Fact check: Which gymnasts have publicly supported or criticized Charlie Kirk's comments?

1. A High-Profile Clash That Kept Pushing the Same Buttons

Charlie Kirk’s criticisms of Simone Biles began in the wake of her withdrawal from the Tokyo Olympics and resurfaced in 2025 when she publicly supported transgender athletes; Kirk’s language—calling her “selfish,” “weak,” and “a disgrace”—frames the dispute as a moral attack on her choices and advocacy rather than a narrow sport-related critique ^[1]. The recurring nature of these comments shows Kirk’s messaging aligns with broader political and cultural debates, which can amplify public reaction and keep the story in the news cycle; this pattern indicates an intent to use a sports figure to advance contested social themes, a tactic visible across the cited reports ^[1].

2. Simone Biles’ Public Posture: Professional, Focused on Principles

Across the reported pieces, Biles is depicted as not engaging in personal slanging matches: she prioritized mental health, equity, and inclusivity, and did not reply in kind to Kirk’s insults, choosing instead more measured public statements and an apology to Riley Gaines for any personal comments she’d made ^[1]. This posture—avoiding escalation while reaffirming values—shapes public perception by contrasting a high-profile commentator’s incendiary language with an athlete’s emphasis on broader ethical commitments; the coverage presents Biles as steering the conversation toward policy and welfare rather than personalities ^[1].

3. A Viral Falsehood and the Anatomy of Its Spread

The claim that Simone Biles wrote a blog mocking Charlie Kirk after his death is demonstrably false; investigations traced the story to a Facebook page in Vietnam that shared an AI-generated article and there is no record of Biles authoring or posting such a blog ^{[2] [3]}. The reports highlight how misinformation can exploit major events and emotions—in this case, using AI-generated content and social amplification to create a believable but fabricated narrative—underscoring platform vulnerabilities and the need for verification before viral sharing ^{[2] [3]}.

4. What Independent Checks Found and Why They Matter

Fact-checking across the cited analyses concluded that the alleged blog post by Biles did not exist and that reputable outlets found no evidence supporting the claim; the false story’s provenance from an AI-generated piece shared on social media demonstrates the gap between virality and veracity, with platforms and third-party verifiers playing key roles in correcting the record ^{[2] [3]}. This matters because the false claim could have harmed reputations and inflamed tensions around a grief moment; the correction process shows how quickly narratives can be debunked when reporters follow provenance ^[2].

5. Audience Reactions and the Role of Fans in Escalation

Reports note that Kirk’s comments drew strong reactions from fans and the public, which in turn fed engagement and controversy; fan responses often amplify partisan framing, converting a dispute about an athlete’s decisions and advocacy into symbolic battles over culture and identity ^[1]. The coverage suggests that audiences and social-media actors become active participants in spreading both criticism and misinformation, making it essential to distinguish verified actions from rumor-driven narratives; public sentiment can be mobilized rapidly, for better or worse, once a narrative takes hold ^[1].

6. Competing Agendas Visible in Coverage and Messaging

The materials show distinct agendas: Kirk’s repeated commentary aligns with a political narrative critiquing athlete activism and transgender inclusion, while the viral fake article appears aimed at discrediting Biles posthumously or stirring outrage—both actions reflect strategic uses of media to influence public opinion ^{[1] [2]}. Fact-checkers and the athlete’s measured responses serve the countervailing agenda of preserving accuracy and reputational integrity; recognizing these competing incentives helps explain why the same event spawns different, sometimes conflicting, stories ^{[1] [3]}.

7. Bottom Line for Readers Keeping Score

The verifiable landscape from the provided analyses is clear: Charlie Kirk publicly criticized Simone Biles on multiple occasions and Biles did not respond with the alleged mocking blog post after his death—those reports are false and sourced to AI-generated content amplified on social media ^{[1] [2] [3]}. For readers tracking public statements and reputational claims, the evidence advises caution: prioritize original posts and reputable fact checks, treat viral claims skeptically, and note how political motives can shape the tone and persistence of high-profile disputes ^{[2] [3]}.