Congratulations to the memory of Charlie Kirk. Trump has, in his death, affirmed that Kirk is the same kind of person as his idol, inflammatory bigot Rush Limbaugh, whom Trump also awarded the Medal of Freedom.
To pay tribute to the event, the State Department yesterday announced another assault on free speech, identifying six purported visa holders who — it claims, but the underlying logic is worthy of conspiracy theorist Darren Beattie, currently the State Department head of Public Diplomacy — “celebrated the heinous assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
At least two of the six did not celebrate Kirk’s death (these are in reverse order).
One, described as Paraguayan, merely said Kirk was a son of a bitch and he died by his own rules.
This is likely a reference to Kirk’s comment that it was worth having some gun deaths every year, like his own, so “we” can have a Second Amendment.
I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.
The other post that, in my opinion, did not “celebrate” Kirk’s killing is this one, which per Google translate reads, “When fascists die, democrats don’t complain” (or perhaps don’t wail).
Stating that you’re not wailing is different than celebrating.
But the tweet is notable for something else: It doesn’t even mention Charlie Kirk. It’s a subtweet.
So how did Trump find it to attack it? One explanation may be this Facebook post, also in German, which does mention Kirk. It translates this way:
“When fascists die, democrats don’t complain.”
This disgusting quote from ZDF screenwriter and publicist Mario Sixtus, published just hours after the assassination attempt on Charlie Kirk, marks a moral low point.
Anyone who speaks like this exposes themselves: not as a democrat, but as a cynic who tramples on the foundations of our free order. Those who celebrate the death of a political opponent aren’t demonstrating their stance, but rather confirming that they, in truth, have no respect for democracy—because democracy thrives on words, on debate, on the clash of arguments, not on hatred of human life.
Yes, Charlie Kirk held radical positions; yes, he was contentious and uncomfortable. But he sought debate. And as long as debate, speech, and discourse are possible, there is a civilized, legitimate framework. Violence, malice over death, and dehumanization are not part of it.
Therefore, I say clearly: Anyone who rejoices over the death of a person disqualifies themselves as a democrat. Anyone who claims to fight against inhumanity while acting inhumanely themselves is a hypocrite.
This case demonstrates once again how deep the cracks in our society are – and how great the danger is that the self-proclaimed “moral elite” has in fact lost all moral sense.
That is, it’s not that the original poster, IDed here as a German screenwriter, celebrated Kirk’s death. It’s that someone else accused him of doing so (all while ignoring the way Kirk himself dehumanizes people).
Still, how did they find it?!?
Consider what it means that the State Department is proudly IDing claimed visa holders whose speech about Charlie Kirk it condemns. We know how State conducted its prior assault on free speech, that of supporters of Palestinians, in at least some cases a doxing hate group called Canary. Judge William Young described it this way:
AD Hatch was told by DHS leadership (Hatch could not recall who) to review the names of student protestors on the Canary Mission website, which contains a database of over 5,000 individuals. Id., 109-111. Canary Mission’s website purports to “document[] individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.” See “Our Mission”, Canary Mission, Ex. 229.14 Prior to March 2025, AD Hatch was unaware of the Canary Mission website. Id. 112:18-22.
Within about a week of the early March meeting, a so-called “Tiger Team” was assembled to expedite the preparation of ROAs. Id. 98:8-25–99:3. Hatch confirmed that the Tiger Team’s process was that: (1) the Office of Intelligence would fact find; (2) the National Security Division of Homeland Security Investigations would compile the information and provide it to the State Department; and (3) the State Department would decide on what action to take, if any. Id. 98:20-99:3. The use of the term “Tiger Team” is not pejorative. It is a common internal practice referring to the speed and intensity of the work to be completed. The phrase was not intended to intimidate or, indeed, to be publicly known. Trial Tr. vol. II, 95:17–97:8, Jul. 10, 2025.
But it’s one thing to find Palestinian supporters targeted by a hate group. It’s another thing to find people with an opinion about Charlie Kirk, because one’s opinion about Charlie Kirk has no conceivable tie to national security or even foreign policy.
And to get to this list of four people who celebrated Kirk’s death and two who did not, State would have had to run their own databases against a list that included a whole bunch of Americans who also don’t care for Charlie Kirk either. The original list almost certainly consisted primarily of Americans who would have been affected by Kirk’s hatred and doxing.
That State is doing this in any case is obnoxious and illegal. That they’re doing it with such shoddy vetting that they’re batting 66% accuracy with a selection of just six statements is both offensive and pathetic.
But to have accomplished this hunt would have taken the kind of database scan that fascists dream of, one cataloging the free speech of Americans.