Trump’s Charlie Kirk Fueled Free Speech Crackdown Looks Worse Than Expected & New Texts Released
PDS Published 09/16/2025
-
FBI Director Kash Patel is facing questions from the Senate today, including about the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s death.
Right, he has faced a lot of criticism for how the FBI handled this, especially regarding his social media posts as the search for the suspect was still ongoing.
He posted a subject was in custody before having to walk it back and saying that subject was released, which many thought made the FBI look disorganized, that he was sharing information prematurely.
But he opened his remarks by defending the investigation, arguing the timeline from the shooting, to the FBI releasing photos of the suspect, to having him in custody was swift, and adding:
“It is important that this FBI is as transparent as possible without jeopardizing investigations.” (0:30-0:35)
“I do want to thank the American people especially, the mission of the FBI is for them and with them, and by with and through them, and it is that mission and that ethos that I brought to this investigation and so many others, and that is why this suspect is in custody. We cannot do our job without the American public.” (2:51-3:09)
But some senators were still not happy with how he handled it, with Senator Dick Durbin saying:
“Director Patel again sparked mass confusion by incorrectly claiming on social media that the shooter was in custody, which he then had to walk back with another social post. Mr. Patel was so anxious to take credit for finding Mr. Kirk’s assassin that he violated one of the basics of effective law enforcement: at critical stages of an investigation, shut up and let the professionals do their job.” (7:06-7:31)
Others instead asked Patel for more information about the investigation and the alleged shooter.
And there, Patel told Senator Josh Hawley that the FBI is looking at a discord chat he allegedly participated in:
“We are also going to be investigating anyone and everyone involved in that discord chat…okay, I see reports saying the thread had as many as 20 additional users…” (1:09-1:19)
“It’s a lot more than that and we are running them all down.” (1:27-1:29)
Regarding the alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, he is set to appear in court today and prosecutors are preparing to file capital murder charges against him.[]
With this coming as he reportedly has not been cooperating in the investigation and is being held without bail.
His appearance is not scheduled until the early evening, so we will have to see what comes of it.
But then, with this story, a bunch of updates are not tied to the investigation itself, but to the conversations around all of it.
And there, there have been some major debates about free speech, and whether or not people can be punished for criticizing or mocking Kirk following his death.
Yesterday, we noted that a group called the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation has flagged thousands of people they claim celebrated his killing, and some people have even gotten fired for their remarks.
And one of the most high-profile firings was Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah, (uh-tee-uh) who announced the paper dismissed her yesterday.
On her substack, she pointed to a handful of posts she made in the wake of the shooting that killed Kirk, as well as the school shooting that happened in Colorado on the same day, like:
“I wish I had hope for gun control and that I could believe ‘political violence has no place in this country.’ But we live in a country that accepts white children being massacred by gun violence. Not just accepts, but worships violence.”[]
“For everyone saying political violence has no place in this country… Remember two Democratic legislators were shot in Minnesota just this year. And America shrugged and moved on.”[]
Some posts seemed to reference Charlie, including one that said:
“Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”[]
But only one used his name directly, and that was a reference to him previously saying that “Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.”][
Though, whether it makes it better or not, it is worth noting that he was speaking about some black women specifically, not all Black women.
And she claims that the Washington Post found these posts “unacceptable” and claimed they endangered the safety of her colleagues, adding:[]
“charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false. They rushed to fire me without even a conversation—claiming disparagement on race.”
And so the Post has faced tons of criticism for this firing, [][][]
And this is a conversation that has extended far past workplaces, right.
In its morning newsletter today, the New York Times focused on “How the Government Is Trying to Silence Charlie Kirk’s Critics.”
Noting that the Trump administration has long been painting the left as dangerous, and now:
“Trump officials say Kirk’s killing may provide the framework they need to punish liberal groups.”
Noting that one strategy is for agencies to try to look for organizations “funding” violence against conservatives, or drawing links between episodes of violence and nonprofits.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told reporters today that the department is denying visas to those who celebrated Kirk’s murder.
And you have Attorney General Pam Bondi also facing a ton of backlash over comments she made about hate speech in the wake of Kirk.
Right, she said this on Katie Miller’s podcast during a conversation about Kirk before pivoting to hate speech more broadly, saying:
“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.” (12:31-12:40)
“We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that’s across the aisle." (12:50-13:00)
“You can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live, you knew Charlie better than anyone, he would want us to unite right now.” (13:57-14:04)
And people on both sides of the aisle have slammed her for this, saying things like:
“Someone needs to explain to Ms. Bondi that so-called ‘hate speech,’ repulsive though it may be, is protected by the First Amendment. She should know this.”
