CNN commentator Van Jones recently revealed that Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA, reached out to him just one day before his tragic assassination. Jones described the message as “shocking,” not because of hostility, but because it was an unexpected appeal for civil dialogue amid fierce political battles.
Kirk, who was fatally shot in Utah on September 10, had sent Jones a direct message on September 9. According to Jones, the message invited him to engage in a public, respectful discussion about crime, race, and the divisive narratives dominating the national conversation. “Hey, Van,” the note began, “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.
Sponsor
Jones admitted that he did not see the message until after Kirk’s death. He disclosed it during an appearance on CNN with Anderson Cooper, insisting that Kirk’s intentions contradicted the media portrayal of him as a firebrand sowing division. “He wasn’t for censorship. He wasn’t for civil war. He wanted dialogue,” Jones told viewers.
The exchange between the two men came after they clashed over a stabbing incident involving a Ukrainian refugee, a case that quickly became racially charged in media debates. Despite their public feuds and sharply opposed ideologies, Kirk’s private message demonstrated a willingness to engage opponents without descending into hostility. Jones acknowledged that the two were “mortal enemies” politically, but said Kirk’s effort for civility “speaks volumes” about his character.
The post reads as follows:
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.
View this post on Instagram
For many conservatives, Kirk’s final outreach reinforces what they already believed: he was committed to defending his views while respecting others’ rights to disagree. Critics often painted him as a provocateur, but this message highlights a side of Kirk that mainstream outlets have rarely acknowledged — a man urging Americans to confront differences with words, not violence.
Kirk’s assassination has sparked nationwide mourning among conservatives and ignited broader conversations about the dangers of political violence. The tragic irony of his last communication being an invitation to peace and debate underscores how toxic the climate has become. Even as Kirk sought dialogue, his life was cut short by an act of senseless brutality.
Jones’ decision to publicize the message has been met with mixed reactions. Some see it as a moment of candor from a liberal commentator, a rare admission that Kirk was not the caricature often portrayed in left-leaning media. Others, however, question whether Jones’ revelation comes too late, as Kirk is no longer alive to defend his own motives or expand on his intentions.
From a conservative perspective, Kirk’s final words should serve as a powerful rebuke to those who thrive on division. At a time when the political left often pushes censorship, de-platforming, and cultural ostracism, Kirk offered his ideological rival an open platform to exchange views. That gesture demonstrated confidence in truth and debate rather than fear of opposition.
The incident also raises questions about media bias. Why was this side of Kirk not highlighted while he was alive? Why must Americans only now hear of his attempts to pursue dialogue after his death? For years, corporate media outlets painted him as an extremist, yet his personal outreach tells a very different story.
Jones’ account of Kirk’s message confirms what many conservatives have argued: that dialogue, even across the sharpest divides, is not only possible but necessary. The refusal of progressive elites to engage in such conversations has only fueled mistrust and hardened divisions. Kirk’s willingness to take that step should be remembered as part of his legacy.
The tragedy of Kirk’s assassination will undoubtedly remain a flashpoint in America’s political history. But beyond the mourning and outrage, his final words remind Americans of a principle desperately needed today — respect in disagreement. He believed opponents could debate fiercely without dehumanizing each other, and his message to Van Jones proves that.
In the end, Charlie Kirk’s legacy will be debated, just as his work often was. But the words he chose to send the night before his death paint a picture of a man who, despite the relentless culture wars, refused to abandon civility. It is a sobering lesson for both sides of the political aisle: true leadership involves not only standing firm in one’s convictions but also extending a hand of respect to those who disagree.
