Ilhan Omar’s Remarks on Charlie Kirk Ignite National Uproar

In a nation still reeling from the shock and grief of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a new controversy has erupted — this time from within Congress.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.) drew intense backlash on Wednesday after delivering a scathing critique of Kirk’s legacy just one day after his death. Appearing on the podcast Zeteo, Omar rejected the tributes pouring in for Kirk and used blunt, profane language to question why Americans were remembering him for his positive contributions.

“It’s full of sh*t,” she said. “It’s f**ked up for people to remember him for his so-called good deeds.”

A Harsh Assessment

Omar accused Kirk of showing “no empathy” throughout his career and pointed to some of his most controversial statements.

“Charlie was someone who once said guns save lives after a school shooting,” she said. “He downplayed George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police. He mocked Juneteenth, saying it should never exist. That’s not debate. That’s cruelty dressed up as discussion.”

Her remarks directly contradicted the narrative that many supporters have sought to preserve — that Kirk was a courageous debater who brought conservative ideas to college campuses and beyond.

Reactions Across the Spectrum

The clip spread rapidly online, sparking fierce debate. Conservatives denounced Omar’s comments as indecent and deeply disrespectful. “There are lines you don’t cross,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R–N.Y.). “Speaking ill of the dead, especially so soon after their murder, is disgraceful.”

Progressives, however, defended Omar’s candor. “History doesn’t stop at death,” activist Bree Newsome wrote on X. “If someone built a platform on cruelty, people have the right to say so.”

Even some Democrats expressed discomfort with the timing, suggesting her choice of words risked overshadowing broader conversations about political violence.

A Wider Pattern

Omar’s remarks followed a series of similar controversies in the wake of Kirk’s death. A University of Michigan professor called the assassination a “solution” to his rhetoric. MSNBC dismissed analyst Matthew Dowd after he argued the killing was a consequence of Kirk’s own “hate speech.” And a former dean at Middle Tennessee State University was fired for posting that she had “zero sympathy.”

These incidents, combined with Omar’s tirade, have underscored the nation’s deep divisions — even in moments traditionally reserved for unity and mourning.

Republicans Rally Around Kirk

Republican leaders have moved quickly to honor Kirk’s memory. Former President Donald Trump announced that Kirk will be posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, calling him “a defender of America’s values and faith.” Vice President J.D. Vance arranged for Kirk’s casket to be flown on Air Force Two alongside his family and friends.

On Capitol Hill, Speaker Mike Johnson allowed a prayer for Kirk on the House floor despite heated objections from some Democrats.

The Larger Question

Beyond partisan politics, Omar’s remarks have sparked a broader debate: how should a society reckon with divisive public figures after their deaths?

To supporters, Kirk was a cultural warrior who amplified conservative voices. To critics, he was a provocateur who deepened national wounds. His assassination — and the responses that followed — highlight the difficulty of separating grief from legacy in an age of hyperpolarized politics.

Political historian Allan Lichtman noted, “There used to be an unspoken pause when public figures died — an acknowledgment of their humanity, even amid disagreement. That consensus has vanished.”

Ongoing Investigation

Meanwhile, the FBI continues its investigation into Kirk’s killing. Agents in Salt Lake City released photographs of a suspect and confirmed the recovery of a high-powered rifle. Cartridges found at the scene reportedly bore pro-transgender and Antifa slogans, suggesting a political motive.

The suspect remains at large as of Thursday evening.

What Lies Ahead

Rep. Omar has not walked back her comments, insisting that “accountability doesn’t end with death.” For her critics, this is proof of insensitivity; for her supporters, it is honesty in the face of uncomfortable truths.

What remains certain is that Kirk’s legacy — and the political battle over it — will continue to shape the national conversation. His assassination has not silenced the culture wars he helped drive. If anything, it has deepened them.