Are there any other public figures who have made similar claims about Charlie Kirk's death?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, several prominent public figures have indeed made similar claims regarding accountability for those celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. Most notably, US Vice-President JD Vance has called for reporting people who celebrate the shooting to their employers ^[1]. This position has been echoed by other Republican lawmakers, including Florida congressman Randy Fine and South Carolina congresswoman Nancy Mace, who have made similar claims about holding people accountable for celebrating Kirk's death ^[1].

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, has taken an even more aggressive stance, describing left-wing organizations as a "vast domestic terror movement" and vowing to dismantle them ^[2]. These claims appear to be part of a broader political response that seeks to frame the incident within existing partisan narratives.

The analyses reveal a stark contrast in responses from different political figures. While Republican officials have focused on accountability measures and broader political implications, former President Barack Obama, former President Joe Biden, and former Vice President Kamala Harris have condemned the violence and offered condolences to Charlie Kirk's family, but have not made similar claims about holding people accountable for celebrating his death ^[3].

The incident has also generated significant online discourse and conspiracy theories. Some senior Trump administration officials and online commentators have made unsubstantiated allegations about the killing ^[4], while social media platforms have fragmented how Americans understand the assassination, with Vice President JD Vance and talk show host Jimmy Kimmel making comments that reflected their respective political biases ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question focuses narrowly on public figures making "similar claims" but fails to acknowledge the broader disinformation campaign surrounding Charlie Kirk's death. Foreign adversaries, including Russia, China, and Iran, have actively spread disinformation about the killing with the goal of widening US divisions and inflaming political polarization ^[6]. While their influence has been relatively minor ^[7], this represents a significant contextual element missing from the original inquiry.

A particularly troubling pattern of misinformation involves false accusations that the shooter was transgender ^[8]. This disinformation has been used to villainize the trans community and follows a pattern that has played out in other shootings ^[8]. This represents a systematic attempt to weaponize the tragedy for broader cultural and political purposes.

The analyses also reveal deep schisms in how Americans understand the assassination, with social media platforms creating fragmented narratives about the event ^[5]. The investigation has uncovered connections to online subcultures tied to the accused killer ^[9], suggesting that the incident may be rooted in digital radicalization rather than traditional political motivations.

Various conspiracy theories and fake photos have circulated regarding the murder, including false assertions about the suspect's political affiliations ^[4]. This demonstrates how quickly misinformation can spread and complicate public understanding of tragic events.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that Charlie Kirk is dead, which may itself be problematic depending on the actual circumstances. The phrasing suggests this is an established fact, but the analyses focus heavily on debunking fake photos and wild conspiracy theories surrounding the alleged murder ^[4], which raises questions about the veracity of the underlying premise.

The question's framing also potentially amplifies harmful narratives by seeking to identify additional public figures making similar claims, which could contribute to the spread of unsubstantiated allegations. The analyses show that some senior Trump administration officials and online commentators have made unsubstantiated allegations ^[4], suggesting that the focus should be on fact-checking rather than amplifying potentially false claims.

Furthermore, the question fails to distinguish between legitimate political commentary and dangerous conspiracy theories. While some public figures have made measured statements about accountability, others have promoted unfounded theories that could incite further violence or harassment. The analyses demonstrate that foreign powers have attempted to exploit this tragedy for disinformation purposes ^{[10] [6]}, making it crucial to approach such claims with extreme skepticism and rigorous fact-checking.