On September 10, 2025, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during an event at Utah Valley University. In the aftermath of his death, many have tried to piece together Kirk’s final hours, motives, relationships, and unrealized conversations.

Among these revelations is one particularly striking message that Kirk reportedly sent to liberal commentator Van Jones just one day before his assassination—an invitation to civil discourse, even with those he disagreed with deeply. This message, shared by Van Jones, has become a symbol of hope, tragedy, and the dangerous polarization in American political life.

Who Are the Key Players

Charlie Kirk was a prominent figure in conservative media and youth activism. As co-founder of Turning Point USA, he built a national platform speaking on issues such as free speech, race, immigration, and culture wars. A polarizing figure, admired by many on the right and criticized by many on the left, he embraced sharp rhetoric but also was known for high visibility in speaking tours and social media.

Van Jones is a liberal commentator, author, and formerly environmental and civil rights activist, now known widely for his media presence. He often critiques conservative positions and speaks on issues of race, equity, policy, and political culture.

Their interactions typify much of the modern political debate: frequent disagreement in public, mutual critique of ideological frameworks, but occasionally, as we now know, gestures toward engagement.

What Was the Message?

On September 20, 2025, Van Jones revealed that Charlie Kirk had sent him a direct message (DM) on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) on September 9—one day before Kirk was shot.

The message read:

Hey Van, I mean it, I’d love to have you on my show to have a respectful conversation about crime and race. I would be a gentleman as I know you would be as well. We can disagree about the issues agreeably.”

Kirk also acknowledged that he and Jones had been locked in a heated debate in recent days over a specific criminal incident (involving the brutal stabbing of Iryna Zarutska by a man of another race) and over how to interpret crime, race, and justice in American society. While their public exchanges had been sharp, this message represented a different tone: an attempt to reach out, to cross ideological divides, to converse rather than fight.

The Context: Rising Tensions

The message didn’t come in a vacuum. Political polarization in the U.S. has intensified, especially around issues of race, law enforcement, crime, and public safety. Social media has amplified angry voices at both ends of the spectrum, often favoring outrage over understanding, accusation over dialogue.

Prior to this message, Kirk had publicly expressed strong views about the event involving the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska. Meanwhile Van Jones had responded critically, questioning the framing of such events, the broader structural issues, and the risk of oversimplification.

Their debate was not unique; many public figures engage in these kinds of back‑and‑forths. But this message stands out because it suggests that Kirk was willing—at least one day before his death—to step outside of purely antagonistic rhetoric. He was extending an olive branch to someone who was ideologically different.

Van Jones’s Reaction

Van Jones has said that he was “shocked” by the message after Kirk was killed. He admitted that he wasn’t sure whether to share it publicly out of concern how it might be interpreted—yet after Kirk’s death, Jones felt it was important for people to see it.

Jones emphasized the contrast: outside (on social media, in the news) there was a lot of talk about censorship, fury, polarization, anger—and the idea that political or ideological opponents are enemies. But here was someone reaching out, wanting to converse respectfully: “We were words, not weapons, guys,” Jones said.

This comment highlights how Jones viewed the message—not just as another statement from Kirk, but as a meaningful attempt at human dialogue. Despite their public differences, Kirk was saying: let’s debate, let’s disagree, but let’s do so civilly.

Implications and Why It Resonates

That message resonates for several reasons:

Symbolism of civility in a violent momentIt contrasts sharply with the reality that very shortly after, Kirk would be killed. The message serves as a stark reminder that even deeply polarized people can still attempt respectful engagement.

Unrealized potentialThe message points to things that never came to be—conversations unhad begun, misunderstandings unchallenged, possible bridges unbuilt. It forces reflection on how many “what ifs” lie in politics and in life.

Political violence and rhetorical environmentThe news of this message coincides with broader discussion in the U.S. about political violence, threats, radicalization, and the consequences of demonizing one’s opponents. Some question whether heated rhetoric, ideological framing, online anger contribute to a climate in which violence becomes more possible. The message reminds that there’s another path: engagement.

Public figure roles and responsibilitiesAs a public figure, Charlie Kirk’s outreach suggests he recognized his platform’s weight. Even someone who speaks strongly and often provocatively felt moved to try to bridge divides. It raises questions for others: are we too quick to dismiss opponents? Are we too entrenched in conflict?

But It’s Not Without Tension or Criticism

While many find the message admirable, some also see tension or possible complications.

Some critics may argue that gestures of friendly outreach do little to change entrenched systems or structural inequalities. Without changes in policy or behavior, civil conversations risk being symbolic.

Others might view such outreach as strategic, possibly part of shaping image or public relations rather than sincere change. In a media ecosystem where optics matter, messages can be used politically.

There’s also the question of how much such exchanges matter to people who feel deeply harmed or marginalized by rhetoric, or whose lived experience doesn’t easily reconcile with the words of opposing public figures.

Nevertheless, the revelation of the message brings real weight given its timing.

Broader Reactions

Public reaction to the revelation has been widespread. Many commentators, on both the left and the right, have expressed that the message is deeply moving—evidence that even in the last moments of life, someone was still reaching out across a bitter divide.

Media outlets have picked up the story, not only to cover the message itself, but to explore what it says about the climate of political debate, the rise of threats, gun violence, and how we communicate with those we oppose.

Some see it as an indictment of how rare civility has become; others see it as an urging that civility still matters—that even when disagreement is intense, there’s value in extending respect.

What We Still Don’t Know

Despite this message being shared, many questions remain:

The full extent of Kirk’s intentions: Was this outreach sincere, or partly performative? It seems sincere, but we may never know all his private motivations.

Whether Van Jones would have agreed to the show invitation and whether the conversation might have had any real impact.

How much contact existed between the two beyond public exchanges and this one outreach. Their debates had been public; this message was private.

Whether the message would have changed public perceptions or political dynamics, had Kirk not been assassinated.

Conclusion

The revelation of the message Charlie Kirk sent to Van Jones one day before his killing is a potent reminder of many things: the humanity that can persist in political disagreement; the unrealized possibility of respectful dialogue; and the tragedy that a life ended prevented further conversations.

In an age where political rhetoric often feels like war, this small message stands out like a candle in the dark. It doesn’t erase the divisions, nor does it solve them. But it suggests something many might have thought impossible: that someone speaking from the ideological right could reach across and say, “Let’s talk, respectfully. Let’s disagree agreeably.” And he meant it.