On September 21, 2025, CNN reported that Charlie Kirk had sent a private message to political commentator Van Jones through X (formerly Twitter) the day before his brutal murder. The two had engaged in heated debates on racial issues related to a case involving the murder of a Ukrainian refugee in public forums.
Van Jones, a senior political commentator in the United States, is a former lawyer who served in the Obama administration and has long been an advocate for racial equality.
The incident that sparked nationwide political and racial debates occurred on August 22 in Charlotte, North Carolina, when Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was fatally stabbed on a light rail train by Decarlos Brown Jr., an African American man. Kirk believed the perpetrator acted out of “anti-white” sentiment, while Jones vehemently countered this claim on CNN, sparking further confrontations between the two on television and social media.
Jones revealed that he received numerous racist death threats as a result of the controversy. However, during the height of the dispute, Kirk extended an olive branch by inviting Jones to appear on his program for a respectful dialogue. In the private message, Kirk expressed his sincerity and desire for a civil conversation to discuss crime and race, stating that he would maintain a gentlemanly demeanor and expected the same from Jones.
Tragically, before Jones could respond, Kirk was gunned down the following day during a public speaking engagement. While the motive behind the killing is still under investigation, many believe Kirk was assassinated due to his beliefs.
Jones emphasized that despite his strong opposition to Kirk’s views, he never denied his right to speak freely. He condemned the attack immediately, stating that Kirk should have been able to return home safely, as it is a sacred American value. He denounced political violence and called for a de-escalation of tensions on both the left and the right.
Jones stressed the importance of returning to the negotiating table and seeking common ground in the aftermath of Kirk’s murder. He criticized those who sought to exploit the tragedy to incite more hatred or advocate for further scrutiny, noting that this was not Kirk’s way of conducting discussions.
According to Jones, Kirk’s choice of promoting dialogue and civility over silence or censorship should be commended and emulated. He urged both sides not to give up on debate and to resist being incited towards violence. He emphasized that despite fierce disagreements, the ultimate goal is to fulfill their duties and return home to their families.
In his closing remarks, Jones reflected on the tragic loss of Kirk and the missed opportunity for constructive dialogue and peaceful resolution. He lamented that a coward’s bullet had taken away a rising conservative star and deprived the progressive movement of a respected adversary.
Jones concluded by highlighting the pivotal choice facing American society – to either descend into further animosity and censorship or to embrace dialogue once more. Drawing from Kirk’s final 24 hours, Jones provided evidence that Kirk sought a different path, one of discourse and understanding.