Outrage After Black Service Members Made to Honor Charlie Kirk

A new video of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ignited controversy after he led a group of U.S. troops—many of them Black—in prayer for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot while speaking at Utah Valley University on September 10.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Here’s Why w/ Kevin Ortega-Rojas (@hereswhykevin)

“An incredible American,” Hegseth said of Kirk, describing his death as the result of “an assassin’s bullet” before adding,

“If you knew him, you love him. His name is Charlie Kirk. Taken by an assassin’s bullet. Unfathomable. The only assurance I can take is that I know he is with his Lord and Savior right now.”

The tribute struck a nerve, not only because Kirk never served in the military, but also because of his public record. The Turning Point USA founder built his brand on incendiary rhetoric—promoting the racist “great replacement” conspiracy theory, dismissing Black professionals, and attacking immigrants, Muslims, and Civil Rights leaders. Earlier this year, he even called Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson a “diversity hire.”

That history is why Hegseth’s decision to involve Black service members in a prayer for Kirk has sparked outrage. Critics argue it amounts to politicizing the military and forcing troops of color to honor someone who regularly demeaned their communities.

“It’s one thing to mourn a civilian’s death,” one observer wrote online. “It’s another to enlist Black soldiers into honoring a man who spent his career disrespecting them.”

Not everyone sees it that way. Supporters insist the prayer was about loss, not ideology. California Governor Gavin Newsom—who has repeatedly blasted Kirk’s hateful rhetoric—still condemned the killing outright. “The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible,” Newsom posted on X. “In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form.”

The moment has now set off a larger debate: was this simply a gesture of mourning, or did Hegseth cross a dangerous line by blurring the boundaries between military duty and political allegiance?