FBI Investigating Seven People for Alleged Foreknowledge of Kirk Murder, Including Big Ideological Signs

The investigation into the assassination of Charlie Kirk has taken a sharp and unsettling turn. For days, the mainstream press pushed the narrative that the gunman acted alone, a lone wolf with no ties beyond his personal grievances. That assumption is now in serious doubt. The FBI is actively investigating at least seven different online accounts that appear to have expressed foreknowledge of Kirk’s murder—some of them posting specific warnings more than a month in advance.

Kirk, a leading voice for conservative activism, was shot in the neck last Wednesday while speaking at a Utah campus event. His death has shaken conservatives nationwide, not only because of the loss itself but because of what it reveals about the increasingly hostile climate toward those who stand for traditional values, individual liberty, and common-sense policies. When threats move from rhetoric to organized action, the line has been crossed from political debate to political violence.

According to reports, the posts in question were not vague or generic. Some explicitly referenced September 10th as a date of significance. One account, back on August 6th, ominously wrote, “September 10th will be an interesting day.” After the assassination took place, that same user flippantly posted, “I plead the fifth.”

The disturbing nature of these posts doesn’t end there. Screenshots show that another account reposted the August 6th message and then, in the wake of Kirk’s death, proclaimed, “We ******* did it!” This particular user was connected to Lance Twiggs, the shooter’s transgender-furry boyfriend, raising the question of how far knowledge of the plot may have spread beforehand.

Other posts surfaced as well. On September 9th, one “non-binary” user warned, “Let’s just say something big will happen tomorrow,” after previously writing that someone should “evaporate” Kirk. Another account teased, “I have something BIG coming soon,” only to follow up after the attack with, “Well, that’s that.”

Even a TikTok video appeared the day before the shooting, featuring a transgender-identifying individual smugly asserting that Kirk “doesn’t know what’s coming tomorrow.” These are not coincidences that can be brushed aside as jokes in poor taste. They form a disturbing pattern, one that points toward coordination, foreknowledge, or at the very least, an online environment where violent fantasies against conservatives are not only tolerated but celebrated.

The FBI has confirmed it is pursuing these leads. Director Kash Patel has already indicated the bureau is using an aggressive posture in interviews and digital forensics to track down the full scope of the network. The shooter’s refusal to cooperate makes it all the more critical to determine whether others knew or assisted in the plan. Twiggs’ current cooperation, while notable, does not remove the need for investigators to probe whether he had prior knowledge of the attack.

This development should trouble every American. For years, conservatives have warned that unchecked radical ideologies—whether rooted in identity politics or online extremism—can lead to real-world violence. When threats against conservative voices are brushed off as “free expression” or dismissed as coincidence, the inevitable result is tragedy. Yet when violence comes from the opposite direction, institutions and media outlets are quick to ascribe blame, condemn broadly, and demand sweeping restrictions on speech and freedom.

The double standard is obvious, and it is dangerous. If even a fraction of these online posts are proven credible, the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not just the act of one radical—it was cheered on by a subculture that openly fantasized about silencing him. That should alarm anyone who values civil society, regardless of political affiliation.

The investigation is still unfolding, and more information will surface in the coming days. But one thing is clear: political violence cannot be excused, minimized, or selectively condemned based on who the target is. For conservatives, the lesson is stark. Freedom requires vigilance—not only against bureaucratic overreach and government excess but also against movements that celebrate destruction while demanding society look the other way.