GLAAD released a statement after Charlie Kirk’s assassination condemning political violence while also accusing the conservative leader of having spread “infinite amounts of disinformation” about LGBTQ people. The group warned that rhetoric about trans issues, used by Kirk and Turning Point USA, contributed to harm and pushed platforms to prioritize safety over inflammatory politics.
A GLAAD spokesperson said: “Political violence is unacceptable… It is also a demonstrable fact that Charlie Kirk spread infinite amounts of disinformation about LGBTQ people. Lies and vitriol about transgender people were a frequent part of his rhetoric and events.” The statement highlighted how Turning Point USA campaigns often feature controversial speakers such as Riley Gaines, Chloe Cole, and Pastor Junsun Yoo, people known for opposing gender‑affirming treatments for minors.
The statement sparked backlash, particularly from the people mentioned. Chloe Cole, a detransitioner, responded on X that GLAAD’s remarks were dangerous and insensitive given the timing. She criticized the statement for naming speakers she feels are now being framed as political targets and claimed it normalizes violence, saying, “They put a target on our backs.”
GLAAD defended its message by saying that accountability for public speech is not only about political correctness — it’s about the tangible harm that can follow disinformation, especially when propagated by high‑profile figures. They argued that when rhetoric frames trans people as threats or character flaws, it can fuel misinformation, stigma, and ultimately violence. In GLAAD’s view, leaders who use their platforms have a responsibility not just to avoid inflammatory speech, but to actively push back against false narratives that undermine the dignity and safety of marginalized communities.
Meanwhile, critics of GLAAD’s statement have argued that condemning Kirk for past rhetoric after his death is not only unfair, but fuels the very polarization it claims to decry. Some expressed that timing matters — saying questions of disinformation and free speech are valid, but that making such criticisms immediately following a tragedy risks appearing to exploit grief for political ends. Chloe Cole and others suggest that GLAAD’s naming of individuals in its statement could invite backlash or endanger those individuals by placing them in the crosshairs of political and social conflict.
