Here are four controversial comments by the recently deceased far right political agitator Charlie Kirk.
1. Racist Comments
He said: 'If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like "boy, I hope he is qualified". He later claimed he didn’t believe Black pilots are inherently unqualified, but argued DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) policies might lead to less-qualified people being appointed.
In one instance, Kirk said Martin Luther King was 'not a good person' and characterised him in terms that diverge from the mainstream positive view of King. Also, he’s criticised parts of the Civil Rights Act.
He also claimed 'there is a disturbing pattern of Blacks jumping people of all races in the urban corridors in America', including 'Asians in the streets'.
Kirk also posted on X: 'Ketanji Brown Jackson is a diversity hire. She is only there because she’s a Black woman'. The comment was widely condemned as demeaning her qualifications purely on the basis of her race and gender.
On his show, he said that people like Michelle Obama, Joy Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson had to get into elite institutions because of affirmative action, and that they had 'stolen a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously'. He also said: 'You had to go steal a white person’s slot … I don’t think you are smart enough to be taken really seriously otherwise'.
He criticised Claudine Gay, saying her academic work could be summarised as 'white man bad, give black people stuff'. He claimed much of her work was anti-white rhetoric and that she benefited from DEI initiatives. He further said she 'never belonged' as Harvard’s president in the first place.
2. Targeting LGBTQ+ Communities with Dehumanising Rhetoric
Kirk’s attacks on LGBTQ+ individuals were virulent and often dehumanising. He promoted the notion of an “LGBTQ agenda” and explicitly opposed gay marriage, arguing that acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities was dangerous or unnatural. He even cited Leviticus 20:13 (‘If a man lies with a male as with a woman... they shall surely be put to death’), calling it ‘God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters’.
On transgender issues, Kirk was equally extreme. He dismissed transgender identities, calling them ‘lies that hurt people and abuse kids’, stating bluntly: ‘there are only two genders’. He further characterised the transgender rights movement as a push toward dehumanisation, referring to it as ‘trans humanism’, suggesting it aimed to reduce people into mechanical beings merely by rejecting their gender identity.
3. Gun Control: A Callous Calculus of Human Loss
Kirk’s remarks on gun control went beyond advocating for gun rights—he framed gun-related deaths as an acceptable cost for preserving the Second Amendment. In a 2023 Turning Point USA event, he asserted that ‘some gun deaths’ were ‘worth it’, comparing them to car fatalities:
‘Driving comes with a price… you get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 fewer auto fatalities… 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’.
This framing struck many as callously utilitarian, reducing human lives to abstractions in ideological arithmetic
4. Nancy Pelosi’s Husband and Conspiratorial Comments
In the wake of the October 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband) by David DePape with a hammer, Kirk stirred significant outrage by insinuating conspiratorial narratives and minimising the violence involved. On his podcast, he provocatively invited what he termed a 'midterm hero' to post bail for DePape, daring listeners: ‘If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out… Bail him out and then go ask him some questions’.
Worse yet, Kirk derided the assault by turning it into a twisted metaphor, asking:
‘Why is the conservative movement to blame for gay schizophrenic nudists that are hemp jewelry makers breaking into somebody’s home—or maybe not breaking into somebody’s home?’
These comments were widely condemned for trivialising a violent attack, promoting extremist conspiracies and injecting hateful stereotypes.
Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric frequently blurred the lines between provocative political commentary and hostile, inflammatory discourse. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his political positions, the persistence of such language played a role in deepening societal divisions and normalising hateful or extreme viewpoints.
