A leftist commentator suggested that the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is a consequence of Donald Trump's presidency. Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, known as "Destiny," made the remarks during an appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored on September 11, 2025, shortly after Kirk was killed at a speaking event in Utah.
Explainer Charlie Kirk Overview
Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was shot dead during his American Comeback Tour stop at Utah Valley University. His death has sparked discussions about political violence in the United States, particularly targeting conservatives.
Destiny stated, "If you wanted Charlie Kirk to be alive, Donald Trump shouldn’t have been president for the second term." This comment has drawn criticism from various quarters, with many arguing that it shifts blame away from the perpetrator of the violence.
Host Piers Morgan challenged Destiny, urging him to condemn the murder directly. "Basic humanity says the murder was horrific. Why can’t you say it?" Morgan asked, emphasizing the need for a clear denunciation of the act.
Despite the ongoing debate about political rhetoric and violence, Destiny continued to assert that Trump should take responsibility for the climate that led to Kirk's assassination. He remarked, "Why can’t the president say we should all be less violent?"
Critics of Destiny's comments have pointed out that political violence has been a concern across the spectrum, with both parties experiencing threats and violence against their members. Over the past decade, there have been several high-profile incidents involving threats against politicians, including two assassination attempts on Trump himself.
Destiny's history of inflammatory remarks has also come under scrutiny. He has previously expressed disdain for Kirk, referring to him as a "Satan spawn" and mocking the Kirk family in the wake of the assassination. In a recent stream, he suggested that conservatives should feel fear at political events, stating, "Right now, they don’t feel like there’s any fear."
The online commentator has faced backlash for his past statements advocating violence against conservatives. He has claimed he would not care if individuals at Trump rallies were harmed, stating, "I don’t give a f-ck" about their safety. His comments have raised questions about the accountability of public figures who promote such rhetoric.
As the nation grapples with the implications of political violence, Destiny's remarks have reignited discussions about the responsibilities of public figures in addressing and condemning violence. While some argue that rhetoric can incite real-world actions, others contend that individuals must be held accountable for their own actions, not the words of others.
The conversation surrounding Kirk's assassination and the broader issue of political violence continues to evolve, with many calling for a more civil discourse in political discussions.
The Federalist's Jordan Boyd reported on the incident, highlighting the ongoing debate about accountability and the role of political rhetoric in shaping public perception and behavior.
Why it matters
- Charlie Kirk's assassination has intensified discussions on political violence, particularly against conservatives, highlighting a growing concern in the U.S.
- Destiny's comments link Trump's presidency to Kirk's death, sparking controversy over accountability and the impact of political rhetoric.
- The incident raises questions about the responsibilities of public figures in addressing violence and the potential consequences of inflammatory speech.
What’s next
- Calls for a clearer condemnation of violence from public figures are increasing, urging accountability in political discourse.
- Ongoing debates about political rhetoric and its implications for violence are expected to continue in media and political circles.
