You probably remember the old version of Charlie Kirk. For years, the Turning Point USA founder was the guy on college campuses wearing a suit and tie, arguing that the left was "the real racist" because they moved away from Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a colorblind society. He quoted the "content of their character" line constantly. It was a staple of his rhetoric. But things changed fast.
Lately, people are asking: did Charlie Kirk say MLK was awful? The short answer is that Kirk didn't just wake up one day and post a three-word tweet saying "MLK was awful." It’s more complicated, and honestly, way more controversial than a single slur or insult. Over the last year, specifically following the 2023 AmericaFest (AmFest) event and into early 2024, Kirk launched a deliberate, sustained rhetorical attack on the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He didn't just critique the man; he took aim at the entire legislative framework associated with the Civil Rights movement.
It’s a massive pivot.
The AmFest Shift: Why Kirk Changed His Tune
For a decade, the conservative playbook was to "reclaim" MLK. They argued King was a conservative hero who would be disgusted by modern identity politics. Kirk was the poster child for this. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, he started calling MLK "manipulative" and "not a good person."
Why?
Kirk’s argument, which he detailed on The Charlie Kirk Show, is that MLK has been elevated to a "secular saint" whose legacy is used to justify "anti-white" policies like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). During a presentation at AmFest, Kirk told a crowd that we need to have a "frank conversation" about King. He argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII, created a "permanent soft quota system" that paved the way for modern wokeness.
He basically called the Civil Rights Act a mistake.
That’s a heavy lift. It’s also a bridge too far for many old-school Republicans. Kirk isn't just nitpicking historical dates; he’s arguing that the foundation of modern American racial law is fundamentally flawed. He described King as a "radical" whose private life—referencing FBI records that allege infidelity and darker misconduct—disqualifies him from being the moral North Star of the country.
Breaking Down the "Awful" Allegations
When people ask if he called MLK "awful," they are usually reacting to the tone of his recent broadcasts. He’s used words like "myth" to describe the popular image of King. He’s called him a "degenerate."
✨ Don't miss: Ohio Polls Explained: What Most People Get Wrong About Voting Times
Kirk’s logic follows a specific path:
If King’s character was flawed, and if King’s legislative victories led to the "destruction" of American meritocracy, then the veneration of King must end.
He’s been very vocal about the FBI files. You’ve likely heard about the surveillance tapes the FBI kept on King during the 1960s. Kirk leans heavily on these, despite many historians pointing out that J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI was actively trying to destroy King at the time. Kirk doesn't see it as a smear campaign; he sees it as the "hidden truth" that Americans are too scared to discuss.
It’s a high-stakes gamble for a guy who runs one of the biggest youth organizations in politics.
He’s not just talking to boomers on talk radio. He’s telling Gen Z conservatives that the Civil Rights era wasn't the "Great Triumph" they were taught in school. He’s calling it a "huge mistake" that led to a "two-tier justice system." This isn't just a history lesson. It’s a political strategy to delegitimize the legal basis for affirmative action and DEI.
The Backlash: Even Conservatives Are Cringing
Not everyone on the right is buying what Kirk is selling.
The pushback was almost immediate. Conservative commentators like Jonah Goldberg and various writers at National Review have pointed out that Kirk is effectively handing a massive win to the left by abandoning the moral high ground of the Civil Rights movement. If conservatives stop claiming MLK, they concede the most powerful moral narrative in American history.
There’s also the optics.
Kirk is a wealthy white guy telling a younger generation that the most famous Black man in history was a "bad person." To many, it looks like he's just leaning into "white grievance" politics to keep his engagement numbers up. Honestly, some people think he’s just trying to be the next Tucker Carlson—someone who isn't afraid to touch the "third rail" of American politics.
🔗 Read more: Obituaries Binghamton New York: Why Finding Local History is Getting Harder
Was He "Awful" or Just "Different" Than the Legend?
