Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What were Charlie Kirk's exact comments about Simon Biles' withdrawal from the Olympics?
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the analyses provided, Charlie Kirk made multiple harsh public comments about Simone Biles following her withdrawal from the 2020 Tokyo Olympics due to mental health concerns and experiencing "the twisties" - a dangerous condition where gymnasts lose spatial awareness mid-air [1] [2].
Kirk's exact comments in 2021 included calling Biles "selfish," "weak," "immature," "a shame to the country," "a sociopath," and "a disgrace" after her Olympic withdrawal [1] [2]. These comments were made in response to Biles prioritizing her mental health and safety during the competition.
The controversy resurfaced in 2025 when Kirk made additional derogatory remarks about Biles, calling her "a choke artist" and "basket case" after she posted about former swimmer Riley Gaines [1] [2]. This demonstrates a pattern of sustained criticism from Kirk toward the Olympic champion.
Importantly, false information has circulated claiming that Simone Biles responded to Kirk's comments after his death. However, all sources confirm that there is no evidence whatsoever that Biles made any statements about Kirk following his death [1] [3]. The rumor appears to have originated from AI-generated content posted on Facebook by accounts managed from Vietnam [1] [3].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The analyses reveal several crucial pieces of context missing from the original question. First, Biles' withdrawal was medically justified - she experienced "the twisties," a serious condition that poses significant safety risks to gymnasts [1] [2]. This medical context is essential for understanding the appropriateness of Kirk's harsh criticism.
The sources also highlight that Kirk's comments weren't isolated to 2021 but continued into 2025, suggesting a sustained campaign of criticism rather than a single incident [1] [2]. This pattern indicates the controversy had longer-lasting implications than might be initially apparent.
Alternative viewpoints on Kirk's comments aren't extensively covered in the analyses, though they do establish that his remarks were widely considered controversial. The sources focus primarily on fact-checking false claims rather than presenting balanced perspectives on whether Kirk's criticism had any merit or represented legitimate commentary on athletic performance versus mental health advocacy.
The role of AI-generated misinformation represents a significant missing element in understanding this controversy. The analyses reveal that fake content about Biles' alleged response was deliberately created and spread through social media [1] [3], highlighting how modern misinformation campaigns can exploit real controversies to create entirely fabricated narratives.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question itself doesn't contain explicit misinformation, but it lacks important temporal context that could lead to misunderstanding. By asking only about "Charlie Kirk's exact comments about Simon Biles' withdrawal from the Olympics," the question might inadvertently suggest this was a single incident rather than part of an ongoing pattern of criticism extending into 2025.
The question's framing could perpetuate confusion about the timeline of events, particularly given that false rumors have circulated about Biles responding to Kirk's comments "after his death" [1]. Without proper context, readers might conflate the original 2021 comments with the fabricated 2025 response narrative.
There's also potential bias in focusing solely on Kirk's comments without acknowledging the medical legitimacy of Biles' withdrawal due to "the twisties." This framing could inadvertently validate criticism of an athlete who made a medically necessary decision to protect her safety.
The analyses consistently emphasize that AI-generated misinformation has significantly distorted public understanding of this controversy [1] [3]. The fabricated claims about Biles' response have been deliberately spread through fake Facebook accounts operated from Vietnam [1], representing a clear example of foreign-generated misinformation targeting American public discourse.
The persistence of these false narratives demonstrates how misinformation can overshadow factual reporting, potentially influencing public perception of both Kirk's original comments and Biles' actual response (or lack thereof) to the criticism she faced.