In a deeply personal and emotionally charged reflection following the tragic passing of Charlie Kirk, commentator Tucker Carlson offered a powerful eulogy, painting a picture of Kirk not just as a political figure, but as a man of profound Christian faith, unwavering courage, and evolving convictions who faced immense private pressures.

Carlson condemned the outpouring of “hate” celebrating Kirk’s demise and warned against using the tragedy to justify attacks on free speech.

Visibly shaken, Carlson admitted spending the night after Kirk’s passing consumed by disturbing online reactions—videos of individuals celebrating the event.

He initially dismissed them as fake but realized with horror they were real people expressing profound evil.

This immersion in “hate,” he confessed, deeply disturbed him and pulled him away from focusing on Charlie, his family, and prayer.

He highlighted a message from his wife referencing Luke 6—”Love your enemies, pray for your persecutors”—as a necessary, albeit difficult, reminder of the Christian response called for in such moments.

Carlson emphasized Kirk’s genuine Christian faith as the bedrock of his character and actions. “He’s a Christian man,” Carlson stated simply, recalling numerous conversations about faith, including the pressures and pitfalls faced by public figures.

“Charlie really did… walk the line for real,” Carlson affirmed, noting Kirk’s priorities remained God, family, and country, in that order. “He wasn’t destroyed by power,” Carlson stated with admiration, a rare feat in their world.

This faith, Carlson argued, was the root of Kirk’s courage and his worldview. He insisted Kirk “didn’t have hate in his heart,” directly contradicting descriptions circulating online.

Carlson recalled Kirk’s perspective on his fiercest critics: “This person has been led astray… possessed by dark forces… a perpetrator but also a victim of evil.” This Christian worldview, Carlson stressed, allowed Kirk to engage with opponents without hatred, loving debate and loving people, even those who despised him.

Carlson passionately defended Kirk’s legacy as a free speech champion, arguing it stemmed from a deep belief in the sanctity of individual conscience—the right to determine right from wrong and express those views.

He forcefully condemned the concept of “hate speech,” particularly referencing recent comments by the US Attorney General distinguishing it from free speech.

To Carlson, and he argued to Kirk, labeling speech as “hate speech” is a dangerous path toward censorship, implying those in power can dictate belief and deny the humanity of those who disagree.

He warned that any attempt to leverage Kirk’s passing to implement hate speech laws would be a desecration of his memory and must be met with civil disobedience. “If they can tell you what to say, they’re telling you what to think,” Carlson declared. “There is nothing they can’t do to you because they don’t consider you human.”

Carlson also shed light on Kirk’s evolving foreign policy views, which he believed were informed by his faith and conversations with young people. Kirk, according to Carlson, came to believe the War on Terror was a net loss for the US, causing immense spiritual damage. He strongly opposed further foreign entanglements, particularly a potential conflict with Iran.

Carlson recounted a specific conversation before a TPUSA event in July where Kirk encouraged him to speak frankly about these issues, even mentioning potential intelligence agency connections to Jeffrey Epstein, despite knowing it would anger powerful donors. “‘Go all the way. Do it,’” Carlson recalled Kirk urging him.

This courage extended to Kirk’s interactions with President Trump, whom he personally admired.

Carlson revealed Kirk was one of the very few who directly told Trump in the Oval Office that opposing Iran was crucial for America’s well-being, despite the immense backlash he faced from donors who held a different view.

Kirk felt he owed it to the young people he represented, who overwhelmingly opposed endless campaigns, to convey their perspective to the President.

Carlson concluded by emphasizing Kirk’s sincerity. His views, however controversial, stemmed from genuine conviction, not animosity.

He lamented the loss of a unique voice—a young leader guided by faith, unafraid to challenge power structures (even within his own coalition), and deeply committed to his country and the principle of free conscience.

Carlson’s tribute painted a complex, human portrait of Charlie Kirk, urging remembrance not just of the activist, but of the man of faith who, even in the face of intense opposition, refused to compromise his core beliefs.