Barack Obama spoke about the recent killing of Charlie Kirk during an event in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, telling the audience that the country is at a turning point. He noted that while political violence is not new and has occurred at various times in U.S. history, it goes against the core values of a democratic nation.
Speaking at the Jefferson Educational Society, a nonprofit in Erie, Obama condemned the fatal attacks this year on Kirk and Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman, calling both incidents tragic. He criticized Donald Trump for deepening divisions in the country rather than working to unite people.
Obama emphasized that the ability to disagree and engage in heated debates without turning to violence is fundamental to democracy. He expressed concern that the response to Kirk’s assassination—which has sparked debates about free speech and incitement—could worsen political and cultural divides.
He also pointed to what he called confusion from the White House and other authorities, suggesting that even before the perpetrator was identified, some were quick to assign blame and label enemies.
While some conservative politicians, including Trump, have blamed the “radical left” for creating a dangerous political climate, many on the left argue these claims are being used to justify suppressing free speech.
Obama, who has generally kept a low profile since leaving office, also reflected on leadership during crises. He referenced his own response to the 2015 Charleston church shooting and George W. Bush’s actions after 9/11, stating that a president’s role is to remind the nation of what unites us.
He criticized Trump and his aides for referring to political opponents as “vermin” and “enemies” after Kirk’s death, calling it part of a broader problem.
Kirk, a prominent conservative and founder of Turning Point USA, had become a close ally of Trump. Since Kirk’s killing, Trump has intensified his rhetoric against the “radical left,” raising concerns that his administration may use public outrage to stifle political opposition.
The White House responded to Obama’s comments by accusing him of fueling division in the country, with a spokesperson calling him “the architect of modern political division in America.”
In the wake of Kirk’s death, several political leaders—including House Speaker Mike Johnson, Joe Biden, and George Bush—have called for an end to political violence and a return to civil debate to ease tensions.
Obama struck a moderate tone in his remarks, praising Utah Governor Spencer Cox as an example of how to disagree respectfully in public discourse. He warned against the impulse to identify enemies, arguing that doing so can be used to suppress important national conversations.Obama stated, “And that’s a mistake as well.” While he considered Kirk’s ideas to be “wrong,” he emphasized that “doesn’t change the fact that what happened was a tragedy, and I grieve for him and his family.” He added that condemning political violence and mourning its victims “doesn’t mean we can’t debate the ideas” Kirk supported.
“These are all issues we must be able to discuss openly and honestly, while still insisting that in the process of debate, we respect others’ right to express opinions we strongly disagree with,” Obama said. “That’s how we should handle this.”
On Tuesday, Obama also referred to Trump’s recent deployment of National Guard troops in Washington and the use of ID checks by federal agents in Los Angeles. He called on citizens and elected officials to closely watch these unconventional decisions.
“What we’re seeing, I believe, is a sense that through executive power, many of the norms and limits that I felt bound by as president, that George Bush felt bound by as president, suddenly no longer seem to apply,” Obama remarked. “And that makes this a dangerous time.”
This article was corrected on September 17, 2025. An earlier version misspelled the name of Melissa Hortman.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about former President Obamas comments regarding President Trump and the US divisions following the Charlie Kirk event
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What is this about What did Obama say
Former President Barack Obama commented that after a shooting incident at an event featuring conservative commentator Charlie Kirk thenPresident Donald Trump quickly tried to identify an enemy which Obama believes worsened political divisions in the US
2 Who is Charlie Kirk and what was the shooting
Charlie Kirk is the founder of the conservative student group Turning Point USA In early 2020 a man fired a gun outside a TPUSA event he was speaking at in Florida No one was injured and the shooter was arrested
3 What did Trump say after the shooting
President Trump tweeted that the shooting was committed by a Radical Left Democrat and suggested it was an act of political violence framing it as an attack by one political side against the other
4 What did Obama mean by identify an enemy
He meant that instead of calling for unity or condemning violence in a general sense Trump immediately framed the event as an us vs them situation pointing to a specific political group as the enemy responsible
Advanced Analytical Questions
5 Why does Obama believe this approach worsens divisions
Obamas view is that this tactic fuels anger and fear By immediately blaming a broad political opponent it deepens tribalism makes constructive dialogue impossible and can encourage further retaliation creating a dangerous cycle of division
6 Is this a common political strategy
Yes the strategy of identifying a common enemy to rally ones own supporters is a classic tool in politics known as othering or creating an outgroup However critics argue it is particularly damaging when used in response to violence
7 What was the alternative response Obama might have preferred
A more unifying response would have been to unequivocally condemn the violence itself express relief that no one was hurt praise law enforcement and call for all Americans regardless of party to reject violence and work together
8 How does this relate to broader concerns about political rhetoric
This incident is often cited as an example of how inflammatory rhetoric from leaders can escalate tensions Experts warn that framing political opponents as enemies rather than adversaries can dehumanize