Kirk’s defenders say he’s just being a "truth-teller." They argue that King was a socialist (which King admitted to in private letters) and that his views on wealth redistribution would be considered "far-left" today.
But there’s a massive gap between saying "King had socialist leanings" and "King was an awful person whose legacy should be dismantled."
Kirk bridges that gap by attacking the Civil Rights Act itself. He argues that by making it illegal for private businesses to discriminate, the government infringed on the "freedom of association." This is an old libertarian argument from the 1960s—one that Barry Goldwater used—and it was largely considered settled history until Kirk brought it back to the mainstream.
The Reality of the "Awful" Comments
If you’re looking for a specific transcript where Charlie Kirk says the literal sentence, "MLK was an awful human being," you might find variations of it across dozens of hours of podcasting. He has called him "awful" in the context of his alleged treatment of women. He has called the results of his activism "awful" for the American legal system.
He’s essentially trying to "deconstruct" King.
He’s moved past the "I have a dream" era of conservatism. He’s now in the "The dream was a nightmare for the Constitution" era. It’s a radical shift. It’s also one that has alienated a lot of the donor class who want to win elections by being "inclusive" and "moderate."
Kirk doesn't seem to care.
He’s doubling down. On his show, he’s hosted guests who argue that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the moment the "Old Constitution" died and the "New Constitution" (based on group rights instead of individual rights) was born.
💡 You might also like: NYC Subway 6 Train Delay: What Actually Happens Under Lexington Avenue
What This Means for You
Whether you love Charlie Kirk or think he’s a provocateur, his shift on MLK is a weather vane for a specific part of the American Right. It shows a move away from "colorblindness" and toward a more explicit "identity politics for the right."
If you’re following this story, here is what you need to keep in mind:
- Context Matters: Kirk isn't just attacking a man; he’s attacking a law (the Civil Rights Act).
- The Sources: Most of Kirk’s "new" information comes from the "1619 Project" critics and old FBI memos that were scheduled for full release in 2027 (though many are already leaked or summarized).
- The Goal: The goal is to make it socially acceptable for conservatives to oppose DEI by cutting off its historical "root"—which Kirk believes is MLK’s later-stage activism.
Next time you see a clip of Kirk talking about January 15th or the Civil Rights movement, look for the "legal" argument. He’s usually hiding a very dense, controversial legal theory behind a very inflammatory personal insult.
The best way to handle this information is to look at the primary sources yourself. Read the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Read King’s "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Compare those to Kirk’s monologues. You’ll find that the "awful" label is less about King’s character and more about a fundamental disagreement over what America should look like.
If you want to understand the full scope of this debate, look into the "Second Constitution" theory popularized by authors like Christopher Caldwell. This is the intellectual foundation Kirk is using to justify his attacks. Understanding that theory makes Kirk’s comments seem less like random outbursts and more like a calculated political maneuver to reshape the American right's relationship with race and history.
Stop looking for a single soundbite and start looking at the legislative history Kirk is trying to rewrite. That's where the real story is. Check the transcripts of his January 2024 shows if you want to see the most aggressive versions of these claims. You'll see a man trying to burn down a bridge he spent ten years helping to build. It's a fascinating, if divisive, moment in political media.
Stay skeptical of the short clips on X or TikTok. They rarely capture the full legal argument Kirk is making, which is actually much more radical than just calling a historical figure "awful." He’s calling the last 60 years of American progress a legal error. That’s the part that actually matters for the future of the country.
Actionable Next Steps:
To get the full picture, don't just rely on social media snippets. Go to the Turning Point USA YouTube channel and search for the "AmFest 2023 MLK" segment. Watch the full 20 minutes. Then, read the dissenting opinions from conservative legal scholars like those at the Heritage Foundation to see why even many on the right think Kirk has gone off the rails. Understanding both sides of this internal Republican civil war is the only way to make sense of the "MLK was awful" headlines.