What examples of racist statements has Charlie Kirk made on record?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Charlie Kirk has repeatedly made overtly racist and racially disparaging remarks on public platforms, including calling prominent Black women “affirmative action picks” who “do not have the brain processing power,” asserting that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people,” and deploying Islamophobic language tying Muslims to terrorism and political threats [1] [2] [3]. Those specific statements and a wider pattern of dismissing systemic racism, opposing concepts like white privilege, and vilifying Black victims and Muslim Americans have been documented by multiple outlets and commentators [4] [1] [3].
1. Explicit verbal attacks on Black public figures and Black competence
Kirk was recorded saying that public Black women — named examples include Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — were “affirmative action picks” and that they “do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously,” adding that they “had to go steal a white person’s slot” to be taken somewhat seriously [1]. Multiple outlets reproduced that quotation as a plainly disparaging attack on the competence of Black women in public life [1].
2. Racialized fearmongering about Black people and crime
On his own podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, Kirk asserted without evidence that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people,” a statement cited by reporting on reactions from Black clergy and community leaders as a direct, racially charged claim about criminality [2]. Local religious leaders and opinion writers referenced this remark when denouncing Kirk’s rhetoric as “dangerous,” “rooted in white supremacy,” and “nasty and hate-filled,” tying that episode to broader concerns about incitement [2] [5].
3. Islamophobic statements tying Muslims to terrorism and political threat
Kirk publicly linked Muslims to 9/11 in a way that fused religious identity with political threat, saying “Twenty-four years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11…Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City,” and reportedly called Islam “the sword the Left is using to slit the throat of America,” language that commentators labeled paranoid and Islamophobic [3]. These lines have been used by critics to argue Kirk trafficked in fearmongering that conflated faith and violence [3].
4. Denial of systemic racism and rejection of concepts like white privilege
Reporting characterizes Kirk as denying systemic racism and calling white privilege a “racist idea,” and notes his repeated vilification of critical race theory and related concepts [4]. Those positions, while framed by Kirk as ideological arguments, have been cited by advocacy organizations and commentators as part of a pattern in which he dismissed structural explanations for racial inequality [4].
5. Pattern, amplification, and institutional response
Multiple outlet accounts and commentators, including Media Matters and mainstream press summaries, compiled Kirk’s comments over years and described an escalating pattern of rhetoric that critics say mirrors white supremacist or authoritarian tropes; Black pastors, clergy and opinion writers have publicly condemned both individual remarks and the cumulative effect of his messaging [1] [2] [5]. Elected officials and community leaders explicitly labeled his rhetoric “racist, xenophobic, homophobic, and misogynistic” in reactions to his public profile [6].
6. What reporting does not (yet) establish and caveats
Available reporting documents specific quotations and summarizes patterns, but some sources are opinion pieces or advocacy-oriented analyses that interpret those comments within broader political frames [4] [5] [3]. While multiple outlets cite the same explicit quotations and paraphrases, the materials provided do not include full context for every quoted line (for example, surrounding discussion or timestamps), and therefore cannot adjudicate motive or intent beyond the words reported [1] [2].