“She’s the top law enforcement officer in the country. And she doesn’t know that hate speech is protected speech. She should be hauled in front of Congress tomorrow.”
Some noting that Charlie Kirk himself even said:
“Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”
And she has since gone on to clarify her remarks on Twitter, writing:
“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”
“We will never be silenced. Not for our families, not for our freedoms, and never for Charlie. His legacy will not be erased by fear or intimidation.”
But Trump seemed to use her remarks to suggest that maybe journalists asking him questions about this very subject should be targeted:
“And what do you think of Pam Bondi saying she is going to go after hate speech, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech?...She’ll probably go after people like you, you treat me unfairly, you have hate in your heart.” (0:04-0:17)
Then, the last bit we have here is just a quick update on remarks that got a ton of traction on social media last night.
Because you had Candace Owens claiming Kirk’s views were shifting on Israel and billionaire Bill Ackman pressured him to visit the country, that Netanyahu even personally reached out to him, and that Kirk was even offered “a ton of money” to stay in line (BROLL).
With her finally alleging that “threats were made” to Kirk during an "intervention" with Ackman in the Hamptons just a few weeks before he was killed.
Ackman, of course, denied any wrongdoing, writing on X:
“...at no time have I ever threatened Charlie Kirk, Turning Point or anyone associated with him. I have never blackmailed anyone, let alone Charlie Kirk. I have never offered Charlie or Turning Point any money in an attempt to influence Charlie's opinion on anything.”
But with that, he said that he had hosted “sessions” in which conservative influencers were invited to the Hamptons to talk about a range of topics, including but not limited to “the U.S. approach to foreign policy and Israel.”
Though, obviously, tons of people are arguing that Candace should not be considered a credible source here, even though tons of people watched her make these allegations live.
But this does go to show that some parts of the MAGA world are not all using the same narratives here, and obviously it remains to be seen if anything she said will meaningfully take off.
-
The state terrorism charges against Luigi Mangione have been dropped.
Just this morning, the Manhattan judge overseeing the case ruled that the evidence presented was “legally insufficient” to support the charges of first and second degree murder under New York’s terrorism statute.
Right, in the initial charges against Mangione, the Manhattan district attorney argued that the terrorism charge was warranted because his shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was designed to create a spectacle.
With the DA describing the shooting as “a frightening, well-planned, targeted murder that was intended to cause shock and attention and intimidation.”
But in his ruling today, the judge noted New York’s terrorism statute requires prosecutors to prove that the person charged attempted to intimidate a civilian population or influence government policy or conduct.
Arguing that prosecutors had failed to show either of those things.
So now that those charges have been dropped, Mangione will no longer faces the possibility of life in prison without parole.
But, of course, he still faces separate second degree murder charges and other related counts in New York.
And — key thing here — the ruling today just centers around the state-level charges filed against him in New York.
He still faces charges in federal court, including murder through the use of a firearm and stalking.
And the Justice Department has said it will seek the death penalty.
New Customers can get 15% OFF at Huel using code PHIL at Huel ! (With minimum $75 purchase).
-
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
At least, rights groups have said it, leading scholars on the subject have said it, and now, an independent inquiry commissioned by the UN is saying it – just as Israel is yet again ramping up its assault on Gaza.
With an Israeli official telling the Washington Post that they have “transitioned into the next phase, or the main phase, of the plan for Gaza City.”
And that plan? It seems to be total destruction.
With Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz saying in a post on X:
“Gaza is burning.”
“We will not relent and we will not go back until the mission is complete.”
But going back, the Israeli cabinet actually approved the plan to “take control” of Gaza City back in early August.
And over the past month, while also still launching airstrikes and putting some troops on the ground, Israel has been telling the city’s roughly one million people to leave and head south to a designated “humanitarian zone” along the coast.
With one key point being that the situation there is as dire as anyone else – it’s overcrowded, there’s poor sanitation, and there’s a severe shortage of food.
And in fact, some people have reportedly fled Gaza city and found conditions in the “humanitarian zone” so desperate that they turned around and started heading back to Gaza city – you know – in the direction of the falling bombs.
Although, notably, with that, Israel has also attacked designated safe zones dozens of times – so that’s kind of the case no matter what direction you go.
But in any case, people in Gaza City have recently reported even more of an uptick in what’s been described as “heavy bombardment” – including a campaign targeting several high-rise residential buildings (BROLL: 0:02-0:10, BROLL: 0:17-0:22)
With one person who has been staying in a tent west of the city saying that “Last night was one of the most terrifying nights” – and adding:
“The explosions never stopped: airstrikes, artillery fire, drones, helicopters. They came from every direction. It felt like the whole city was under fire.”
