In the tumultuous world of American political commentary, the lines between adversaries and allies can often seem sharply drawn. Yet, sometimes, even the most heated rivals find a path to civility—if only fleetingly. That’s the story that’s emerged in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, as liberal commentator Van Jones revealed a message from Kirk that has stunned many and sparked a nationwide conversation about the value of dialogue over division.
On September 20, 2025, Van Jones, a prominent CNN analyst, took to social media and television to share a direct message he received from Kirk just one day before the 31-year-old Turning Point USA founder was shot and killed at a college tour event in Utah. According to CNN, the message, sent on September 9, 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.”
Jones admitted the message “shocked” him, especially given the intensity of their recent public feud. The two had been “beefing hard,” as Jones put it, over the killing of a Ukrainian refugee—a white woman murdered by a Black man. Kirk had insisted the crime was motivated by anti-white hatred, a claim Jones denounced as unfounded during a segment on CNN. Kirk, in turn, forcefully rebutted Jones’s criticism and launched a barrage of tweets challenging his argument. The public spat even led to a torrent of racist death threats directed at Jones, he recounted.
Yet, amid this heated exchange, Kirk’s private message stood in stark contrast to the vitriol swirling online. “Charlie Kirk and I were not friends. At all,” Jones told viewers and followers, as reported by AP. “But the last day of his life, he was reaching out to have not more censorship, [but] more conversation, more dialogue, with somebody who, honestly, was one of his adversaries—me.”
Tragically, before Jones could respond, Kirk was killed on September 10, 2025. The assassination has since sent shockwaves through the American political landscape, with social media platforms awash in both outrage and, disturbingly, celebrations or mockery of the conservative figure’s violent death. Kirk’s funeral was scheduled for Sunday, September 21, at State Farm Stadium in Phoenix, Arizona, with former President Donald Trump slated to deliver remarks—an indication of Kirk’s influence and the national attention focused on his passing.
For Jones, the timing and content of Kirk’s message were too important to keep private. “I wasn’t sure about sharing the message after Kirk’s death, but now I think it’s important to put out,” he explained. In his view, the public needed to see that Kirk, often cast as a polarizing figure, was in his final hours seeking dialogue, not censorship or conflict. “In the past week and a half, just watching people talk about civil wars and censorship and all this stuff coming out of his death, I just thought it was important to let people know—Don’t put that on Charlie Kirk,” Jones said, as reported by Disney General Entertainment Content.
Jones’s reflections have resonated widely, not least because of the context. In his own words, “Charlie Kirk’s murder gives us all reason to come back to the table for dialogue. There is a rising tide of political violence that has already swept away his life and many others’ lives, from both the Left and the Right.” He emphasized that violence and censorship are not the answer, regardless of one’s political persuasion: “People are using his horrific assassination to call for MORE violence—justifying murder or even calling for a civil war! Government officials are using his killing as an excuse to censor and silence dissent. Hold up! Wait a minute! That’s NOT the way Charlie Kirk handled disagreement. Not at all.”
Jones was unequivocal in his condemnation of Kirk’s murder. “Today’s attack on Charlie Kirk is absolutely horrifying and heartbreaking. He fought with words not weapons. There is no place for political violence in our society and those responsible must be swiftly brought to justice. My prayers are with Charlie’s loved ones, the traumatized students at Utah Valley University and all who have been impacted by this senseless act.”
He also sought to dispel the notion that pundits and influencers are actively seeking to stoke violence or civil war. “You might think we HATE each other on TV and online. But for the most part, we don’t. We debate hard. We try to win elections. Along the way, we sometimes piss each other off. But we don’t wish harm on each other. We don’t want more bloodshed in our country. We don’t want more funerals in America.”
Jones’s decision to share Kirk’s final message has been met with both praise and skepticism, reflecting the polarized environment in which both men operated. Some see it as a hopeful sign that dialogue is possible even between the fiercest of opponents, while others question whether such gestures can truly counteract the deep-seated animosities that have come to define American political life.
Still, Jones insists that the example set by Kirk in his last 24 hours is one worth emulating. “If you are on the Right, please don’t give up on open debate and dialogue. Charlie didn’t. I won’t. And I make the same plea to folks on the Left.” He added, “Let’s resolve—in Charlie Kirk’s words—to ‘disagree about the issues agreeably.’”
As the nation grapples with the implications of Kirk’s assassination, Jones’s message is clear: Americans face a choice. “We can choose to go the way of more violence, more outrage and more censorship—if we want to. But if we choose censorship and civil war, we cannot blame that choice on Charlie Kirk! From his last 24 hours, I have the proof that he wanted to go a very different way.”
In a political era marked by division and distrust, the story of a single message—sent in the hope of civil disagreement—offers a rare glimmer of what might be possible. Whether that hope can outlast the headlines remains to be seen, but for now, it stands as a testament to the power of words—and the choices we make in how we use them.
