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.
Fact check: How did Simone Biles respond to Charlie Kirk's criticism of her withdrawal from the Olympics?
Executive Summary
Simone Biles did not publicly issue a direct response to Charlie Kirk’s criticism of her decision to withdraw from the 2021 Olympic team final; contemporary reporting and fact-checking indicate no confirmed, contemporaneous rebuttal from Biles to Kirk’s remarks. Fact-checking by Snopes and contemporaneous news coverage show Biles spoke broadly about athlete mental health but did not publicly address Kirk by name, and later social-media claims that she replied after his death are false [1] [2].
1. Why people remember the 2021 controversy — and what actually happened
In July 2021 Simone Biles withdrew from the Olympic team final citing mental health concerns and the “twisties,” which was widely covered by mainstream outlets at the time; coverage emphasized her prioritization of safety over competition rather than an exchange with partisan commentators [2]. Charlie Kirk, a conservative commentator, publicly criticized several athletes and public figures around that period, and his comments about Biles circulated on social platforms, fueling partisan debate. Contemporary reporting focused on Biles’ mental-health rationale, not on a back-and-forth between Biles and Kirk, and no primary-source record shows Biles responding directly to Kirk in the immediate aftermath [2] [1].
2. What Snopes investigated and concluded about later claims
A Snopes fact-check published in September 2025 examined a viral claim that Biles responded to Kirk’s 2021 criticism after his death; the fact-check concluded that those posts were inaccurate and no verifiable comment from Biles addressing Kirk was found following his demise [1]. Snopes’ review compared social posts, media archives, and known public statements and found the narrative that Biles publicly replied to Kirk posthumously lacked supporting evidence. Snopes framed the viral item as a misattribution or fabrication, highlighting how social-media recycling of old grievances creates misleading impressions [1].
3. What Biles did say publicly about her withdrawal and mental health
In public statements and interviews after withdrawing, Biles discussed mental-health pressures and athlete safety, emphasizing that stepping back was necessary to protect herself and her teammates; these remarks became touchstones for conversations about elite sport and well-being rather than partisan rebuttals [2] [3]. Coverage and athlete commentary framed her decision as part of a larger policy and cultural conversation about mental-health resources for competitors. Those consistent themes appear across reputable news reports and are what Biles is documented to have spoken about, rather than direct responses to individual commentators [3].
4. The record shows absence of a direct, documented reply to Kirk
Available documentation and media archives cited in the fact-checks and reporting show no contemporaneous quote or verified social-media reply from Biles aimed at Charlie Kirk following his 2021 remarks or later. Some later social-media threads and posts recycled old commentary and attributed responses without sourcing; fact-checkers traced those attributions to unverified social posts rather than original statements from Biles [1]. An absence of verified primary-source material is notable given the intense coverage of both Biles and Kirk, which makes an unrecorded direct response unlikely.
5. Why misinformation or misattribution spread around this topic
The dynamics of social-media circulation—repurposing old clips, mixing commentary across years, and sensational framing—create fertile ground for misattributed responses. Fact-checkers found viral posts that presented a posthumous reply as newly posted, reflecting a pattern where emotionally charged partisan narratives outpace verification [1]. Entertainment gossip sites and aggregated snippets can amplify claims without sourcing; some of the inspected pages contained tangential or unrelated items that nonetheless got cited in later iterations of the story [4] [5].
6. How different outlets covered the story and their possible agendas
Mainstream news outlets focused on Biles’ mental-health decision and its broader implications for athlete welfare, while partisan or entertainment-focused outlets often highlighted conflict frames that pit athletes against commentators. Fact-checkers like Snopes prioritized primary-source verification, whereas entertainment aggregators sometimes republished sensational takes with weaker sourcing [1] [4]. Recognizing these distinct editorial incentives explains why readers may encounter competing narratives about whether Biles “answered” Kirk.
7. Bottom line: verified record versus viral claims
The verifiable, documented record shows Simone Biles publicly addressed her mental health and the reasons for withdrawing, but it does not contain a documented, direct response to Charlie Kirk’s criticism; claims that she replied to Kirk after his death are unsubstantiated and were debunked by fact-checkers in 2025 [1] [2]. Readers should treat social posts asserting a head-to-head exchange with skepticism and rely on primary statements and contemporary reporting when reconstructing what actually occurred [1] [2].