And with that, the belief among many being that the air assault is a deliberate effort by the Israeli military to intimidate civilians into leaving and clear a path for troops.
The IDF, however, as well as Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu have claimed without providing evidence that Hamas uses high-rises for its operations.
Seemingly believing that’s sufficient excuse to kill or displace everyone else living in the building.
And with that, you also have them claiming this is about rescuing the remaining hostages, right, there are 48 still being held in Gaza and at least 20 believed to be alive.
But notably, you have many Israelis, including defense officials, worried that the Israeli assault will endanger the lives of hostages.
There’s been no pushback, however, at least publicly, from the United States.
Right, Israel actually announced that the ground offensive had begun only hours after Secretary of State Marco Rubio left the country – with him declining to say whether the US supported the ground offensive, just saying:
“It’s their war.”
And with that, you have some saying his visit – which involved visiting contentious historical sites – was really aimed at supporting Israel’s claims to East Jerusalem.
Although, officially, he was also there to get answers about the Israeli airstrike last week targeting Hamas negotiators in Qatar – a U.S. ally and the country that has acted as a key intermediary in ceasefire and hostage-release talks between the two sides.
Right, Trump criticized that strike, but he has done anything about it – and you had Rubio just kind of brushing it off, saying:
“Obviously, we’re not happy about it. The president was not happy about it. Now we need to move forward and figure out what comes next.”
And with that, you also had him suggesting a diplomatic solution just might not be possible, claiming that while the US is still trying to get a peace deal done, Hamas is, quote:
“...a terrorist group, a barbaric group, whose stated mission is the destruction of the Jewish state. So we’re not counting on that happening.”
But still, he went to meet with Qatari officials right afterward to offer reassurance and make progress on a defense deal.
With a State department spokesperson saying that Rubio “reiterated America’s strong support for [the country's] security and sovereignty, and discussed our shared commitment to a safer, more stable region.”
Although, of course, speaking of a safe, stable region?
Besides Gaza, and besides Qatar, in just the past few days and weeks, Israel has also attacked Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon as well as been accused of sending drones against another aid flotilla with Greta Thunberg on board in Tunisia.
And also, as I mentioned, it’s been accused of genocide.
With the case this time being made by the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which was set up by the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2021 to investigate the root causes of conflict in Gaza and in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
And in reports since then, the commission found that Israel had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, but stopped short of declaring genocide.
That is, until now, with the head of the commission saying:
“The responsibility for these atrocity crimes lies with Israeli authorities at the highest echelons who have orchestrated a genocidal campaign for almost two years now with the specific intent to destroy the Palestinian group in Gaza.”
And notably, with that, even the words of the guy who led the IDF for the first 17 months of the war are not helping out Israel’s case.
WIth him speaking speaking to residents of a community that fought off Hamas attackers two years ago and saying that more than 200,000 Palestinians, more than 10% of Gaza’s pre-war population, have been killed or injured since the war began.
And that’s notable because that number is roughly on par with the figures provided by Gaza’s health ministry, which Israeli officials have frequently dismissed as Hamas propaganda –
Even though they’ve been called reliable by international humanitarian agencies.
And similarly, while Israel has claimed as many as half as those killed were Hamas militants, the country’s own military intelligence leaked last month actually suggested that more than 80% of the dead in Gaza were civilians.
But with all that, I will say, this military commander? He wasn’t saying this because he felt bad about it.
You actually had him suggesting he wish this all happened sooner, saying:
“This isn’t a gentle war. We took the gloves off from the first minute. Sadly not earlier.”
And going on, while he claimed the IDF operates according to international humanitarian law, he also reportedly said that legal advice had NEVER affected his or his immediate subordinates’ military decisions, saying:
“Not once has anyone restricted me.”
WIth him also reportedly suggesting that the main purpose of Israel’s military lawyers was convincing the rest of the world of the legality of the IDF’s actions.
But ultimately, that’s where we’re at right now and we’ll see what happens next.
“But then, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. That’s what you’ve had rights groups saying, leading scholars on the subject saying, and now, an independent inquiry commissioned by the UN is saying.”
