Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah is facing significant backlash after he publicly condemned the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, labeling it “a cowardly act of violence.” Statements that Lee posted on his official X account in recent days are drawing fire. This focus on him follows his shocking comments earlier this week when he said the recent shooting of two Minnesota Democrats was a good thing.
Lee should be a formidable counter, having served in the Senate since 2011. He went on to describe Kirk an “American patriot” and “inspiration to countless young people.” His post included a tribute to Kirk’s “boundless energy and great love for his country.” The timing and context of Lee’s remarks have left right and left criticizing her from both sides of the aisle.
Last week’s backlash escalated after Senator Tina Smith, a Democrat from Minnesota, took Lee to task for his incendiary social media comments. She called his statements surrounding the killing of Kirk all “brutal and cruel.” This made it especially cruel since he had insisted on advancing conspiracy theories following the awful violence on June 14 that had killed Democratic legislators Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, dead.
Lee’s tribute to Kirk came less than three months after he expressed indifference toward the shootings of Hortman and her husband. In a troubling double-standard, critics have highlighted the clear difference between Lee’s responses to violence depending on his political agenda, questioning his concern for fellow Americans and motives. Smith remarked on the escalating nature of political violence, stating, “We all need to condemn these acts of political violence that are becoming far too commonplace in this country. We can’t continue like this.”
As recently as last week, Lee bragged about how pleased a far-right activist Charlie Kirk was to text him about setting up shop in Utah. He wrote as much in his tribute post after Kirk’s passing. After Kirk’s murder, Lee promised that “the terrorists will not win.” His impeachment defense statement controlled to give an explanation for even louder bipartisan political anger in its wake.
The consequences from Lee’s remarks are still playing out. Millions of Americans are looking with hopeful eyes to see how this turns out under the shadow of increasing partisan rancor in the United States. Lee’s understandable, enthusiastic support for Kirk completely lacks sympathy and compassion for other victims of political violence. This contradictory reality is deeply concerning and begs the question of accountability and what duty public officials have in tackling and addressing these terrible inequities.