,300 to $1,800.

But four years from now, the situation will reportedly be even more dire.

By 2029, “Americans at all income levels will have lighter pocketbooks, on average, than they would under a scenario in which the Trump administration’s policies were never implemented.” Even the incomes of the top 1 percent are projected to be $2,647 lower, with income groups within the other 99 percent of Americans suffering losses between $1,920 and $3,356.

While the administration touts its economic policies as major wins for the working and middle class, the “Trump effect” is apparently poised to benefit only the wealthiest Americans—and, even then, just in the short term.

FBI Director Kash Patel is being sued by three ousted federal agents, who allege he was instructed to remove any employee who’d previously investigated President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit comes from former Special Agents Steven Jensen, Spencer Evans, and Brian Driscoll, an 18-year agent who was accidentally appointed acting director of the FBI at the beginning of Trump’s second term. Before he was fired in August, Driscoll had resisted the president’s efforts to excise employees.

In a 68-page filing Wednesday, the trio alleged that their removals were unlawful, that Patel “deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people,” and that he “degraded the country’s national security by firing three of the FBI’s most experienced operational leaders.”

The suit alleged that Patel told Driscoll that top officials at the White House and Department of Justice had “directed him to fire anyone who they identified as having worked on a criminal investigation against President Donald J. Trump.” Failure to do so would ensure Patel’s head was put on the chopping block next.

The suit also contained disturbing details from Driscoll’s vetting process in the early months of Trump’s second term, suggesting that the president’s team was taking unconstitutional efforts to target workers based on their politics.

Patel allegedly called Driscoll and told him that he should anticipate a vetting call from the presidential transition team. Patel told Driscoll “that as long as [he] was not prolific on social media, did not donate to the Democratic Party, and did not vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, the ‘vetting’ would not be an issue.”

Soon after, Driscoll received a vetting call from Paul Ingrassia, a 28-year-old lawyer Trump nominated to run the Office of Special Counsel. (Ingrassia’s confirmation hearing was postponed in July after widespread concern over his lack of experience and ties to neo-Nazis.)

Driscoll alleges that Ingrassia asked him who he had voted for in 2024, as well as the previous five elections. Driscoll was also asked when he started to support Trump. He said he refused to answer the questions.

According to the lawsuit, he was asked other questions to reveal his stance on Trump’s various legal vendettas, such as whether the federal agents who raided Mar-a-Lago should be “held accountable,” and about his views on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The lawsuit also lists Attorney General Pam Bondi, the FBI, the DOJ, and the entire executive branch as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the trio’s firing was illegal, violating their First Amendment rights by ousting them for their perceived political affiliations, and Fifth Amendment rights by ruining their professional reputations.