-
Donald Trump is suing what he calls “one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country”: The New York Times. [Image]
As well as four of its reporters and Penguin Random House, seeking no less than 15 billion dollars in compensatory damages, and unspecified punitive damages on top of that. [Image]
With him accusing them all of defamation and libel, claiming they sought to tarnish his reputation, sink his campaign and prejudice judges and juries against him. [Quote, find “prejudice”]
But as CNN put it, “The 85-page suit reads at times like a pro-Trump op-ed, with page after page of gushing praise for the president and repeated references to other lawsuits he has filed against other media outlets.” [Quote]
With it declaring, for example, that “all across our country, Americans from a wide array of backgrounds saw the truth about him and voted accordingly—the same truth that the New York Times refused to recognize.” [Quote and Image]
And as evidence of the paper’s defamatory comments, the suit points to three articles and one book titled “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father's Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.” [Article, article, article and book]
All of which it claims were “carefully crafted … with actual malice, calculated to inflict maximum damage upon President Trump, and all published during the height of a Presidential Election.” [Quote and Image]
Adding that the reporters knew their work was filled with “repugnant distortions and fabrications,” but published them anyway because they “could not accept President Trump’s win in 2016 and could not fathom his winning again by a landslide.” [Quote and Image]
So instead, they allegedly “Started with a desired narrative,” then “falsified, distorted, and manipulated facts, while otherwise accurate information was and remains available.” [Quote same link and Image]
And the suit disputes a number of specific claims; I won’t go through all of them here.
But the bulk of its criticism is aimed at the narrative that Trump achieved his success essentially through family inheritance, fraud, and a series of lucky breaks. [Image]
With it countering that Trump earned his money and fame through a mix of unique charisma, business savvy and sheer brilliance, and that the reporters knew or should have known this truth. [B roll]
Also, though it wasn’t included as evidence, the suit targets the Times editorial board’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, calling it “deranged.” [Article]
All of which is why the suit concludes: “Today, the Times is a full-throated mouthpiece for the Democrat Party. The newspaper's editorial routine is now one of industrial-scale defamation and libel against political opponents. As such, the Times has become a leading, and unapologetic purveyor of falsehoods against President Trump.” [Quote]
Now apparently in October, Trump’s lawyers sent The Times and Penguin Random House, which published the “Lucky Loser” book, cease-and-desist letters.
And thanks to this lawsuit, we can see their responses, with The Times’ newsroom lawyer apparently writing:
“Little needs to be said about the rest of your letter, which is principally a litany of personal complaints about The New York Times and its reporters, punctuated with falsehoods and premised on the deeply troubling notion that anyone who dares to report unfavorable facts about a presidential candidate is engaged in ‘sabotage’ (as opposed to, say, contributing to the free exchange of information and ideas that makes our democracy possible).” [Quote]
As well as Penguin Random House responding more simply: “The fact that the authors of the book do not share your favorable view of your client's career, does not provide the foundation for a defamation claim.” [Quote same link]
And by and large, legal experts agree with that, because not only does Trump have to prove the statements made about him are false,
He also has to prove “actual malice,” meaning the defendants knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth.
And as many have noted, publishing an op-ed, reporting claims made by sources, and endorsing a candidate are all clearly First Amendment-protected activities.
But of course, Trump disagrees, with him putting forth his case in a Truth Social post that’s … well, I’ll just say, make sure you’re in a seated position for this one.
“I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF! The “Times” has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected “rag” responsible, as we are doing with the Fake News Networks such as our successful litigation against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely ‘smearing’ me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts. … The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!” [Post and Image]
And notably, this is not the first time he’s sued the Times for defamation.
Right, the first was in 2020 for an op-ed arguing that there was a quid pro quo between the Trump campaign and Russia, [Headline]
And then in 2021 for an investigation into his finances, which was done by two of the same reporters in this newest suit. [Headline]
With the judges in both of the past cases ultimately dismissing them as unconstitutional. [Headline and headline]
And more recently, Trump’s threatened to sue The Times, including last week for its reporting on the Epstein birthday letter, and in June for its reporting on the bombing of Iran.
But after this lawsuit, the paper is so far standing tall, writing in a statement:
“The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics. We will continue to pursue the facts without fear or favor and stand up for journalists' First Amendment right to ask questions on behalf of the American people.” [Post]
Go to Rocket Money to cancel your unwanted subscriptions.
-
Team Trump is sanitizing American history!
That’s what some are saying as national parks pull down information about slavery and Pete Hegseth tries to restore the names honoring Confederate leaders to military bases.
Right, starting with the national parks - the Washington Post reports that multiple national parks across the country are removing signs and exhibits related to slavery.
The Post’s sources - who remained anonymous because they hadn’t been okayed to talk to the media about this yet - say that these removals are meant to align with an executive order signed by Trump earlier this year.
Right, back in March, Trump signed the order titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”
And while a big part of his order was focused on the Smithsonian - which we’ve talked about a bit the last couple months - Trump also directed the Interior Department to make sure that all public monuments, statues, memorials, etc. don’t, quote, “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.”
