Alex Jones and Steve Bannon Warn Charlie Kirk’s Death Means “War”

Republicans have decided that they are at war following the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, while simultaneously complaining about violent rhetoric on the left.

Without knowing the identity of the shooter, their politics, or what motivated them, grief-fueled right-wingers quickly launched into preparations for a battle against liberals.

“THIS IS WAR,” declared Libs of TikTok, the notorious far-right hate account with the Trump administration’s ear, on Wednesday afternoon, before setting off on a doxxing spree of Democrats who’d posted callously about Kirk’s death.

Former DOGE czar Elon Musk helped lead the charge, using combative rhetoric to condemn violence from the left—even though the political affiliation of the assassin was still unknown.

“The Left is the party of murder,” he wrote on X. In another post, he said: “If they won’t let us live in peace, then our choice is fight or die.”

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones said that right-wingers were “in a war” during a livestream Wednesday. “The Left has been saying, ‘Put a bullseye on Trump, put a bullseye on his supporters,’” he said.

Speaking about the corporate media “bastards,” Jones said, “They love death and scum, we’re gonna get them. We’re gonna save this country and the world together.”

MAGA architect Steve Bannon also called Kirk “a casualty of war” while speaking on his War Room podcast.

Fox News host Jesse Watters unloaded a list of violent acts targeting the right, including Trump’s failed assassination and the vandalization of Musk’s Teslas. “They are at war with us,” said Watters. “Whether we want to accept it or not, they are at war with us, and what are we gonna do about it? How much political violence are we gonna tolerate?”

“This is a turning point, and we know which direction we’re going,” he added.

At least Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire called for unity … to mount an attack against Satan’s army.

“The entire Right has to band together. Enough of this in-fighting bullshit. We are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell,” he wrote on X. “They’re killing us in our churches. They tried to kill our president. They killed Charlie, one of our greatest advocates. Put the personal squabbles aside. Now’s not the time. This is existential. A fight for our own existence and the existence of our country.”

President Donald Trump delivered an address Wednesday evening blaming the “radical left” and their rhetoric for political violence by “demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year in the most hateful and despicable way possible,” but had no similar message for those on the right.

For a group that’s begun complaining about the supposedly violent rhetoric of the left, perhaps they should take a good look at their own.

Meanwhile, the deadly shooting was swiftly condemned by Democratic leaders, such as former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (whose state suffered a political assassination in June), and Representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi.

The Trump administration wants to take 245 million acres of public land that was previously protected for conservation and use it to “drill, baby drill.”

In 2024, the Biden administration installed a federal rule to “restore habitats, guide strategic and responsible development, and sustain our public lands for generations to come,” particularly in the West. Now Trump is trying to repeal the law to make it easier to drill for oil and keep cattle and other livestock on land that makes up nearly a tenth of the United States.

The business side of this equation is rejoicing.

“The Biden administration unlawfully placed conservation above all else,” National Mining Association President Rich Nolan told The New York Times. “This new rule reinstates the balance of federal land use intended by Congress, ensuring that our vast resources can meet today’s soaring energy needs and become the secure mineral supply chains for American industry.”

Interior Secretary Doug Bergum echoed those sentiments.

“The previous administration’s Public Lands Rule had the potential to block access to hundreds of thousands of acres of multiple-use land—preventing energy and mineral production, timber management, grazing and recreation across the West,” he said in a statement on Wednesday. He also noted that the U.S. was looking to use the land to sell more natural gas to other countries and that artificial intelligence was a more pressing issue than conservation or climate change.

“What’s going to save the planet is winning the A.I. arms race,” he said. “We need power to do that, and we need it now.”

Environmentalist groups, unsurprisingly, see it much differently.

“It’s fitting that Secretary Burgum made this announcement while jet-setting across Europe. If he spent more time with Westerners and less time pretending he’s an international man of mystery, he’d learn that conservation is one of the core uses of our public lands,” Center for Western Priorities executive director Jennifer Rokala said in a statement.

“If Secretary Burgum spent more time in the West, he’d understand how conservation fits into everything the Bureau of Land Management does. Hunters, anglers, hikers and backpackers all praised the public lands rule because it helps ensure access to public lands for future generations” she continued. “Public lands management is a balancing act, and you just tipped the scales back to the 19th century.”

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.