In the days following the shocking assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a Utah university campus on September 14, 2025, a digital storm of misinformation swept across the globe. According to multiple reports from NewsGuard, the Associated Press, and AFP, state-backed media outlets in Russia, China, and Iran seized on Kirk’s murder to push a torrent of false and incendiary claims, aiming to fuel political divisions and undermine trust in American institutions.
NewsGuard, a watchdog tracking online misinformation, documented a staggering 6,200 mentions of Kirk’s name in official Russian, Chinese, and Iranian state media between September 10 and 17. Each country spun the tragedy to suit its own geopolitical interests, using Kirk’s killing as a springboard for propaganda. Russia, for instance, wove the murder into its ongoing narrative against Ukraine, with state media and ultranationalist voices suggesting—without evidence—that Ukrainian actors were involved. As NewsGuard’s McKenzie Sadeghi told Straight Arrow News, “A lot of it has been pushing anti-Western sentiment and sort of seizing on the news and the interest in the topic to push their respective geopolitical interests.”
Iranian state outlets, meanwhile, claimed Israel orchestrated the assassination, linking it to Kirk’s vocal opposition to U.S. military strikes on Iran. Chinese media focused on the alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, painting him as emblematic of a violent, unstable, and divided America. Some Chinese commentators even spread baseless rumors about Robinson’s political donations, using the incident to mock U.S. democracy and stoke perceptions of chaos. As NewsGuard reported, “Pro-China commentators used Kirk’s assassination to mock the US and spread false information about the suspect, portraying America as deeply divided.”
The impact of these disinformation campaigns, while difficult to measure precisely, has been significant. A recent NewsGuard-YouGov poll found that one in five Americans believed at least one Russian disinformation narrative about Kirk’s killing. The proliferation of AI tools and chatbots has only complicated matters. Sadeghi noted, “Last week, the day of the assassination, when it happened, many people were turning to these chatbots to validate some of these claims that they were seeing. And what we saw was that these chatbots were repeating them and falsely saying that they were true.”
Joseph Bodnar, senior research manager at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, explained to AP that foreign campaigns often amplify domestic conspiracy theories rather than inventing new ones. “They’re picking up domestic actors and amplifying them,” he said. Russian state media published English-language articles with sensational headlines such as “Was Charlie Kirk’s Killer a Pro?” and prominent figures like Alexander Dugin—sometimes called “Putin’s brain”—tweeted ominously, “Charlie Kirk’s Death and the Coming Civil War.”
Iranian-backed groups took a different tack, spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories and blaming Israel for Kirk’s death. These narratives, while originating abroad, quickly found traction within extremist circles in the U.S., highlighting the porous boundaries between foreign and domestic misinformation. As AFP noted, “They framed the killing as an operation by Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, an unfounded claim that researchers say reflects Tehran’s longstanding pattern of blaming its adversary for major crises.”
China’s propaganda machine, for its part, zeroed in on America’s struggles with gun violence and political polarization. Bots linked to Beijing saturated social media with claims that Kirk’s death was further proof of the U.S. as a nation plagued by extremism and dysfunction. According to the Associated Press, Chinese officials denied orchestrating any disinformation campaign, with a spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry stating, “China condemns all unlawful and violent acts. That said, we firmly oppose some US politicians accusing China of ‘instilling disinformation and encouraging violence.’”
Russian officials were equally dismissive of U.S. accusations. On September 18, the Russian embassy in Washington condemned what it called “anti-Moscow hysteria” and denied any interference in the Kirk murder case. Embassy spokesperson A.V. Bondarev wrote to the AP, “Russia does not interfere and does not intend to interfere in the internal affairs of other states, including the United States. We consider it unacceptable that this tragedy is being used as a pretext to fuel anti-Russian hysteria.”
Despite these denials, the evidence of coordinated influence campaigns is hard to ignore. Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, told the AP that posts calling for retaliatory violence after Kirk’s death were viewed 43 million times on the social platform X (formerly Twitter), although the precise origin of these posts—foreign or domestic—remains difficult to determine. “Platforms like X are failing catastrophically to limit the reach of posts that celebrate murder and mayhem,” Ahmed said.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox has been vocal about the threat posed by foreign bots and disinformation. At a press conference following the shooting, Cox warned, “What we are seeing is our adversaries want violence. We have bots from Russia, China, all over the world that are trying to instill disinformation and encourage violence.” He urged Americans to resist the lure of online outrage and instead spend time with their families, away from the digital fray.
The U.S. government’s response to foreign disinformation has become a point of contention. In April 2025, the State Department shuttered its Global Engagement Center, a key agency tasked with countering foreign propaganda. This move, framed as a defense of free speech, has alarmed experts who warn that the U.S. is now less prepared to confront the rising tide of foreign influence. The State Department confirmed to the Financial Times that “the United States has ceased all frameworks to counter foreign state information manipulation and any associated instruments implemented by the former administration.”
Social media companies, too, have faced criticism for rolling back anti-misinformation initiatives. Some of these efforts were scaled down during the Trump administration, and platforms like Facebook have since struggled to keep pace with the evolving threat. While some steps have been taken to curb the spread of falsehoods, researchers say much more is needed, particularly as AI-generated content becomes ever more convincing and harder to police.
As the investigation into Kirk’s murder continues, authorities have confirmed that the suspect, Tyler Robinson, is a 22-year-old U.S. citizen from Utah who allegedly used a rifle to shoot Kirk from a rooftop. No credible evidence has emerged linking any foreign government to the assassination itself—despite what the disinformation campaigns might claim. The real danger, experts warn, lies not in shadowy foreign operatives pulling the trigger, but in the corrosive effect of relentless falsehoods undermining American democracy from within and without.
Staying vigilant, checking sources, and seeking out reputable news remain the best defenses against this onslaught. As the dust settles from this latest tragedy, the battle for truth and trust in the digital age rages on.