And we saw Interior Department officials immediately acquiesce - ordering agency employees to report any information, including signs or stuff in the gift shop, that may be out of compliance.
With a spokesperson defending the department’s review - saying,
"Interpretive materials that disproportionately emphasize negative aspects of U.S. history or historical figures, without acknowledging broader context or national progress, can unintentionally distort understanding rather than enrich it.” []
Now, some of the recent removals we’ve seen include those happening at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park in West Virginia.
Which, for those that need to brush up on their history, is where the abolitionist John Brown led a raid seeking to arm slaves for a revolt.
According to documents reviewed by the Post, Harpers Ferry staff has flagged more than 30 signs that highlight information potentially in violation of Trump’s policy.
Including things like racial discrimination and the hostility of white people towards people who were formerly enslaved.
And now that a Park Service official has marked those signs out of compliance, staff at Harpers Ferry are now expected to cover up or remove those signs entirely - according to the Post’s sources.
There’s also Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park - where the Declaration of Independence was signed - which was called out in Trump’s order specifically for “corrosive ideology.”
Right, because this park includes the President’s House Site - where George Washington served as President and where he also kept slaves.
And, according to the Post, staff have been informed that some of the information included in the President’s House site doesn’t comply with Trump’s order.
Which has been met with some pushback, obviously.
Including the Independence National Historical Park’s former superintendent of 15 years - who said that trying to remove slavery from the President’s House exhibit would fundamentally change the nature of the site.
But maybe the most notable order for removal is centered on “Scourged Back” - a photograph taken back in 1863 of a formerly enslaved man with his back to the camera, displaying the scars he received before escaping slavery.
The man in the photo was likely named Peter Gordon and, according to historians, his picture was widely shared at the time it was taken.
With Northern audiences shocked at the horrors experienced by slaves demonstrated in this one picture.
With Anne Cross, a scholar of 19th century photography at Bowdoin College Museum of Art, telling the Post,
“The bodies of enslaved people like Peter Gordon revealed to them realities they had never seen with their own eyes before and in many cases it altered their political opinions about the need to defeat the Confederacy and preserve the Union.”
And it seems the need to quash the Confederacy lives to this day - with Congress trying to push back against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempts to restore the names honoring Confederate leaders to military bases.
Right, back in 2020, an initiative following the murder of George Floyd resulted in name changes for 9 Army posts originally named after Confederate leaders.
Specifically, they were redesignated to honor women, minorities, and other generals.
During his first term, Trump actually vetoed the annual defense policy bill because of this renaming effort - saying at the time,
“I have been clear in my opposition to politically motivated attempts like this to wash away history.”
Congress, in a shocking moment of bipartisan effort, actually overrode the veto and the bases names were changed over the next couple of years by a congressional commission.
Flash forward to 2025 - Trump comes back into office and this time, he brings Pete Hegseth with him as Secretary of Defense.
And since then, the Pentagon under Hegseth has restored the original names of these Army posts but changed the namesake.
For example, Fort Bragg - which was named after Confederate General Braxton Bragg - is now named after Private 1st Class Roland Bragg, a World War II paratrooper honored with the Silver Star.
Now, Hegseth did face questioning about his move to restore the original names when he testified before the Senate earlier this year.
With Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia asking why the new namesakes, some of whom were in the room at the time, weren’t worthy of having their names on an Army post.
To which Hegseth replied,
“This is about restoring all bases to their original names because we’re not about erasing history.”
But now, Congress is inching towards another bipartisan agreement to undo the undo and restore the changed names from post 2020 - at least in part.
With the National Defense Authorization Act passing the House last week and in it is a measure that, if passed by the Senate, will block Hegseth’s name reversal efforts entirely.
Then in the Senate, a defense policy bill that hasn’t been voted on yet includes a measure that would block Hegseth from renaming 3 bases in Virginia.
Though there are Senators from Georgia looking to include Army posts in their state as well.
Now, that bill is set to be voted on later this week - or it could skip the vote entirely and the two chambers could begin working on a compromise version which will lead to a vote later this year.
And that’s definitely something to watch out for because this movement has gotten a shocking level of bipartisan support.
With Representative Marilyn Strickland leading the House amendment and receiving the support of two Republicans in the House Armed Services Committee.
One of them being Don Bacon from Nebraska - a retired Air Force general who stood fast against the posts being named for Confederates.
Saying,
“They were bad generals. They were traitors to the country. I want no part of that.”
With Bacon even promising to hold that stance as the bill is reconciled with the Senate’s version.
So we’ll definitely have to keep our eyes on this in the coming months.
In the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts - either the Army post name changes or the National Park slavery erasure thing.
Let me know in those comments down below.
